In this study the extent of addressing climate change mitigation and adaptation through SEA will be trying to explore based on available literatures, which is very few due to this domains infancy till date. In doing so present context of climate change will be described concisely. Following that, nexus between climate change and SEA will be highlighted based on SEA principles, guidance and best practice manual and empirical evidences of the integration in several countries. Drawing insights from the prior discussions, deficits and recommendations will be stated for future research agendas.

1. Working Paper
May, 2014
Assessment of the extent to which Strategic Environmental
Assessment (SEA) can contribute towards mitigation and
adaptation to climate change futures
Shahadat Hossain Shakil
Environmental Management Coordinator (USAID/Bangladesh)
E-mail: shshakil.buet@gmail.com
Tazrina Habib Ananya
Research Associate (C3ER, BRAC University)
E-mail: ananya_tz@yahoo.com

2. 1. Introduction
Climate change the „wicked problem‟ is continually imposing significant threat to the nature
as a whole, according to the recent projections (IPCC 2013; Bondeau et al. 2013). This
anticipated hazard is unavoidable to some extent, though the source of the problem („green
house gas‟ emission) is stopped right now (IPCC 2014a). Combination of mitigation
(reducing or capturing GHG) and adaptation effort has been suggested both in the short and
long term to achieve the complementary advantage (i.e. cost) and to reduce the risk (IPCC
2014a; 2014b).
Transportation, residential and business energy use and industrial sector are the major
contributor of global GHG emission (EPA 2013). These three sectors are influenced actively
by spatial planning and overarching environmental planning through Strategic Environmental
Assessment-„SEA‟ and Environmental Impact Assessment-„EIA‟. This is because the pattern
of land use within any area sets the characteristics of the emission from the aforementioned
two sectors which is governed largely by SEA in Europe (key contributor in global emission)
and industrial emission is ruled through EIA; the two most vital tools of spatial planning for
securing the broad environmental goal (Hurlimann and March 2012; Wende et al. 2012).
Furthermore, climate risk can be reduced significantly through incorporating adaptation
solutions (i.e. drainage, air circulation) in the land use/spatial plan. Indeed, SEA and EIA are
acknowledged as the means for the implementation of climate protection within spatial
planning and thus can be seen as the appropriate tool for „climate proofing‟ (Blanco et al.
2009).
The strategic environmental assessment (SEA) procedure is well-grounded to
methodically deal climate change adaptation and mitigation in planning and development.
This is because climate change is inextricably linked with the objectives of SEA which
are – concern for sustainable development and taking into account long-term and
cumulative effects of which climate change is a principal example (Posas 2011b). In
addition, SEA is usually a more appropriate device for dealing with climate change
than EIA. This is due to EIA‟s reactive rather than proactive nature. By contrast SEA has
the advantages of – addressing climate change earlier in the process than the traditional
environmental assessments; relating climate change with other policy endeavour; and shifting
the focus on causes instead of only effects (Dalfelt and Næss 1997; cited in Posas 2011b).

3. In this study the extent of addressing climate change mitigation and adaptation through SEA
will be trying to explore based on available literatures, which is very few due to this domains
infancy till date. In doing so present context of climate change will be described concisely.
Following that, nexus between climate change and SEA will be highlighted based on SEA
principles, guidance and best practice manual and empirical evidences of the integration in
several countries. Drawing insights from the prior discussions, deficits and recommendations
will be stated for future research agendas.
2. Context of Climate Change
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC 1992), in its Article 1, described
climate change as: „a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human
activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to
natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.‟ The UNFCCC thus
makes a difference between climate change due to human activities changing the atmospheric
composition and climate variability attributable to natural causes (IPCC 2013).
2.1 Impact Observed
Warming of the climate system is explicit. Global surface temperature change at the end of
the 21st
century is likely to cross 1.5°C compared to 1850 to 1900. The rate of sea level rise
since the mid 19th
century has been larger than the average rate during the previous two
centuries. Over the period 1901 to 2010, global mean sea level rose on an average by 0.19m.
Carbon dioxide concentration has increased by 40% since the pre-industrial times, largely
from fossil fuel emissions and land use change emissions. Human intervention in the climate
structure is unambiguous. Further emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming
and changes in all components of the climate system. Most characteristics of climate change
will continue for many centuries, even if emissions are stopped totally at this point (IPCC
2013; Bondeau et al. 2013).
2.2 Mitigation Need
„Mitigation is a human intervention to reduce the sources or enhance the sinks of greenhouse
gases’ (IPCC 2014a). According to Fifth Assessment Report of IPCC (IPCC 2014a),
technical and behavioural mitigation instrument for all transport modes, in addition, new
infrastructure and urban redevelopment investments could decrease final energy demand in

