Identify the main barriers to democratic accountability within SEA. How might such barriers be overcome?

Introduction

Strategic environmental assessment is nothing more than a new form of environmental impact assessment. One can say that the environmental impact assessment has entered into a new evolutionary phase where there are some barriers to democratic accountability. As per the data, approximately 25 nations have adopted the use of strategic environmental assessment, but these economies have not achieved success in it. This is because they are unable to deal with the barriers to democratic accountability within the strategic environmental assessment. The core purpose of this essay is to investigate the barriers to democratic accountability within the strategic environmental assessment. Once the aims of the curr#ent essay are achieved, the next thing is to identify potential solutions for eliminating the identified barriers.

Main Body

Strategic environmental assessment has emerged as a new form of environmental assessment. Strategic environmental assessment is formalised and way of assessing the environmental impacts of policies. It tells about how a policy or a law will impact the environment in future. It enables an individual to understand how a policy will be implemented in such a way that it does not impact the environment, and the public gets all of the positive aspects. In order to do so, Strategic environmental assessment investigates all of the possible alternatives for the implementation of a policy. Joseph et al. (2015) also supported the above argument by saying that the Strategic environmental assessment enables the government to assess the environmental impacts of the future by the integration of all relevant issues that may impact the efficiency of the policy. Rega and Baldizzone (2015) also said that Strategic environmental assessment assesses social, economic, and biophysical issues for the development of sustainable policies. The author also included that Strategic environmental assessment provides a large number of important issues that a government needs to consider before the implementation of any policy or system. These days, Strategic environmental assessment is widely used by governments to ensure economic, social, and environmental sustainability. Basically, one can say that strategic environmental assessment is a technique that helps in assessing sustainability policies. Elbasani and Šabi? (2018) also argued that strategic environmental assessment is a fundamental approach that not only provides details regarding the effectiveness of policies but it also provides help in improving sustainability performance. The study of Kitschelt et al. (2020) investigated that there are no countries that are fully adopting the use of strategic environmental assessment for the implementation of policies. Christensen and Lægreid (2015) also said that currently, it is not possible for economies to adopt the strategic environmental assessment. In support of the above arguments, Sheate (2012) said that 25 economies are using strategic environmental assessment for the implementation of policies and systems, but these economies have used strategic environmental assessment for the implementation of few systems.

Most of the systems and policies introduced and implemented by 25 economies are not assessed through a strategic environmental assessment. Sadler and Dalal-Clayton (2012) identified a number of barriers owing to which nations are unable to fully adopt the use of strategic environmental assessment. The author said that considerable work had been done in the area of strategic environmental assessment, but by enclosing diverse perspective and approaches, one can say that there is not a single accepted concept for strategic environmental assessment. Therivel (2012) said that this is one of the major issues for democratic accountability. Fundingsland Tetlow and Hanusch (2012) also said that there are multiple concepts and perspectives regarding strategic environmental assessment, owing to which democratic accountability is compromised. The author said that the first factor which impacts democratic accountability is the involvement of a large number of stakeholders and differentiated understanding of strategic environmental assessment. Rega and Baldizzone (2015) also supported the above argument by saying that for every individual, the concept of strategic environmental assessment is different. In such a situation, it is not possible to ensure accountability. Maybe from the perspective of one individual, the policy is effective, but from another perspective, the policy provides favour to that individual. The most important barrier to democratic accountability within SEA is the existence of a large number of stakeholders. Marsden (2012) supported the above argument and said that from the perspective of conventional liberal doctrine, strategic environmental assessment could not conform either to stand along with the political accountability or administrative accountability. Democracy is not about the government only, but the administration plays a major role. Nooteboom (2020) said that in most economies, elections are the only source of political accountability. The author also said that institutions are stakeholders are assessed by the governments. This means that there is a lack of a mechanism for democratic accountability.

