An inquiry into the concept of SEA effectiveness: Towards criteria for Chinese practice

Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31 (2011) 572–581

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Impact Assessment Review j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / e i a r

An inquiry into the concept of SEA effectiveness: Towards criteria for Chinese practice Olivia Bina a,b,⁎, Wu Jing c,1, Lex Brown d, Maria Rosário Partidário e,2 a

Instituto de Ciências Socias, Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Nankai University, Tianjin, 300071, PR China d Urban Research Program, Griffith School of Environment, Griffith University, Nathan 4111. Brisbane, Australia e Dept Civil Engineering and Architecture (gab 3.41.1) - Instituto Superior Técnico (IST), Technical University of Lisbon, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001 LISBOA, Portugal b c

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Available online 5 February 2011 Keywords: SEA Plan EIA China Effectiveness criteria Context Transition

a b s t r a c t The importance of improving the effectiveness of Plan EIA and SEA-type evaluations in China cannot be overstated: at a time when the country's economy is being boosted by a stimulus package worth over RMB 400 trillion – largely for infrastructure – the pressure on China's already strained environment and resource base is bound to increase. The aim is to propose the criteria for plan EIA's effectiveness to raise the awareness of the need to strengthen the performance of the assessment and maximize its potential benefits. The authors first review critically the discourse on the effectiveness of the impact assessment, identifying three dimensions: substantive, procedural and incremental. The resulting conceptual framework allows them to interpret the weaknesses of the Chinese discourse on the effectiveness and of the practice of the Plan EIA to date. The result is the identification of a clear gap, both in terms of the breadth of the concept, and in terms of the quality of the existing criteria, which tend to be very generic to the point of inapplicability. The analysis also reveals a need for transitioning from formal models of the Plan EIA to more strategic approaches, in a gradual manner that is consistent with context-specificities. The proposal of a set of preliminary criteria for effectiveness is therefore structured on three levels. This framework is meant to input into the ongoing debate on how to improve the practice of PEIA and the SEA-type evaluations in China, and provide ideas for a government strategy aimed at maximizing the positive impact of PEIAs on planning, as well as on the context of application. © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. The question of effectiveness Given the fast rate of economic growth that has characterized the last thirty years in China, strategic environmental assessment (SEA) mechanisms are deemed essential in order to promote environmentally sustainable development, and contain adverse effects on human and ecosystem health. The practice of SEA-type mechanisms in China has evolved from the practice of regional environmental assessment (REA) since the mid-1980s (Zhu et al., 2005) to what is known as the plan environmental impact assessment (PEIA). With the implementation of the “Law of the People's Republic of China on Environmental Impact Assessment” (the EIA Law) in 2003, the EIA of plans (PEIA) has become a legal requirement in China, and it is often referred to as SEA. In 2009, the Ministry of Environmental Protection approved the

⁎ Correspondence to: Instituto de Ciências Sociais da Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Professor Aníbal de Bettencourt, 9, 1600-189 Lisboa, Portugal. Tel.: + 351 21 7804 837. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (O. Bina), [email protected] (W. Jing), Lex.Brown@griffith.edu.au (L. Brown), [email protected] (M.R. Partidário). 1 Tel./fax: + 86 22 23508348. 2 Tel.: + 351 21 841 8341; fax: + 351 21 849 7650. 0195-9255/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2011.01.004

“Chinese Plan Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2009”, with the aim ‘to strengthen Plan Environmental Impact assessment’, through detailed provisions for public participation, for the treatment of environmental, health, ecological and related socio-economic impacts, and for the review and follow-up of PEIAs (MEP, 2009). Dalal-Clayton and Sadler (2005) categorize SEA-type practice as formal models, near-equivalent models, integrated models and paraSEA models. In this framework the Chinese forms of strategic-level assessments fall within the ‘formal models’ (Bina et al., 2009) based on the traditional concepts of the project EIA. China has accumulated a significant body of practice in the application of EIA methods to plans, and a growing body of literature reviews the progress of its application, as well as the remaining challenges (for an introduction: Bao et al., 2004; Bina, 2008; Zhu and Ru, 2007). It is the challenge of ‘little effect’ (Owens et al., 2004) of such efforts that is the focus of this contribution. Recent discussions focusing on the effectiveness of SEA are raising important questions about the results being obtained around the world (for example: Retief, 2007; Stoeglehner et al., 2009; Therivel et al., 2009), and many of these questions, as we shall see, are applicable to the PEIA practice in China. As Cashmore et al., (2009: 91) have noted, there is an urgent need to assess ‘the impact of impact assessments’ in

O. Bina et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31 (2011) 572–581

terms of their outcomes, and what factors or conditions influence the effectiveness of instruments in different contexts. This urgency is especially true of the application of PEIA in the Chinese context of rapid growth of infrastructure, heavy industry and urbanization – all notoriously at odds with environmental protection, resource conservation and human health – unless regulations are in place and implemented. The financial crisis of 2008–2009 has triggered a stimulus package of 400 trillion RMB, largely aimed at speeding up the development of large infrastructure projects (World Bank, 2009), which has also raised serious concerns about the government capacity (and willingness) to evaluate rigorously and transparently environmental impacts (Zhang, 2009). Our aim is to contribute to define a set of criteria that can encourage effective PEIA in China, and help move from the formal, narrow interpretation of the impact assessment, to a wider and more strategic interpretation, mindful of the characteristics of the context of operation. First, we review the discourse on effectiveness, and discuss the notions of direct and indirect effectiveness within and outside China. Second, based on a revised set of effectiveness categories, we explore the key factors that help explain the ‘little effect’ of SEA and PEIA drawing on the results of a survey on the effectiveness of the PEIA practice in China,3 as well as on the findings of a European-funded study (hereafter: EPI-SEA project),4 and review of the literature. Finally, based on our understanding of the concept of effectiveness (in context) and of the current shortcomings that characterise the practice in and out of China, we propose a set of criteria aimed at improving the effectiveness of the Chinese PEIA practice. 2. Categories arising from the effectiveness discourse Recent years witnessed an increased interest in the effectiveness of SEA, as a concept and in the evaluation of the practice. This has been marked by a special issue on the Effectiveness of impact assessment instruments, in Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal (Cashmore et al., 2009). Here we review the discourse as it has evolved over the last two decades, in order to provide a conceptual basis for the analysis of the theory and practice of effectiveness in China. Effectiveness is an adjective indicating that something is ‘adequate to accomplish a purpose; producing the intended or expected result’ or that something is ‘actually in operation or in force; functioning’, as opposed to something being ‘useless’ or ‘futile’.5 If we apply these definitions to impact assessment, in the first case effectiveness is an expression of the purposive nature of the impact assessment; in the second case it refers to the procedural nature of the impact assessment. As we go on to discuss, this simple distinction can be found throughout the discourse on effectiveness and has helped define what can be expected of SEA and other mechanisms. However, we argue that the effectiveness categories ought to move beyond these two dimensions when exploring the ways of improving the impact of SEA. 2.1. Substantive, procedural and incremental effectiveness Effectiveness is invariably linked to the purpose, or raison d'être, of SEA, defined by Wallington et al. (2007: 571) as ‘the ultimate end of SEA (its raison d'être), which relates to the ultimate implications – the intended effect — of societal decision processes’. At a first glance, such 3 The survey was organized and conducted by researchers from the Centre for Strategic Environmental Assessment of Nankai University and the Centre for Strategic Environmental Assessment in China of the Chinese University of Hong Kong. The details of the survey are outlined in Section 3. 4 The EPI-SEA project ‘Policy Instruments for Chinese Sustainable future: Environmental Policy Integration and Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Energy and transport Sector’ involved European and Chinese partners, and details and reports can be found here: http://sea-info.net/content/template1.asp?pid=223. 5 “Effectiveness.” Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 06 Aug. 2009. b Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/effectivenessN.