4. 2050 by around 40% below the baseline. Integrated urban planning, transit-oriented
development, compact urban form that supports cycling and walking, and new infrastructures
such as high-speed rail systems that will reduce short-haul air travel demand, can play a vital
role in emission reduction (IPCC 2014a); which can be guided at the very beginning of the
policy and plan making through instruments like the SEA. Moreover, the next two decades
present a window of opportunity for mitigation in urban areas, as a significant segment of the
world‟s „transition/semi-urban‟ areas will be urbanized during this period in the developing
countries (Blanco et al. 2009).
2.3 Adaptation Requirement
„Adaptation is the process of adjustment to actual or expected climate and its effects. In
human systems, adaptation seeks to moderate or avoid harm or exploit beneficial
opportunities. In some natural systems, human intervention may facilitate adjustment to
expected climate and its effects’ (IPCC 2014b).
Adaptation is increasingly implanted in the spatial planning processes in the face of climate
change threat, both in the developed and developing countries. Engineering and technological
options (i.e. improved drainage, retention wall for sea and river etc.) are commonly
implemented as adaptive responses and often merged with the existing programs such as
disaster risk management and water resource management. Governments at various levels are
starting to develop adaptation plans and policies and to integrate climate-change
considerations into broader development plans in the developed countries, where SEA can
play a major role to govern this „crucial inclusion‟. On the other hand local communities‟
self-prompt adaptation activities (i.e. raising plinth level of the house, livelihood
diversification etc.) is also prominent in the absence of government initiative (Baker 2012;
IPCC 2014b).
Many global risks of climate change are concentrated in urban areas due to population
density and investment. Urban adaptation strengthened by effective multi-level urban risk
governance, strengthening local government and community adaptation capacity, alignment
of policies and incentives, synergies with the private sector and appropriate financing and
institutional development (IPCC 2014b), which can be coordinated and facilitated through the
environmental governing instrument like the SEA.

5. 3. SEA and Climate Change Nexus
3.1 SEA – Definition, Legal Context and Guidance
Appropriate definition of SEA that explicitly include the dual dimensions of
environment/climate change stated by the Department of Environmental Affairs and
Tourism, South Africa in their SEA guidelines such as ‘SEA is a process of integrating the
concept of sustainability into strategic decision making that involves identifying the
opportunities and constraints that the environment and socio-economic conditions
present for future development’. This definition through highlighting the environmental
prospects and limitations, made the dual nature of climate change issues (e.g. potential
to increase/decrease greenhouse gas emissions and vulnerability to climate changes and
hazards) more apparent and thus increased the likelihood to be acknowledged and
addressed (DEAT 2007; cited in Posas 2011b).
In the European Union (EU) member countries, SEA is explicitly obligatory under the
EU SEA Directive - 2001/42/EC (EC 2001) to consider the significant effects related to
„climatic factors‟, which is progressively understood to include „climate change‟.
Multilateral development banks and international development agencies also requires
SEAs for many of their projects in client countries and express pledge to consider
climate change (Therivel 2004; Fischer 2007; Posas 2011a).
Additionally, Kørnøv and Wejs (2013) stated two major relationships between the EU SEA
Directive and the climate change agenda. First, the directive provides a significant
opportunity for the incorporation of climate change concerns in plans and programmes
generally within all sectors. Second, the directive provides a foundation for securing that,
specific „climate change plans‟ are developed with a systematic consideration of effects
linked with a broader concept of the environment.
The most usually recognized EIA based SEA practice comprises of seven main
procedural stages – screening; scoping; analysis of alternatives; report preparation and
review; decision making; follow up and monitoring; and consultation and participation
(Therivel 2004; Fischer 2007). From the perspective of climate change and related
hazard inclusion, scoping is perhaps the most important stage. Climate change and
disaster risk should be clearly mentioned in the scope of the SEA and in the „terms of
reference‟ of policies, plans and programs - PPPs (Environment Agency et al. 2007; OECD