There are different mechanisms for the accountability of institutions and government. Richardson and Cashmore (2011) said that when there are differentiated mechanisms, one cannot ensure the democratic accountability of multiple stakeholders are involved in strategic environmental assessment. Scott (2011) also said that there is a need to develop a mechanism that has the ability to make every individual (involved in the strategic environmental assessment) accountable in similar perspectives. In general, one can say that the issue is the blur roles. Within the strategic environmental assessment, every stakeholder must be accountable for his/her own role. The current mechanism of democratic does not define the roles of individual stakeholders, owing to which the democratic accountability within the strategic environmental assessment is compromised (Sheate, 2012). At all levels, there is a lack of clear distinction, which is a barrier to democratic accountability within the strategic environmental assessment. Despite this, there is only one mechanism available for the accountability of government officials, which is elections. Publicity enables the politicians and other officials to influence the public as per their own requirements. Media and other sources of publicity provide these officials with an opportunity to manipulate individuals by presenting their own perspectives. Walker et al. (2014) said that publicity is a necessary condition for the accountability of democracy, but alone it is not capable enough to make every individual accountable. As per the current accountability system, democracy is only accountable through elections which are most of the times compromised. This is because transparency lacks the element of sanction. If a stakeholder of strategic environmental assessment does not provide a clear or satisfactory argument, there is no possibility of imposing a sanction (Ahmed et al., 2008). This becomes a barrier to democratic accountability within the strategic environmental assessment. Networks are considered as the main source while assessing the impacts of a policy or a system. Most of the economies that are using strategic environmental assessment use multilevel governance systems in order to ensure democratic accountability (De Mulder, 2011). Multilevel governance is a novel form of accountability where the visibility of networks is weak. When the visibility of the network is weak, one cannot identify the individual roles accountable for a specific action. Hence, one can say the lack of mechanisms and differentiated perspectives regarding the strategic environmental assessment are two major barriers for democratic accountability within the strategic environmental assessment.

There is a need to ensure that there is exist an analytical power approach. The existence of an analytical power approach will help in defining the roles of individuals within the strategic environmental assessment. Monteiro et al. (2018) said that there is a need to develop an approach according to which there should be an account to power. Democratic accountability within the strategic environmental assessment is compromised due to two types of questions, ethical and normative questions. Joseph et al. (2015) said that if every individual is accountable for both types of questions, democratic accountability will be ensured by all means. While conducting an analysis of power, Rega and Baldizzone (2015) found that power is a necessary precursor to address its own legitimacy. Elbasani and Šabi? (2018) developed a typology that legitimates power through the use of theorised analytical account. This typology provides much more for understanding and investigating the relationship between power, strategic environmental assessment, and democratic accountability. The theorised analytical approach provides a little conceptualisation. Using these concepts, one can not only identify the individual power roles but can also define strategic environmental assessment in a single perspective. While supporting the above arguments, Kitschelt et al. (2020) said that analytical approaches to power are very important and helpful in understanding the individual roles in the strategic environmental assessment. Christensen and Lægreid (2015) also said that analytical approaches to power provide a rich departure point which is helpful in understanding the power roles and enhancing democratic accountability within the strategic environmental assessment. Sheate (2012) argues a little conceptualisation of power relation is enough for democratic accountability. The author included that a little conceptualisation of power relations will help in understanding who is accountable for which actions. From the above arguments, one can say that there is a positive impact of analytical approaches to power on the identification of power roles and their accountability. Hence, one can say that analytical approaches to power are a solution to barriers to democratic accountability within the strategic environmental assessment.

Democratic accountability within strategic environmental assessment can also be increased through the use of publicity. Sadler and Dalal-Clayton (2012) argued that publicity could provide great help in understanding who is accountable. In the previous sections, it was identified that elections alone are accountability standards. Therivel (2012) said that publicity would help the public to understand who is responsible for an individual task. No doubt, democracy is accountable to the public. Fundingsland Tetlow and Hanusch (2012) criticised this approach by saying that it is not a new thing, but it refers to one of the analytical approaches to power. This is because the publicity of individual roles is only possible if the power roles are identified. Marsden (2012) argued that after the identification of power roles, it is also equally important to make them accountable to someone. Democracy is accountable to the public, so it is the most feasible solution to all of the barriers of democratic accountability within strategic environmental assessment by making individual power roles accountable to the public. When identified power roles are accountable by the public, individuals will have to provide justifications for their actions. This will definitely increase democratic accountability within the strategic environmental assessment. The second most important thing is to select a single perspective of strategic environmental assessment and use it for making individuals accountable. Economies must set a standard of accountability within the strategic environmental assessment. Nooteboom (2020) also argued that until an accountability standard is not set, one cannot ensure democratic accountability within the strategic environmental assessment. Richardson and Cashmore (2011) argued that setting a standard is important because one cannot be judged as per differentiated standards. Scott (2011) also said that an individual could not be perfect as per all the standards. Hence, setting a standard for accountability will provide great help in enhancing democratic accountability within the strategic environmental assessment.