573

purpose appears to be defined by most scholars as the pursuit of environmental protection and sustainable development. However, a closer analysis reveals nuances in the interpretation of purpose (or objective) of SEA. Sadler's (1996: 141) influential study defines the purpose of SEA ‘to integrate environmental and sustainability factors into the mainstream of development policy making as called for by the Brundtland Commission and Agenda 21’. van Buuren and Nooteboom (2009) mention the safeguard of the environment and the promotion of sustainable options, while Therivel et al. (2009: 156) discuss a more narrowly defined aim: ‘high level of protection’ of the environment based on the European Directive and British guidance for its implementation. The latter is partly in line with Bina's (2008) definition of the substantive purpose of SEA as a recovery of the original intention of the environmental assessment: to promote change by inducing ecological rationality into the systems of governance, borrowing from Dryzek's (1997) work describing a fundamental type of reason whereby ‘the preservation and promotion of the integrity of the ecological and material underpinning of society… should take priority over competing forms of reason in collective choices with an impact upon that integrity’. The range of definitions leads to even more variety, as interpretations of terms such as environment, sustainability, integration and mainstreaming vary from context to context. The different formulations and interpretations of the purpose explain the diversity of interpretations of the effectiveness that has ensued. The Chinese regime of assessment is a case in point. The wording is broadly in line with examples from around the world: Article 1 of the EIA Law (NPC, 2002) defines ‘purpose’ as: ‘realizing sustainable development strategy, preventing adverse impacts on the environment from implementation of plans and construction projects, and promoting coordinative development of the economy, society and environment.’ However, Bina (2008: 721) notes that the interpretation of the purpose has tended to focus on ‘one aspect of Article 1: to prevent impacts’ (see also: Bao et al., 2004; Ming-Lone et al., 2006; Tang et al., 2007) with implications for the idea of effectiveness, which we explore in Section 3. In general, scholars linking effectiveness to the purpose of SEA (or other forms of impact assessment) refer to the term direct effectiveness to indicate changes in the decision-makers' understanding or awareness of environmental and sustainability issues, and in the extent to which such issues are considered throughout the planning and decision-making linked to the PPP under scrutiny (Runhaar and Driessen, 2007; Stoeglehner et al., 2009). This form of effectiveness is meant to encompass a range of outcomes, including: a) information leading to environmental choice and mitigation (van Buuren and Nooteboom, 2009), also discussed as technical – rational – learning (Cashmore et al., 2008); b) contribution to the struggle over problem definitions (Hildén et al., 2004), over the arguments and long-term choices (van Buuren and Nooteboom, 2009); and c) contribution to the selection of the most environmentally friendly planning option (van Buuren and Nooteboom, 2009), or so-called development outcomes (Cashmore et al., 2008). Hereafter we will be referring to this dimension as substantive effectiveness (term used in line with Sadler (1996) and Wallington et al. (2007), in order to emphasise its link to the ultimate purpose of instruments such as SEA. A second way in which the discourse on effectiveness has developed, is to include what could be usefully labeled procedural dimensions of effectiveness, consistent with the second definition of the term ‘effectiveness’ mentioned above (that something is ‘actually in operation or in force; functioning’, as opposed to something being ‘useless’ or ‘futile’), and with the distinctions proposed by Sadler (1996). Here the reference is to all the procedural and primarily legally defined aspects of the implementation of the assessment techniques and processes such as SEA, and it is here that we find significant overlap between the idea of good practice and effectiveness (for example: IAIA, 2002). The idea is to examine whether the legislative requirements have been fulfilled on a case-by-case basis

574

O. Bina et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31 (2011) 572–581

(Thissen, 2000), from screening to impact monitoring and follow-up plans (Sadler, 2004).6 Here we include characteristics and criteria discussed by Caratti et al. (2004) and van Buuren and Nooteboom (2009), albeit in a very different conceptual framework: transparency, independence, credibility, inclusiveness, timeliness, quality of the overall decision-making process. It is this interpretation — though not necessarily these criteria, as we shall see, that is central to the Chinese discourse on effectiveness. Here it is also important to note that the literature is not always consistent in the way it uses the term purpose, and it is not uncommon to find that the means (for example: quality of the process) are confused with the end, or substantive purpose (Wallington et al., 2007). As a result, Cashmore et al. (2009) conclude that the debate on effectiveness is complicated by a plurality of purposes, while Retief (2007) concludes his analysis of the practice's ineffectiveness by calling for a redefinition (broadening) of purpose in order to move beyond the narrow confines of direct effectiveness, so often difficult to achieve. If, as it is often argued, the purpose of SEA is to assess the impacts of policies, plans and programmes (PPPs) on the environment, then procedural effectiveness — as a dimension concerned with the quality of the means that will deliver the end (environmental protection, ecological rationality, and environmentally sustainable development) becomes central, as is the case in China. But the distinction between substantive and procedural effectiveness does not offer a complete picture of how the assessment's effectiveness is discussed amongst scholars and practitioners. This is because the purpose of SEA can be linked back to a wider remit, which in turn leads to a wider interpretation of its potential effectiveness: environmental governance. Here we draw on the rapidly expanding body of literature which explores the contribution of appraisal to good governance in theory (Bina, 2007; Brown and Thérivel, 2000; Cashmore et al., 2008; Owens et al., 2004; Partidario, 2000; Runhaar and Driessen, 2007) and practice, including the following outcomes: a) social, organizational and double-loop learning (Bina, 2008; Cashmore et al., 2008; Jha-Thakur et al., 2009; Owens et al., 2004; Stoeglehner et al., 2009); b) transformation of individual, professional and organizational norms and practices in support of sustainable development (Jha-Thakur et al., 2009; Therivel et al., 2009); c) promoting individual attitudinal and value changes (Cashmore et al., 2008); and d) providing institutional spaces for challenges to the status quo (Owens and Cowell, 2002), contributing to the establishment of inclusiveness and democracy (van Buuren and Nooteboom, 2009) and network development (Cashmore et al., 2008). Interestingly, these outcome types are clearly conceptualized in the perspectives on policy analysis proposed by Mayer et al. (2004), confirming the paucity of cross-fertilization with IA literature (Thissen, 2000, a notable exception). The combination of these outcomes amounts to what is often referred to as indirect effectiveness by scholars in the impact assessment field. Thissen (2000) defines indirect effectiveness in terms of contributions to environmental management principles, administrative structures and cultures, research and science in a more general sense, and to the state of the art in EIA practice. Since then, the remit was further extended to encompass the outcomes mentioned above. The adjective ‘indirect’ suggests an almost haphazard effect, and effectiveness, of assessments: organizational learning might occur, accountability and inter-sectoral integration could be strengthened, as a side-effect of case-by-case application of SEA to PPPs in a particular context. To the extent that SEA systems (Hildén et al., 2004; Thissen, 2000; Wood, 2003) are not conceived or designed to actively

6 However, note that Thissen's (2000) definition of direct outcomes refers to a combination of what we have called here substantive and procedural effectiveness: the achievement of identified goals, actual realization of impacts and impact management measures as forecast, quality of proposals emerging from the process, compliance with regulations and commitments, and maintenance of environmental quality.