6. 2008; Larsen et al. 2012). Moreover, the available literatures and guidelines till date suggest
that climate change should be accounted in SEA in relation to alternatives, greenhouse
gas emissions reduction and monitoring and in relation to stakeholder involvement and
biodiversity conservation (Burdge 2008; Larsen and Kørnøv 2009; Byer et al. 2012; Kørnøv
and Wejs 2013).
3.2 Addressing Mitigation Need through SEA
Sadler (1996) stated that SEA process can serve as an early warning system through
identifying major CO2 emitting projects, particularly in energy and transport sector and
thus helping secure reductions through the consideration of alternatives. According to
Larsen and Kørnøv (2009) in the SEA process, mitigation refers to gauging the
environmental consequences of a plan in terms of potential emissions of GHG and the
abatement of that. For example an SEA of a development plan for a new urban area can
include assessments of GHG emissions from generated traffic.
For achieving the mitigation objective through SEA, PPPs should clearly mention the country
or sector specific GHG emission target in its aim. In the absence of that, specific mitigation
objective should be pointed out (Wende et al. 2012). SEA should assess GHG emissions for
each relevant component and phase of the proposal (PPP). This should be estimated by using
a life-cycle approach and should include any effects of the proposal on carbon sinks (i.e.
forest, water body). Alternative measures should also be identified to trim down the GHG
emissions directly or indirectly by opting different technologies or designs (Byer et al. 2012).
Moreover, the effects upon climate change of any single project may be insubstantial, but it
will be noteworthy when accounted together with numerous past, present and future projects.
GHG emissions should therefore also be considered at a level (typically at policy, plan or
program) that addresses the cumulative effects of individual projects (Environment Agency et
al. 2007).
3.3 Addressing Adaptation Requirement through SEA
OECD Good Practice Guidance Series on Strategic Environmental Assessment and
Adaptation to Climate Change (OECD 2008), advocated applying a „climate adaptation lens‟
while formulating and implementing PPPs. “A climate adaptation lens is an analytical
process/step/tool to examine a policy, plan or programme (PPP). The application of a climate
adaptation lens at the national or sectoral level involves examining – i) the extent to which

7. climate change risks have been taken into account in the course of formulation of the PPP; ii)
the extent to which the PPP under consideration could be vulnerable to risks arising from
climate variability and change; iii) the extent to which the PPP could lead to increased
vulnerability, leading to mal-adaptation or conversely miss important opportunities arising
from climate change; and iv) for pre-existing PPPs which are being revised, what
amendments might be warranted in order to address climate risks and opportunities” (OECD
2008, p.8).
For achieving the adaptation objective through SEA, PPPs should be aligned with country‟s
overarching plans (i.e. National Adaptation Plan of Action-NAPA). In absence of that,
specific adaptation objective/task should be assigned to each PPP. Vulnerability assessment
of alternatives under changing and uncertain scenario should be carried out to judge the best
suitable option (Byer et al. 2012). On the other hand baseline environment can be
significantly changed by variable climate upon which the impact of the proposal will be
evaluated. SEA should define specifically the baseline environment; and should also portray
specific adaptation measures for different alternatives under consideration to finally select
one based on its environment, economic and social implications (Environment Agency et al.
2007; OECD 2008).
4. Climate Change Integration within SEA – Empirical Evidences
Larsen et al. (2012) analysed 149 Danish SEA report with a view to explore the synergies
between climate change mitigation and adaptation; and climate change integration with other
environmental concerns. They explored that climate change is integrated into 57% of the
SEA reports and this inclusion is in increasing trend due to rising focus on climate change
issues in the society. Regarding the approaches, mitigation is integrated into 51% of the SEA
reports, whilst adaptation is integrated into 14.8%. The document analysis shows that only
12% of the reports include both mitigation and adaptation. In addition, in a separate study on
the same data set it was also explored that climate change uncertainties were systematically
avoided or downplayed in most of the Danish SEAs (Larsen et al. 2013).
Wende et al. (2012) evaluated SEAs of land use plans in the German state of Saxony and the
East of England region for their consideration of climate change impacts based on a set of
criteria. Their conclusion is in Germany older, currently valid regional plans have almost no
references to global climate change. On the contrary, the Saxony State Development