The world bank has also provided countries with a number of recommendations through the use of which one can enhance democratic accountability within the strategic environmental assessment. Most of the recommendations provided by the world bank focus on the identification of individual roles. The remaining recommendations focus on understanding the actual perspective of strategic environmental assessment. As per the world bank, the public must be informed regarding future policies and their environmental impacts (Sheate, 2012). Government officials must present actual facts with the public about why they are implementing a specific policy, how it will help in increasing sustainability, and how the public should judge them. As per the recommendations provided by the world bank, the governments should let the public know that what standards they should adopt while judging and making an individual accountable. Similar are the recommendations from OECD (Walker et al., 2014). The OECD recommendations also focus more on the development of accountability standards. Further OECD recommendations motivate governments to identify individual power roles. As per these recommendations, publicity is an alternative technique for enhancing democratic accountability within strategic environmental assessment (De Mulder, 2011). The most important recommendation by OECD was to make civic engagement robust. Strategic environmental assessment is not an old concept owing to which there is a lack of engagement among strategic environmental assessment systems. Collaborations and communication within the strategic environmental assessment systems are weak, owing to which it is getting tough to enhance the democratic accountability within strategic environmental assessment (Monteiro et al., 2018). Adopting the use of recommendations by OECD and the World Bank, one can not only identify the individual power roles but can make these roles accountable to the public directly. This would remove major barriers identified for democratic accountability within the strategic environmental assessment.

Conclusion

In light of the above analysis, one can say that there are two major barriers owing to which democratic accountability within the strategic environmental assessment is compromised. The very first issue is the identification of power roles, and the second one is the unclear understanding of strategic environmental assessment. There are differentiated perspectives of strategic environmental assessment which enable people to judge individuals. Using differentiated perspectives for accountability just create a mess. It has been analysed that the analytical approaches to power can be very useful for the identification of individual power roles and making them accountable. It was also investigated that publicity is a very useful approach to remove the barriers of democratic accountability within the strategic environmental assessment. OECD and the World Bank has also provided economies with recommendations that solely focus on the use of analytical approaches of power and publicity.

References

Ahmed, K. and Sanchez-Triana, E. eds., 2008. Strategic environmental assessment for policies: an instrument for good governance. World Bank Publications.

Christensen, T. and Lægreid, P., 2015. Performance and accountability—A theoretical discussion and an empirical assessment. Public Organization Review, 15(2), pp.207-225.

De Mulder, J., 2011. The protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment: a matter of good governance. Review of European Community & International Environmental Law, 20(3), pp.232-247.

Elbasani, A. and Šabi?, S.Š., 2018. Rule of law, corruption and democratic accountability in the course of EU enlargement. Journal of European Public Policy, 25(9), pp.1317-1335.

Fundingsland Tetlow, M. and Hanusch, M., 2012. Strategic environmental assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30(1), pp.15-24.

Joseph, C., Gunton, T. and Rutherford, M., 2015. Good practices for environmental assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 33(4), pp.238-254.

Kitschelt, H., Freeze, K., Kolev, K. and Wang, Y.T., 2020. Measuring democratic accountability: An initial report on an emerging data set. Revista de Ciencia Política, 29(3), pp.741-773.

Marsden, S., 2012. Strategic environmental assessment in international and European law: a practitioner's guide. Earthscan.

Monteiro, M.B., do Rosário Partidário, M. and Meuleman, L., 2018. A comparative analysis on how different governance contexts may influence Strategic Environmental Assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 72, pp.79-87.

Nooteboom, S., 2020. Environmental assessment as an institution of liberal democracy. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 38(2): 109-112.

Rega, C. and Baldizzone, G., 2015. Public participation in Strategic Environmental Assessment: A practitioners' perspective. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 50, pp.105-115.

Rega, C. and Baldizzone, G., 2015. Public participation in Strategic Environmental Assessment: A practitioners' perspective. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 50, pp.105-115.

Richardson, T. and Cashmore, M., 2011. Power, knowledge and environmental assessment: The World Bank's pursuit of 'good governance'. Journal of political power, 4(1): 105-125.

Sadler, B. and Dalal-Clayton, B., 2012. Strategic environmental assessment: a sourcebook and reference guide to international experience. Earthscan.

Scott, C., 2011. Governmentality and strategic environmental assessment: challenging the SEA/good governance nexus. Journal of environmental assessment policy and management, 13(1): 67-100.

Sheate, W. R., 2012. Purposes, paradigms and pressure groups: Accountability and sustainability in EU environmental assessment, 1985–2010. EIA Review, 33(1): 91-102.

Sheate, W.R., 2012. Purposes, paradigms and pressure groups: Accountability and sustainability in EU environmental assessment, 1985–2010. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 33(1), pp.91-102.

Therivel, R., 2012. Strategic environmental assessment in action. Routledge.

Walker, H., Sinclair, J. A. and Spaling, H., 2014. Public participation in and learning through SEA in Kenya. EIA Review, 45: 1-9.