promote such side-effects, but rather depend on a fortunate turn of events (usually including the essential ingredient of a leading figure who is both convinced of the benefits of applying SEA and has the influence to promote the process across government) then indeed we might expect indirect effectiveness to be little more than a desirable side-effect. Yet, there is a growing acknowledgement that it is precisely the pursuit of such side-effects that makes SEA's contribution important (see authors cited in the paragraph above), as witnessed by the growing interest in the potential for all forms of learning (for example: Jha-Thakur et al., 2009). Should SEA systems be designed to promote more incremental as well as direct effectiveness? This suggestion draws on the framework developed by Wallington et al. (2007) and Bina (2007, 2008), placing particular emphasis on the idea of SEA as a system (see also: Hildén et al., 2004; Wood, 2003; Thissen, 2000) that is shaped by procedural and transformative strategies, which in turn are shaped and can shape the context of operation of SEA. Essentially, this framework assumes that: a) the purpose (why) and approach (how) to SEA are linked to interrelated contextual dimensions: politics, culture, society, values, institutions and organizations (for a definition of context see: Bina, 2008); and b) that SEA systems can be designed to actively promote an improvement in the environmental governance of the contextual dimensions, by adding a transformative strategy to the more traditional procedural one. In other words, ‘the object of SEA moves beyond PPPs, to include the environmental governance of institutions and organizations’ (Bina, 2008: 719). Based on this interpretation we concur with Bina's (2008) suggestion that the outcomes and criteria normally linked to indirect effectiveness are best encompassed in the idea of incremental effectiveness, which suggests both purpose and a medium to long-term perspective. In summary, having reviewed the discourse on effectiveness, we propose an interpretation of effectiveness that encompasses three dimensions: substantive, procedural and incremental. They can be understood in terms of a continuum along a path that connects the impact of SEA on individual PPPs with that on the context of operation, and reflect the growing desire of scholars and practitioners to move beyond the narrow constraints of direct (substantive) and procedural effectiveness (notably: Retief, 2007). The substantive and incremental dimensions are informed by the nature of the purpose of SEA and here we concur with Cashmore et al. (2009) that we are witnessing a plurality of purposes (albeit with a widespread tendency to confuse the means with the end, as explained in: Wallington et al., 2007). We now turn to compare the findings of this overview with the discourse on China. 2.2. Chinese scholars' discourse The debate on the effectiveness of the impact assessment has also engaged practitioners and scholars in China, and as we argued in the introduction, it has become an increasingly urgent topic given the challenges to environmental sustainability. Early contributions can be found from the late 1990s, by which time the country had accumulated a sufficient body of practice, primarily in construction projects EIAs, but also in Regional EIAs and early PEIAs (see Zhu et al., 2005). Most proposals define the character of effectiveness of EIA and PEIA as a system — which in the Chinese discourse refers to: the policy and legal frameworks for IA, the institutional setup and allocation of responsibilities, assessment procedures and methods, and implementation arrangements. This list partly echoes the literature reviewed earlier. Li and Yu (1996), government officials, are the first to propose a comprehensive definition of factors for system effectiveness, which he analyzes and categorizes into: a) strategic planning, b) management control of EIA procedures by Environmental Protection Bureaus (EPBs), and c) technical aspects of EIA operation. Lin and Lu (1999) propose to assess the completeness and effectiveness of the EIA system in China based on a list of aspects: the legal system, management

O. Bina et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31 (2011) 572–581

institutions, procedures, participants, acceptance, monitoring, enforcement, implementation, information and techniques. However, he does not provide detailed definition of these issues, which has made it difficult to further develop and apply them. Overall, the contributions between the late 1990s and early 2000s focusing on EIA can be summarized thus (Mao and Li, 2004; Ran and Luan, 2005; Yang et al., 1999; Yin and Yang, 2004): • Institutional aspects: the completeness of the ‘assurance system’ of EIA, including comprehensive EIA legal framework and management institutions; • Technical aspects: the ‘rationality’ of assessment procedures and scientific methods and techniques; • Implementation: the reliability of assessment conclusions, the feasibility of mitigation measures, the breadth and objectivity of public participation, the criteria and fairness of review of the EIA Statement, and the qualifications of the reviewing committee. • Follow up: the effectiveness of EIA is the feasibility and implementation of the environmental protection measures, the environmental management schemes, and the environmental monitoring plan. He and Lu (2000) focuses on the effectiveness of regional EIAs with reference to a set of standards, including the need for assessment to be: a) synchronized and coordinated with regional development planning, b) focused on key issues and factors which have significant impact on the environment, and c) to define environmental function zoning and ‘total quantity control’ in accordance with the characteristics of the area. This contribution however, has little influence on the debate due to the different legal status of project EIA and PEIA on the one hand, and regional EIA on the other.

575

Overall, the focus of scholars and practitioners is squarely on procedural effectiveness. As experience on PEIA builds up, following the entry into force of the EIA Law (NPC, 2002) in 2003, further supported by the new Regulations (MEP, 2009), there is a growing realization that the outcomes of PEIA are falling short of expectations, and many cases are criticized for being little more than a pro forma exercise, while several plans are being executed without PEIA — in violation of the legal requirements (Zhu and Ru, 2007; Li et al., 2008; Zhu et al., 2007). The reasons for these problems cannot be explained through the issues identified in terms of procedural effectiveness (Zhu and Ru, 2007). However, even recent contributions to the effectiveness debate continue to focus primarily on the procedural, and essentially good practice, and criteria (see discussion above). This is illustrated in Table 1 by comparing the criteria proposed by Liu et al. (2006) and Zhou et al. (2007) to the SEA performance criteria of the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA, 2002), which combine substantive and procedural criteria, as defined in this paper. The terminology used by Liu and colleagues (who talk of ‘indicators’) and Zhou and colleagues (who refer to ‘indices’) cannot be readily matched to that used by IAIA, partly due to language and cultural differences, but primarily due to the vagueness of the wording used by the two scholars. As a result, we have tentatively related the criteria for PEIA to the ones defined by IAIA, highlighting strengths and weaknesses (see legend). In spite of being defined as ‘indicators’ and ‘indices’, most proposals are little more than themes whose wording does not allow them to be used in the evaluation (be it quantitative or qualitative) of PEIA procedures and reporting. In Table 1 they are marked: ‘±’ (i.e. potentially useful but liable to misinterpretation due to insufficient detail), and ‘−’ (i.e. the meaning is insufficiently clear). The virtually non-existent criterion for public

Table 1 Comparing international and Chinese effectiveness criteria and indicators. Sources: authors compilation based on IAIA, 2002; Liu et al., 2006; Zhou et al., 2007. Criterion

Description of IAIA, 2002 criteria

Liu et al. (2006)

Zhou et al. (2007)

Integrated

Ensures an appropriate environmental assessment of all strategic decisions relevant for the achievement of sustainable development. Addresses the interrelationships of biophysical, social and economic aspects. Is tiered to policies in relevant sectors and (transboundary) regions and, where appropriate, to project EIA and decision making.

(±) Cumulative impact assessment

(−) Feasibility of the assessment method

Facilitates identification of the development options and alternative proposals that are more sustainable (i.e., that contributes to the overall sustainable development strategy as laid down in Rio 1992 and defined in the specific policies or values of a country) Provides sufficient, reliable and usable information for development planning and decision making. Concentrates on the key issues of sustainable development. Is customized to the characteristics of the decision making process.

(±) Identification of the alternatives

Sustainability-led

Focused

Accountable

Participative

Iterative

Is cost- and time-effective. Is the responsibility of the leading agencies for the strategic decision to be taken. Is carried out with professionalism, rigor, fairness, impartiality and balance. Is subject to independent checks and verification Documents and justifies how sustainability issues were taken into account in decision making. Informs and involves interested and affected public and government bodies throughout the decision making process. Explicitly addresses their inputs and concerns in documentation and decision making. Has clear, easily-understood information requirements and ensures sufficient access to all relevant information. Ensures availability of the assessment results early enough to influence the decision making process and inspire future planning. Provides sufficient information on the actual impacts of implementing a strategic decision, to judge whether this decision should be amended and to provide a basis for future decisions.

(+/−) Assessment indicator

(−) The advanced nature of the techniques (±) Cumulative impact assessment (−) The effectiveness of environmental quality standard (−) The effectiveness of environmental quality standard (×) Alternatives (−) Rationality of the assessment procedure (±) Clarity of the assessment result (±) Comprehensiveness and rationality of the assessment indicator system (−) Strictness of the review process of the PEIA statement

(−) Public participation

(−) The effectiveness of public participation

(✓) Timing the PEIA integrated into the planning process

(−) Rationality of the assessment procedure (✓) The PEIA integrated into the planning process at early stage (±) Are the assessment results being taken into consideration effectively by decision maker (±) Mitigation measures and follow up measures

Legend: (✓) reasonably clear to be applied in practice; (+/−) potentially useful but liable to misinterpretation due to insufficient detail; (−) the meaning is insufficiently clear.