8. Programme addresses the issue of climate change in adequate detail. However the
programme has some limitations with respect to climate change integration such as - i)
absence of targets for CO2 reduction; ii) large-scale and long-term impacts are not
considered; and iii) climate-friendly alternatives have not been considered. Besides in
England, in general, national targets for mitigation are well known, but this does not lead to
any implications for avoidance of climate change. Spatial planning is constrained by the
geographical borders under consideration and for this large scale impacts are not considered
directly. The SEAs are bound within the spatial plan content and do not provide suggestions
for how climate change goals might be regionalised.
5. Shortfalls and Way Forward
Lack of readily available specific standards and guidance with regard to climate change
in SEA affect the work of SEA practitioners as well as SEA outputs and potential to
influence the final decision (Li et al. 2013). On the other hand , SEA is not the solitary way,
or even the best way to handle climate change issues. Addressing climate change
through SEA should be supported by parallel efforts at multiple levels in order for
mitigation and adaptation to be increasingly mainstreamed into all levels of planning in
the society (Posas 2011b).
Estimating the contribution of GHG from all elements, in all phases and for all alternatives
within a SEA is a cumbersome procedure for the practitioners additionally challenged by the
appropriate standards availability (Environment Agency et al. 2007; Byer et al. 2012).
Besides, climate change prediction is very uncertain and in some cases contains very low
confidence level. That‟s why prescribing adaptation measures for the PPPs under
consideration will be not the exact answer, which is subject to revise with time (OECD
2008). Furthermore, within the limited integration of climate change in SEA practice, it is
still focused on mitigation and adaptation is still in its infancy due to uncertain future
scenarios, which has been revealed in the prior segment. Further, within the mitigation
objective specific goal for emission reduction is absent due to knowledge gap and lack of
official commitment to global agenda (Posas 2011a; Larsen et al. 2012; Wende et al. 2012;
Kørnøv and Wejs 2013).
To overcome the above mentioned shortfalls, some way forward has been suggested in the
literatures. Wende et al. (2012) suggested that specific CO2 mitigation should mentioned in

9. the SEA report based on national/regionalised target which should be further broken down
according to specific sectors. For broader aspect, EU should describe the protected asset
“climatic factors” more clearly in the SEA Directive for the purpose of global climate
protection and climate change adaptation (Helbron et al. 2011; cited in Wende et al. 2012).
Concrete practical action and implementation guidelines should be developed in the EU and
in its member state countries for the methodological implementation of climate change
protection in the SEA process (Posas 2011b). However, it has to be considered that SEA
should not be overstretched through imposing extensive new requirements regarding „climate
proofing‟ (Runge et al. 2011; cited in Wende et al. 2012)
6. Conclusion
Strategic Environmental Assessment is a crucial tool to integrate climate change issue in all
sectors of development in the earlier stage due to its scale/level of operation (PPP). Climate
change threat should be dealt through SEA with appropriate mitigation targets for long-term
results and adequate adaptation measures for present natural hazards and disasters. SEA and
climate change integration is still very limited among which mitigation receives the prime
focus because of the preliminary concept of avoiding climate change through „emission
reduction‟. Adaptation is still a new idea for SEA but which is needed the most in the near
future and also challenged by the uncertain prediction mechanism of the climatic system
followed by investment risk. To improve the SEA practice in terms of climate change
concerns, legal tools currently available should be amended to elaborate the extent and
specific margin of desired integration. Following that, detailed and practical guidelines and
standards for the practitioners should be developed along with country specific mitigation
objective and adaptation plan. In contrast, it should be considered that the principal goal of
SEA is to ameliorate the negative impact of PPPs which should not be made burdensome
through enforcing weighty and complex requirement of integration of climate change.
Climate change impact should be deal with dedicated mitigation and adaptation programs
across sectors and administrative level. However, amalgamation of climate change concern
with strategic environmental assessment is vital for addressing the most pressing
environmental concern now-a-days.