576

O. Bina et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31 (2011) 572–581

participation is symptomatic of the wider discourse on this aspect: effectiveness (or lack thereof) of public participation in EIA is explored primarily in terms of approaches and methods (Cheng and Yu, 2002; Ling, 2004; Wang and Yang, 2004), rather than in terms of the overall standards of the effectiveness. Further difficulties arise from Zhou and colleagues' use of the term ‘effectiveness’ within some of the effectiveness indices themselves. The only indicators marked by ‘✓’ (i.e. reasonably clear to be applied in practice) are those related to the early start of the assessment process — one of the most difficult aspects of the current PEIA practice. Government itself has not defined the effectiveness criteria for PEIA, although Li et al. (2008) discuss the management procedures for PEIA, for which the Ministry of Environmental Protection is responsible. The remainder of this inquiry therefore seeks to contribute to further develop the conception of PEIA effectiveness in the Chinese context, and propose a set of criteria for further debate and development. But before we delve into a detailed proposal, it is essential to outline the reasons for the perceived ‘little effect’ of PEIA, referred to above. Our proposal for the criteria is based on the theoretical debate on effectiveness reviewed in Section 2, as well as on an in-depth understanding of the challenges on the ground that are discussed in the next section with reference to the triple dimension of effectiveness, as conceptualized in this paper. 3. Reasons for ‘little effect’ 3.1. On procedural in-effectiveness As the body of practice in PEIA grows, so does the range of critical reviews of experience to date. In this paper we draw out the main conclusions of these analyses leaving the readers to refer to the sources for a detailed discussion; we then focus on the results of our survey on PEIA effectiveness completed in February 2009 (see Section 1). A recent paper by Zhang (2009) offers a good overview of factors that limit the effectiveness of PEIA in China. Zhang considers the complexity of the planning system (which fails to provide clear entry points for PEIA), and the inadequacy and limitation of the PEIA theory and methods as major obstacles, and discusses the role of four contextual factors in reducing the effectiveness of PEIAs: a) the pace of Chinese economic development which makes it difficult for PEIA to effectively resolve the ‘contradiction’ between environment and development; b) the inadequacy of PEIA legislation; c) the functional and territorial fragmentation characteristic of China's ‘tiaokuai’ governance system, which impede coordination between government departments; and d) the role of personal relationships (‘guanxi’ society) specific to the Chinese social and cultural background (see also: Lieberthal, 1997). Several authors look in depth at elements of these factors. The inadequacy of the legislation has been extensively debated (see: Bao et al., 2004; Lam et al., 2009; Sun et al., 2005; Wu and Xu, 2007; Xu et al., 2003; Zhu et al., 2005), noting that the EIA Law (NPC, 2002) only applies to a limited set of planning activities, excluding the planning activities of the State Council and of the People's Congresses at all levels and government policies; and that it lacks clarity in the allocation of responsibility amongst administrations. As a result, the Law does not create an external supervisory mechanism for PEIAs, leaving room for non-environmental and environmental ministries to interpret the law based on their own interests (Zhu and Ru, 2007; Zhu et al., 2007). Moreover, poorly defined public participation procedures lead to the ineffective public participation efforts (Sun et al., 2005; Zhu and Ru, 2007). Significant debate has also centered round the virtual impossibility of an early start of PEIA in relation to the planning process, as well as the discussion of alternatives that might have an influence on decision-making (Bina, 2008; Tang et al., 2007): ‘Put simply, starting SEA once a draft plan is already in place (even if still preliminary) is tantamount to no strategic assessment… In

China, current practice tends to focus on the prediction and evaluation of impacts, and this is done on a full draft or, not uncommonly, on a plan which has already been approved by the designated authority (for example, the Municipal People's Congress)’ (Bina, 2008: 723)

The PEIA process is widely considered technocentric and poorly integrated in decision-making (Bina, 2008; Wu and Jiang, 2005; Zhu et al., 2007). Combined, these criticisms point to procedural ineffectiveness, as well as to poor substantive effectiveness (especially in terms of alternatives). Others have focused on the shortcomings of the framing and interpretations of the purpose of PEIA/SEA, as well as on the constraints on the effectiveness of the current assessment process caused by the specificities of the Chinese context and environmental governance capacity (Bina, 2008; Bina et al., 2009; Gu and Sheate, 2005; Zhu and Ru, 2007). These authors highlight obstacles that affect substantive and incremental effectiveness. In order to add to these insights we have conducted a survey amongst experts from across China, who are directly involved in the PEIA practice (February 2009). This was distributed to all participants (practitioners, scholars and commentators) at a major conference on SEA/PEIA in China (see footnote 2). We asked their views on the range of factors that undermine the effectiveness of PEIA: factors identified in the recent findings of the EPI-SEA project (see footnote 3) and confirmed by the literature examined earlier in this section. Table 2 provides a summary of the questionnaire, which focused on methods and process, information, public participation, expertise and PEIA institutions, decision-making, legislation. The Table also summarises the survey findings, using the six-point scale from strongly disagree, to strongly agree. The questionnaire has balanced comprehensiveness and feasibility, requiring some simplification of the issues at stake in order to 1) reduce the possibility of misinterpretation of what is being asked, 2) limit the length of the questionnaire to ensure that a sufficient number of respondents completes the survey. A total of 81 respondents participated in the survey (including 7 government representatives — local authorities and environmental protection bureaus; 7 consultants; 29 members of environmental research institutes; and 38 academics mainly reflecting on their role as consultants). Below we discuss some of the most relevant results in terms of the effectiveness discourse in China. Methods and process: the statement ‘SEA takes place too late in the decision-making process’, had 66 respondents out of 81 who slightly agreed, agreed or strongly agreed (20, 30, and 16 respectively). For the treatment of alternatives, 62 respondents agree that an alternative (including zero scenarios or do nothing) was considered, but when asked about the adequacy of the consideration of alternatives, 59 respondents replied that they considered the consideration inadequate (includes: 24 — slightly agree; 28 — agree; and 7 strongly agree). This confirms the tendency to ‘tick the box’ of a requirement, without fulfilling the substance. In fact, the identification and evaluation of the alternatives through PEIA is remarkably weak. Preferred options are provided from the higher decision making level before the plans are developed, therefore the assessors are left with choosing between ‘no action plan’ and ‘changes and mitigation measures from the environmental perspective’, but almost in no case is there the option to discuss strategic alternatives (Bina et al., 2009; see also: Zhou et al., 2007). Finally, 70 respondents (20, 37, and 13) found that there is a ‘lack of adequate mechanisms for facing uncertainties’. These are procedural but also a substantive dimension of effectiveness, as scholars consider early start and alternatives critical in promoting environmentally sustainable development outcomes. Information and data: 80 respondents out of 81 who slightly agreed, agreed or strongly agreed (6, 41, and 33 respectively) found there is a ‘lack of efficient information sharing between departments’, fully substantiating scholar's concerns about poor coordination across

O. Bina et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31 (2011) 572–581

577

Table 2 Summary of questionnaire and survey findings. Source: the authors. Topics

Questions

Methods and process SEA takes place too late in the decision-making process Inadequate considerations on alternatives Lack of adequate mechanisms for facing uncertainties Information and data Lack of efficient information sharing between departments Inconsistencies in the information from different departments Low quality data Public participation There are still ‘no initiatives for public participation’ and that this is still at the stage of ‘a suggestion by government’ The legal requirements for public participation are not comprehensive enough People from localities and rural areas ‘are usually ignored’ The effectiveness of public suggestions is very limited Expertise and PEIA institutions Lack of experienced technical staff in the PEIA institutions The departments in charge of PEIA generally have ‘less influence’ over decision making, compared to the ones responsible for the development plans Decision making Decision making in China is characterized by a ‘top-to-bottom management system’ Inconsistencies amongst government departments' interests and ‘limited cooperation’ adversely affected the efficiency of the assessment process Legislation There is no clear allocation of responsibility ‘Lack of legislative support for the implementation’ of PEIA

government. 76 respondents (14, 35, and 27) found ‘inconsistencies in the information from different departments’, and 66 respondents (23, 30, and 15) felt that available data is of ‘low quality (for a detailed discussion see: Song et al., 2008). Public participation: 65 respondents out of 81 slightly agreed, agreed or strongly agreed (7, 50, and 8 respectively) that there are still ‘no initiatives for public participation’ and that this is still at the stage of ‘a suggestion by government’; 69 concurred (10, 40, and 19) that the legal requirements for public participation are not comprehensive enough; 64 felt (23, 30, and 11) that people from localities and rural areas ‘are usually ignored’ in public participation processes; and 69 concurred (13, 42, and 14) that ‘the effectiveness of public suggestions is very limited’ in terms of their impact on decision-makers. The respondents thus confirm findings by scholars whereby public participation is more often than not taken to mean consultation with key actors, and primarily government actors, thanks to a widespread assumption that the public does not have the knowledge and skills to make useful contributions (Bina et al., 2009; Sang et al., 2008; Zhu et al., 2005). The involvement of the public tends to be examined as a procedural effectiveness issue, although the implications extend into the realm of good governance (incremental effectiveness). In terms of the expertise and PEIA institutions: of those responsible to carry out PEIAs, results were very diverse, and while a majority of respondents expressed the view that there is a lack of experience (59 slightly agreed, agreed or strongly agreed), overall a significant number also took the opposite view. 65 respondents felt (14, 39, and 12) that the departments in charge of PEIA generally have ‘less influence’ over decision-making, compared to the ones responsible for the developments plans. This theme links to the next, on decision making: 69 respondents out of 81 slightly agreed, agreed or strongly agreed (23, 40, and 6 respectively) that decision making in China is characterized by a ‘top-to-bottom management system’; 77 felt (19, 46, and 12) that inconsistencies amongst government departments' interests and ‘limited cooperation’ adversely affected the efficiency of the assessment process. Further views on the theme of responsibility, and commitment are expressed under the heading of legislation: 66 respondents out of 81 slightly agreed, agreed or strongly agreed (21, 36, and 9 respectively) that ‘there is no clear allocation of responsi-

Strongly disagree

Disagree

1 0 1

4 13 3

0 0 0

Slightly disagree

Slightly agree

Agree

Strongly agree

7 7 6

20 24 20

30 28 37

16 7 13

0 3 3

0 1 8

6 14 23

41 35 30

33 27 15

1

6

7

7

50

8

0 1 1

7 7 4

3 7 4

10 23 13

40 30 42

19 11 14

0 5

8 5

11 4

26 14

26 39

7 12

0 0

3 0

6 3

23 19

40 46

6 12

0 2

7 6

7 8

21 14

36 41

9 9

bility’ for assessment and decision-making in the law, and 64 felt (14, 41, and 9) there is a ‘lack of legislative support for the implementation’ of PEIA. One last aspect of procedural effectiveness merits treatment, although it was not part of the questionnaire due to the complexity of the issue: lack of independent review mechanisms and the contentious interpretations of Article 13 of the EIA Law, which states that ‘the competent administrative department of environmental protection or other departments should call together the representatives of relevant departments and experts to form a review team to examine the environmental impact statements’. The MEP considers Article 13 and entitles it to convene the review team (Li et al., 2008), but so do other ministries and departments involved in planning (Zhu and Ru, 2007). In practice, PEIAs have usually been reviewed by the ‘developer’, the planning authority responsible for compiling the plan subject of the PEIA report; hardly a condition of independence. At local government, this conflict is normally resolved by local regulations authorizing local environmental protection bureaus (EPBs) to be in charge of convening the review team of PEIA (for example: Shanghai City, Tianjin City, and Liaoning Province), however, it is normal for the development agency to have one or more of its officials on the review panel.

3.2. On the need for substantive and incremental effectiveness Overall, the results of the survey provide strong support for the conclusions on – mainly – procedural effectiveness drawn by scholars and practitioners looking at a range of PEIA cases, and most recently by the EPI-SEA project. Instead, existing literature has little to say about substantive or incremental (or indirect) effectiveness of PEIA in China. We have shown how most of the attention of theory and practice revolves around the question of procedural effectiveness, or lack of it, and we can consider incremental forms of effectiveness to be still relatively new to most SEA regimes — including PEIA in China. However, from many comments about the limited scope of debate and influence on the final shape of the plan and related decisions on options (or more rarely on alternatives), it is possible to infer that

578

O. Bina et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31 (2011) 572–581

substantive effectiveness is limited, at best, to avoiding negative impacts on the environment through mitigation. As argued in Section 2, both substantive and incremental effectiveness are linked to the nature of the purpose of PEIA, and Article 1 of the EIA Law (NPC, 2002) focuses the purpose on ‘realizing sustainable development’ (specifically the SD strategy: NPC, 1994), and ‘preventing adverse impacts on the environment’. The common interpretation (see above) is to focus on avoiding impacts on the physical environment, which alone is unlikely to contribute to the first precept of Article 1, and practice suggests this is indeed the case. Such narrow focus is not uncommon, especially in relatively new IA regimes. However, there are also reasons specific to China's context, which we find important in defining substantive effectiveness: the state of degradation of China's environment, coupled with a naturally limited endowment of natural resources per capita and sustained rapid economic growth (for an overview: CCICED and WWF, 2008; Liu and Diamond, 2005). The ecological crisis is acknowledged by the highest leaders in Government and in their commitments (Hu, 2007). Consistently the first PEIA guidance document, published in August 2003 (SEPA, 2003), emphasizes the need to consider ‘ecologically sensitive regions… habitats’, and makes repeated references to the concept of ecological sustainability and carrying capacity — increasingly common in PEIA practice, and recently upheld by a study of English practice (see discussion on identification of capacities in: Therivel et al., 2009). However, few scholars and practitioners focus on social effects, and social justice, despite their prominence on the political agenda, and obvious link to the ecological crisis (Hu, 2007). Pan Yue (China Daily, 2007) refers persistently to the need to consider the capacity, function, and services of natural resources, drawing the link with rising social tensions. The proposal by Bina (2008: 728) to frame the purpose ‘in terms of maintenance of ecosystem services and promotion of social justice’ is based on these problems and related arguments for a clearer definition of the purpose outlined in Article 1. The criteria suggested in the next section (Table 3) interpret substantive effectiveness in the Chinese context by drawing on these reflections. The consideration of incremental effectiveness is essentially normative when it comes to PEIA in China. Due to the complexity of the issues encompassed in the idea of incremental effectiveness, the questionnaire did not tackle this aspect. However, we draw on the above analysis and on the conclusions of the EPI-SEA project to identify elements that justify a consideration of incremental effectiveness in the context of the Chinese PEIA practice. The following challenges relate to many of the themes associated with incremental effectiveness: limited transparency and accountability of the planning and decision-making process, limited coordination between and within sectoral departments (at different territorial levels), weak environmental authorities, top-down government, and limited public participation. On the basis of an in-depth analysis of environmental policy integration and on the implications of such governance capacity for the role and effectiveness of PEIA, Bina et al. (2009) recommend that the Chinese Government considers a strategy of transition: from the current PEIA system, which follows essentially the formal model (see Section 1), to an assessment system that embraces the more strategic dimensions of SEA-type instruments (Partidario, 2000), combining the outcomes of substantive and incremental effectiveness, as well as procedural outcomes. The idea of a transition is based on the reflection that today's context of operation for PEIA is not conducive to many of the characteristics, approaches and methods that are normally associated with strategic forms of EA (notably, the more dialogical approaches, see Owens et al., 2004). Nevertheless, given the assumption that the application of SEAtype instruments can lead to incremental, medium and long-term changes (discussed in Section 2), and given the concerns raised about the conflict between rapid growth and the health of China's ecosystems and the people who rely on them, it seems necessary to encourage a