10. References
Baker, J.L. (2012). Climate Change, Disaster Risk and the Urban Poor: Cities Building Resilience for
A Changing World. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
Blanco, H., Alberti, M., Forsyth, A., Krizek, K. J., Rodríguez, D. A., Talen, E., & Ellis, C. (2009).
Hot, Congested, Crowded and Diverse: Emerging Research Agendas in Planning. Progress in
Planning, 71(4), 153–205.
Bondeau, A., Svirejeva-Hopkins, A., Schwan, S., Schewe, J., Hare, B., Frieler, K., … Menon, A.
(2013). Turn Down the Heat : Climate Extremes, Regional Impacts and the Case for
Resilience. Washington DC: The World Bank.
Burdge, R.J. (2008). The Focus of Impact Assessment (and IAIA) Must Now Shift to Global Climate
Change!! Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 28(8), pp.618–622.
Byer, P., Cestti, R., Croal, P., Fisher, W., Hazell, S., Kolhoff, A., & Kørnøv, L. (2012). Climate
Change in Impact Assessment: International Best Practice Principles. Fargo, USA:
International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA).
Dalfelt, A. and Næss, L.O. (1997). Climate Change and Environmental Assessments: Issues in an
African Perspective. Oslo, Norway: Center for International Climate and Environmental
Research (CICERO), University of Oslo.
DEAT. (2007). Strategic Environmental Assessment Guideline. Pretoria, South Africa: Department of
Environmental Affairs and Tourism.
EC. (2001). Directive, 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on
the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Plans and Programmes on the Environment. [online].
Available from:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32001L0042&from=EN [Accessed
May 10, 2014].
Environment Agency, Countryside Council for Wales, English Nature, UKCIP, Levett-Therivel
Sustainability Consultants, CAG Consultants, & Environmental Change Institute. (2007).
Strategic Environmental Assessment and Climate Change: Guidance for Practitioners. UK:
Levett-Therivel Sustainability Consultants.
EPA. (2013). Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data. EPA - United States Environmental Protection
Agency. [online]. Available from:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html#two [Accessed May 10, 2014].
Fischer, T.B. (2007). The Theory and Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment: Towards a
More Systematic Approach. 1st ed. London, UK & Sterling, USA: Earthscan.
Helbron, H., Schmidt, M., Glasson, J., & Downes, N. (2011). Indicators for Strategic Environmental
Assessment in Regional Land Use Planning to Assess Conflicts with Adaptation to Global
Climate Change. Ecological Indicators, 11(1), 90–95.
Hurlimann, A.C. and March, A.P. (2012). The Role of Spatial Planning in Adapting to Climate
Change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 3(5), pp.477–488.
IPCC. (2013). Summary for Policymakers. In T. F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. M. B. Tignor,
S. K. Allen, J. Boschung, … P. M. Midgley (Eds.), Climate Change 2013: The Physical
Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York,

11. NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.
IPCC. (2014a). Summary for Policymakers. In T. F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. M. B. Tignor,
S. K. Allen, J. Boschung, … P. M. Midgley (Eds.), Climate Change 2014: Impacts,
Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and
New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.
IPCC. (2014b). Summary for Policymakers. In T. F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. M. B. Tignor,
S. K. Allen, J. Boschung, … P. M. Midgley (Eds.), Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of
Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York,
NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.
Kørnøv, L. and Wejs, A. (2013). SEA Screening of Voluntary Climate Change Plans: A Story of Non-
Compliant Discretion. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 41, pp.64–69.
Larsen, S.V. and Kørnøv, L. (2009). SEA of River Basin Management Plans: Incorporating Climate
Change. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 27(4), pp.291–299.
Larsen, S.V., Kørnøv, L. and Driscoll, P. (2013). Avoiding Climate Change Uncertainties in Strategic
Environmental Assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 43, pp.144–150.
Larsen, S.V., Kørnøv, L. and Wejs, A. (2012). Mind the Gap in SEA: An Institutional Perspective on
Why Assessment of Synergies Amongst Climate Change Mitigation, Adaptation and Other
Policy Areas are Missing. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 33(1), pp.32–40.
Li, W.C., Ding, J. and Xu, H. (2013). Integrating Climate Change into Strategic Environmental
Assessment within the Context of China. Advanced Materials Research, 726-731, pp.1151–
1154.
OECD. (2008). Strategic Environmental Assessment and Adaptation to Climate Change. Paris:
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Posas, P.J. (2011a). Climate Change in SEA: Learning from English Local Spatial Planning
Experience. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 29(4), pp.289–302.
Posas, P.J. (2011b). Exploring Climate Change Criteria for Strategic Environmental Assessments.
Progress in Planning, 75(3), pp.109–154.
Runge, K., Wachter, T. and Rottgardt, E.M. (2011). Climate Adaption, Climate Proofing and
Environmental Assessment – Practical Necessities and Integration Potential. UVP Report,
24(4), pp.165–169.
Sadler, B. (1996). Environmental Assessment in a Changing World: Evaluating Practice to Improve
Performance. Hull, Quebec: Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency & International
Association for Impact Assessment.
Therivel, R. (2004). Strategic Environmental Assessment in Action. 1st ed. London, UK &
Washington, USA: Earthscan.
UNFCC. (1992). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. [online]. Available
from: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf [Accessed May 10, 2014].
Wende, W., Bond, A., Bobylev, N., & Stratmann, L. (2012). Climate Change Mitigation and

12. Adaptation in Strategic Environmental Assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment
Review, 32(1), 88–93.