gradual improvement of all three dimensions of effectiveness: substantive, procedural and incremental. This would require the definition of a strategy, along the lines proposed by Wallington et al. (2007), combining procedural and transformative elements (see also: Bina, 2008). Our contribution here is to define a framework for the effectiveness criteria, informed by this idea of transition and embracing all three aspects of effectiveness, thus supporting the ongoing debate on how to improve the practice of PEIA and SEA-type evaluations in China. The hope is that the proposal can also act as an input towards a government strategy aimed at maximizing the positive impact of PEIAs on planning, as well as on the context of application. 4. Effectiveness criteria as a step towards transition Why a set of criteria specific to China? At the international level, there already exist a series of principles and criteria that can be used to guide the practice around the world: notably, the Performance Criteria defined by the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA, 2002), the recommendations based on the international overview of SEA practice by Dalal-Clayton and Sadler (2005) and the Good Practice Guidance by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD DAC, 2006), as well as the criteria recommended by donor agencies and national centers of expertise: for example, the Dutch Commission of Environmental Assessment and the Canadian International Development Agency. Last, but not the least, there is a host of internationally renowned experts whose work helps define the nature of good SEA practice (for a recent example: Partidario et al., 2009). However, most of these examples focus on good practice rather than effectiveness, and these concepts can overlap — but do not coincide. Moreover, none of the examples to date combine the three dimensions of effectiveness proposed above, and by virtue of being universal, they do not address the context-specific factors highlighted in Section 3, considered here as an important starting point for the new effectiveness criteria for the Chinese PEIA practice. Finally, China's experts and scholars have also provided recommendations in terms of indicators but, as we have shown, these tend to be too generic — even vague, to serve as guidance in practice, and are almost invariably focused on procedure. The aim is to help scholars and practitioners to design and review China's PEIA and SEA-type evaluations by proposing the criteria combining international principles with China's context-specificity and challenges identified in Section 3, all the while taking into account its legal framework and the elements of excellence in current practice which can hopefully become more commonly applied. Three levels presented in Table 3 are an acknowledgment of the variety of PEIA and SEA practice in China to date, and thus, of the need for any guidance on the effectiveness criteria to allow for the practice to evolve: • PEIA: the criteria build on the existing EIA Law and draft Recommendation (for the implementation of the 2002 Law), emphasise the procedural effectiveness and criteria of good EIA practice in the international literature and guidance. • TRANSITION: the intermediate step — criteria build a bridge between the predominantly procedural interpretation of PEIA, with a stronger role for substantive effectiveness and elements of intermediate effectiveness. • SEA: the criteria aiming at maximizing the benefits of SEA, both in terms of its individual application to PPPs and in terms of its incremental effect on contextual elements (institutions, culture, and organizations), in line with the cutting edge thinking and practice in the field of SEA. The three levels therefore combine the substantive, procedural and incremental dimensions of effectiveness, proposed in Section 2. Our central notion of transition draws on the idea that good practice can contribute to incremental effectiveness.

O. Bina et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31 (2011) 572–581

579

Table 3 Criteria for transition — initial proposal. Source: the authors.

Baselinea

Scoping

Level 1 PEIA

Level 2 TRANSITION

Level 3 SEA

• Leads to an overview of the ecological capacity/limits of the area (the boundaries of which are defined in order to account for indirect and cumulative effects) (a)(h) • Promotes an early start of the PEIA/SEA process

• Includes a comprehensive review of social issues, with particular emphasis on social justice

• Draws upon and contributes to a system that provides good quality and affordable data

• Produces a scoping report with clear tasks, responsibilities, timetable, and a communication plan (b) • Defines rules for establishing ‘acceptable environmental costs’ and sustainability trade-off rules (c) (indirectly ‘j’)

• Ensures explicit support by the plan's Leader to facilitate process integration and cooperation (g) • Identifies key ‘windows of opportunity’ in the decision-making process, to which SEA can contribute in terms of problem definition, information, insight and/or questions (e) • Obtains full access to data (and funding to acquire it where necessary)

• Promotes process integration (between planning and assessment activities throughout key stages in the planning process) (Article 7,8)b • Ensures that the range of skills of the teams involved is comprehensive, including social sciences

Reference framework

• Adopts environmental and social objectives as a reference framework for the assessment process (Article 1)

• Adopts a holistic perspective, including full consideration of the interaction between society and the environment (as opposed to focus on the natural environment) • Promotes a mindset (amongst assessment and planning teams) of ecological limits and social justice priorities (a)

Formal consultation

• Promotes meaningful consultation and participation of the public on the results of the assessment (Article 11) • Ensures adequate funding is available

• Promotes a mindset whereby experts must learn to engage with the public, avoiding ‘lecturing’ • Provides full and free access to documentation

Assessment

• Focuses on the rule of an ‘assessment fit for purpose’, focused (d)(j)

• Addresses uncertainties in an explicit manner, avoids black box effect (indirectly from ‘i’)

• Ensures integration between PEIA/SEA and other relevant assessments Link to decision-making

• Produces a report setting out the recommendations of the assessment and the process of consultation (Article 14)

• Documents and justifies how the issues identified in the reference framework were taken into account in decision making (d)(j)

• Includes clear and non technical analysis of impacts in relation to the reference framework (above)

• Provides guidance on how to ensure coherence between the PEIA/SEA results and the plan's implementation — especially project selection • Ensures wide consultation between key administrations and institutional stakeholders on the conclusions and recommendations • Ensures independent assessment of the process, as well as of the reports (see above) and compliance with the Law

Quality review

• Ensures independent assessment of the Report (Article 13) (i)

Monitoring, follow-up and learning

• Provides a complete monitoring and follow-up plan (Article 15)

• Considers strategic alternatives where appropriate, as well as technical options (where, what, and how) • Draws upon and contributes to a system that provides feedback on how to promote cooperation across government (overcoming ‘tiao/kuai’ fragmentation) (e)(j) • Obtains the full commitment of decision-makers to the holistic framework

• Ensures subsequent application of this framework to all stages of planning and assessment • Draws upon and contributes to a system that provides an overview of the state of implementation of China's sustainable development strategy • Consultation and participation of the public at the scoping stage, and during the assessment, as well as on the results of the assessment stage • Draws upon and contributes to a system that provides feedback and guidance on effective and innovative ways of engaging the public • Assesses strategic alternatives where appropriate, as well as technical options (where, what, and how) • Draws upon and contributes to a system that provides feedback and guidance on effective and innovative assessment methods and tools • Produces multiple reporting mechanisms to achieve full integration between the decision-makers and the assessment process leaders (providing a set of reporting mechanisms at all key stages of planning — not only at the final stage in the shape of PEIA/SEA Report) • Draws upon and contributes to a system that provides feedback and guidance on the effective ways of integrating environmental and social concerns in mainstream development planning

• Operates through established independent commissions which have the benefit of accumulating experience (compared to ad hoc review teams on a case by case basis) (e) • Plans for activities that will enable organizational and social learning throughout the assessment and beyond (f)

• Ensures feasibility of mitigation measures (i) However, selected criteria draw on the following authors: (a) (Therivel et al., 2009); (b) (Vicente and Partidario, 2006); (c) (Gibson et al., 2005); (d) (IAIA, 2002), see the ‘focused’ criterion; (e) (Bina et al., 2009); (f) (Bina, 2008; Jha-Thakur et al., 2009); (g) (Stoeglehner et al., 2009); (h) (He and Lu, 2000); (i) (Mao and Li, 2004; Ran and Luan, 2005; Yang et al., 1999; Yin and Yang, 2004); (j) (Zhang and Ju, 2009). a As is invariably the case with SEA processes, these themes are not listed in a linear mode, but it is expected that iterations lead to successive revisions and refinements of the activities and outputs of each theme and stage. b These criteria are partly or wholly in line with articles of China's EIA Law (NPC, 2002).

580

O. Bina et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31 (2011) 572–581

The criteria in each column should be taken as a basis on which to build in order to transition from one level (e.g. TRANSITION) to the next (e.g. SEA). In other words, the criteria are cumulative for each theme (baseline, scoping, reference framework and so forth). The rationale for the three levels is essentially one of transition, but it is also meant to introduce a dimension of excellence towards which experts can aim for in order to constantly refine and strengthen the quality and effectiveness of China's assessments. It would thus help to unleash the renowned power of competition amongst China's experts and government agencies, which would lead to a positive effort towards excellence. 5. Conclusion Our aim has been to make a contribution to the discourse on the effectiveness of SEA, developing a conceptual framework that allowed us to evaluate both the conceptions of effectiveness in the Chinese literature and the practice of PEIA in China — against the framework of the three distinct dimensions of effectiveness: substantive, procedural and incremental. The review of the discourse on effectiveness of EIA and PEIA in China reveals a clear gap, both in terms of the breadth of the concept, which is almost exclusively limited to procedural effectiveness, and in terms of the quality of the existing criteria, which tend to be very generic to the point of inapplicability. The proposal of the three levels of criteria is aimed to start a debate around the need for greater effectiveness on all three fronts, and given the strong contextual challenges, we emphasise the incremental effectiveness and the need to maximize the wider potential benefits of assessment. We also acknowledge the need for transition and have built the entire notion of effectiveness and related criteria around this fundamental dimension, which is meant to work within the characteristics of China's context. Ultimately, of course, the list of criteria can only go so far. It would be essential for Government to develop a transformative strategy that actively pursues PEIA/SEA's potential for incremental, medium and long-term changes. Acknowledgements We would like to thank the following scholars for their feedback on the first draft of the effectiveness criteria proposed for China: Bao Cunkuan, Chen Yongqin, Gao Jixi, Lam Kin-che, Li Hongyuan, Ma Weichun, Ren Jingming, Chen Fan, Tian Lili, Wang Rusong, Wang Jinnan, Zhu Tan, and Zhu Zhixi. All shortcomings remain the responsibility of the authors. The work described in this paper was substantially supported by a grant from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China (Project No. CUHK445809). We are also grateful to the two anonymous reviewers for their many helpful suggestions. References Bao C-k, Lu Y-s, Shang J-c. Framework and operational procedure for implementing strategic environmental assessment in China. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2004;24:27–46. Bina O. A critical review of the dominant lines of argumentation on the need for strategic environmental assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2007;27:585–606. Bina O. Context and systems: thinking more broadly about effectiveness in strategic environmental assessment in China. Environ Manage 2008;42:717–33, doi: 10.1007/s00267-008-9123-5. Bina O, Jurkeviciute A, Zhang Hui. Transition from plan environmental impact assessment to strategic environmental assessment: recommendations of the project “Policy Instruments for a Chinese Sustainable Future”. CHINA-EPI-SEA paper no. 27_EN. Stockholm: Stockholm Environment Institute; 2009. available at: http://sea-info.net/content/template1.asp?pid=223. (also available in Chinese). Brown A, Thérivel R. Principles to guide the development of strategic environmental assessment methodology. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal 2000;18:183–9. Caratti P, Dalkmann H, Jiliberto R, editors. Analytical Strategic Environmental Assessment: Towards Better Decision-Making. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd; 2004. Cashmore M, Bond A, Cobb D. The role and functioning of environmental assessment: theoretical reflections upon an empirical investigation of causation. J Environ Manage 2008;88:1233–48.

Cashmore M, Bond A, Sadler B. Introduction: the effectiveness of impact assessment instruments. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal 2009;27:91–3, doi:10.3152/ 146155109X454285. CCICED, WWF. Report on ecological footprint in China, China Council for International Cooperation on Environment and Development (CCICED). Beijing: The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF); 2008 www.footprintnetwork.org/download.php?id=503. (accessed: 7/6/08). Cheng S, Yu H. Discussion about enforcing efficiency of public participation in environmental impact assessment. Environ Prot 2002;1:26–7. China Daily. Ecology vital for scientific outlook of development. China Daily, November 13, 2007, Beijing; 2007 http://www.china.org.cn/english/environment/231667.htm. (accessed: 14/11/07). Dalal-Clayton B, Sadler B. Strategic environmental assessment: a sourcebook and reference guide to international experience. London: Earthscan; 2005. Dryzek JS. The politics of the earth: environmental discourses. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1997. Gibson RB, Hassan S, Holtz S, Tansey J, Whitelaw G. Sustainability Assessment: criteria and processes. London: Earthscan; 2005. Gu L, Sheate WR. Institutional challenges for EIA implementation in China: a case study of development versus environmental protection. Environ Manage 2005;36:125–42. He D, Lu Y. Preliminary discussion on the effectiveness and public participation of REIA. Shanghai Environ Sci 2000;19(1):7–9. Hildén M, Furman E, Kaljonen M. Views on planning and expectations of SEA: the case of transport planning. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2004;24:519–36. Hu Jintao. Hold high the great banner of socialism with Chinese characteristics and strive for new victories in building a moderately prosperous society in all respects. China Daily, report to the seventeenth national congress of the Communist Party of China on Oct. 15, 2007; 2007 http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-10/25/ content_6204663.htm. (accessed: 25/1/0/07). IAIA. Strategic environmental assessment — performance criteriaSpecial publications series no. 1. IAIA; 2002 http://www.iaia.org (13/12/02). Jha-Thakur U, Gazzola P, Peel D, Fischer TB, Kidd S. Effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment — the significance of learning. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal 2009;27:133–44, doi:10.3152/146155109X454302. Lam K, Chen Y, Wu J. Strategic environmental assessment in China: opportunities, issues and challenges. J Environ Assess Policy Manage 2009;11:369–85. Li T, Yu L. The studies on the effectiveness of environmental impact assessment and key factors [J]. Chin J Environ Sci 1996;17:11–7. Li T, Zhou W, Xie H, Shen F. Exploration and analysis on some issues concerning plan EIA management. In: Pan Y, editor. Proceedings of the 2nd China international forum on environmental impact assessment-sea in China. Beijing: China Environmental Science Press; 2008. p. 7. Lieberthal K. China's governing system and its impact on environmental policy implementation. China Environ Ser 1997:3–8. Lin F, Lu Y. Evaluation of the environmental impact assessment system in China. Res Environ Sci 1999;12(2):8-11. Ling H. Discussion on the efficiency of public participation in plan environmental impact assessment. Jiangsu Environ Sci Technol 2004;17(4):32–4. Liu J, Diamond J. China's environment in a globalizing world. Nature 2005;435: 1179–86. Liu L, Yang K, Xu Q, Cheng J. Research on effectiveness of plan environmental impact assessment. Environ Prot 2006;23:63–6. Mao W, Li W. Research on theory of efficiency assessment of environmental impact assessment. Yunnan Environ Sci 2004;23(4):30–3. Mayer I, van Daalen S, Els C, Pieter W, Bots G. Perspectives on policy analyses: a framework for understanding and design. Int J Technol Policy Manage 2004;4: 169–91. MEP. Chinese regulations on plan environmental impact assessment [Gui hua huan jing ying xiang ping jia tiao li]. Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP), PRC; 2009 http://www.levett-therivel.co.uk/CPEIA.htm (accessed: 28/19/09). Ming-Lone Liou, Shin-Cheng Yeh, Yue-Hwa Yu. Reconstruction and systematization of the methodologies for strategic environmental assessment in Taiwan. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2006;26:170–84. NPC. White paper on China's population, environment and development in the 21st century. Beijing: Approved by the National People's Congress (NPC); 1994 http:// www.acca21.org.cn/indexe8.html. (accessed: 1/4/08). NPC. Environmental Impact Assessment Law of the People's Republic of China. Adopted at the 30th Meeting of the Standing Committee of the Ninth National People's Congress on October 28, 2002; promulgated by Order No. 77 of the President of the People's Republic of China. English version provided by ACEE/SEPA (18/10/05); 2002. OECD DAC. Good practice guidance on applying strategic environmental assessment (SEA) in development co-operation. Paris: OECD Development Assistance Committee; 2006. Owens S, Cowell R. Land and limits: interpreting sustainability in the planning process. London: Routledge; 2002. Owens S, Rayner T, Bina O. New agendas for appraisal: reflections on theory, practice and research. Environ Plann A 2004;36:1943–59. Partidario M. Elements of an SEA framework — improving the added-value of SEA. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2000;20:647–63. Partidario M, Augusto B, Vicente G, Lobos V. Learning the practice of strategic-based SEA. 29th Annual Conference of the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA), Accra, Ghana; 2009. Ran Q, Luan S. Analysis of system characteristics of environmental impact assessment effectiveness. Environ Prot 2005;13:17–9. Retief F. Effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) in South Africa. J Environ Assess Policy Manage 2007;9:83-101.

O. Bina et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31 (2011) 572–581 Runhaar H, Driessen P. What makes strategic environmental assessment successful environmental assessment? The role of context in the contribution of SEA to decision-making. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal 2007;25:2-14. Sadler B. International study of the effectiveness of environmental assessment. Canada: Canadian Environmental Agency/IAIA, Minister of Supply and Services; 1996. cat. No.: EN106-37/1996E. Sadler B. On evaluating the success of EIA and SEA. In: Morrison-Saunders A, Arts J, editors. Assessing impact: handbook of EIA and SEA follow-up. London: Earthscan; 2004. p. 248–85. Sang Y, Liu F, Bian J. The effectiveness of public participation of strategic environmental assessment. Proceedings of the 2nd China international forum on environmental impact assessment-SEA in China. Beijing: China Environmental Science Press; 2008. p. 239–41. SEPA. Technical guidance for environmental impact assessment for plans and programs (interim). Beijing: SEPA (English version, 11 August 2003); 2003. Available in Chinese at: http://www.sepa.gov.cn/info/gw/huangfa/200308/t20030801_86602. htm. Song G, Xu S, Jin S, Fu Y, Li P, He Y, et al. China's environmental policy analysis. Beijing (in Mandarin): Chemical Industry Press; 2008. Stoeglehner G, Brown AL, Kørnøv LB. SEA and planning: ‘ownership’ of strategic environmental assessment by the planners is the key to its effectiveness. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal 2009;27:111–20, doi:10.3152/146155109X438742. Sun YJ, Chen XG, Mo CR, Sang YH, Peng XC, Fan R. Opportunities and challenges of planning environmental impact assessment. Environ Prot 2005;334(9):42–5. Tang T, Zhu T, Xu H. Integrating environment into land-use planning through strategic environmental assessment in China: towards legal frameworks and operational procedures. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2007;27:243–65. Therivel R, Christian G, Craig C, Grinham R, Mackins D, Smith J, et al. Sustainabilityfocused impact assessment: English experiences. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal 2009;27:155–68, doi:10.3152/146155109X438733. Thissen W. Criteria for evaluation of SEA. In: Partidario MP, Clark R, editors. Perspectives on strategic environmental assessment. London: Lewis Publishers; 2000. p. 113–30. van Buuren A, Nooteboom S. Evaluating strategic environmental assessment in The Netherlands: content, process and procedure as indissoluble criteria for effectiveness. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal 2009;27:145–54, doi:10.3152/146155109X454311. Vicente G, Partidario M. SEA - enhancing communication for better environmental decisions. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2006;26:696–706. Wallington T, Bina O, Thissen W. Theorising strategic environmental assessment: fresh perspectives and future challenges. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2007;27:569–84. Wang H, Yang H. The effectiveness of public participation in environmental impact assessment and its quantitative evaluation. North Environ 2004;29(5):79–80. Wood C. Environmental impact assessment — a comparative review. 2nd Edition. London: Prentice Hall; 2003. World Bank. Quarterly update — March 2009. Washington D.C.: The World Bank; 2009 http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTCHINA/Resources/318862-1237238982080/ CQU_March2009_fullreport.pdf (accessed: 20/3/09). Wu J, Jiang H. Discussion on the implementation of plan EIA in China. Environ Prot 2005;330(4):81–97. Wu J, Xu H. SEA on the 11 the five-year plan for national economic and social development of Wuhan City in China. Manage Environ Qual 2007;18(3):340–52. Xu H, Zhu T, Dai S. Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of wastewater reuse policy: a case study from Tianjin in China. J Environ Assess Policy Manage 2003;5 (4):503–21. Yang K, Zhang Y, Ye M. Approach on the effectiveness of environmental impact assessment and its construction ways. Shanghai Environ Sci 1999;18(8):346–51. Yin M, Yang Z. Evaluation of environmental impact assessment effectiveness of Shenzhen City. Saf Environ Eng 2004;11(4):5–8.

581

Zhang Qi. Groups call for monitoring. China Daily; 2009. 2009-03-16 http://www. chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2009-03/16/content_7581266.htm. (accessed: 20/3/09). Zhang L, Ju M. Discussing on effectiveness of planning environmental impact assessment in China. Implementing the EIA law in China: five-year review and prospect; 2009. p. 459. Zhou D, Sun S, Bao C, Jiang D. The evaluation for effectiveness of planning environmental impact assessment program. Res Environ Sci 2007;20(5):66–71. Zhu D, Ru J. Strategic environmental assessment in China: motivations, politics, and effectiveness. J Environ Manage 2007;88(4):615–26. Zhu T, Wu J, Chang IS. Requirements for strategic environmental assessment in China. J Environ Assess Policy Manage 2005;7(1):81–97. Zhu T, Tian L, Tang T, Ji Y. Characters, opportunities and challenges of strategic environmental assessment in China. Environ Prot 2007;10B:4–7. Olivia Bina is a Research Fellow at the Institute of Social Sciences, University of Lisbon (Portugal), and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. She has published widely on the theory and practice of environmental governance mechanisms, focusing on strategic environmental assessment, and advised governments and international organizations on these topics. Her current research focuses on conceptions of progress, growth and ecological sustainability, and on related themes of responsibility, happiness and wellbeing. Her area of inquiry compares Chinese and European theories and practice in these fields. She has a degree in Political Sciences (Università Statale di Milano) and an MPhil and a PhD in Geography (University of Cambridge). Wu Jing has a Ph.D from Nankai University in 2005 and served as postdoctoral fellow in the Chinese University of Hong Kong between 2008 and 2009. At present, she serves as an associate professor in Nankai University and the Research Center for Strategic Environmental assessment. She also serves as the secretary of the UNISPAR/UNESCO Chair holder in Environmental Management at Nankai University. She is a Registered Environmental Impact Assessment Engineer and acquired the Law Occupation Qualification Certificate. Lex Brown was the Foundation Professor of Environmental Planning in the Griffith School of the Environment. Originally trained in transport and urban planning, then with thirty years of teaching and research in interdisciplinary environmental sciences and social sciences, his major research interests is in developing tools which interface between the environmental scientists, the planning professions, and decision-makers. His expertise includes Environmental Impact Assessment, both at project and programmatic levels (Strategic Environmental Assessment), environmental assessment of international development assistance, and mainstreaming environment in all development activities. Prof Brown has extensive experience in environmental planning and management in both developed and developing countries in many regions of the world. Maria Rosário Partidário is Associate Professor at IST, Portugal and Head of the Research Group on Strategic approaches to ENvironment and SUstainability (SENSU). She has an international standing on SEA as author, researcher, trainer and consultant. Co-author of one of the earliest books on SEA (1996), Maria was President of the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) (1997–98) and received, in 2002, the first IAIA Individual Award for her performance on SEA. Maria's background includes environmental engineering, urban planning, environmental assessment and sustainability.