ESP3 SEA Synthesis Study April 2013 Final Report ENG Rev0

8/18/2019 ESP3 SEA Synthesis Study April 2013 Final Report ENG Rev0

1/126

ESP-Environmental Support Programme

Danida

Synthesis Study onSEA Lessons Learned

Final version

Contract Title: SEA synthesis study on lessons learned

Contract Number: DC 2013/0018/KC

Assignment Period: January – April 2013

Contractor: Integra Consulting Limited, Suite 2006

20/F 340 Queen´s Road CentralHong Kong

Date of Submission: 30 April, 2013


2/126

ESP-Environmental Support Programme

Danida

Disclaimer

This report was prepared by Martin Smutny, Jiri Dusik and Michal Musil (Integra Consulting Limited) incooperation with Indonesian experts Adi Wiyana and Dwi Nurcahyadi.

The report does not constitute any formal legal advice. The report is without warranty of any kind,either expressed or implied.

Unless indicated otherwise, the authors have drafted the report. The findings, interpretations andconclusions expressed in the report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the viewsof Danida or governmental agencies in Indonesia.

This material has been prepared as a working document which has not been language edited.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank to Mr. Tim Hansen and Ms. Trine Bargsteen from Royal Danish Embassyin Jakarta as well as to Ms. Ida Lestari (ESP3 Secretariat) for overall coordination and support to theassignment, to the representatives of the key governmental agencies – Ms. Tri Dewi Virgiyanti(Bappenas), Ms. Wahyu Indraningsih, Ms. Qurie Purnamasari, and Ms. Inge Retnowati (KLH), Ms. RenyWindyawati (MOHA), Mr. Ir. Edison Siagian (MOHA) and the international consultants Mr. Kim Harboe,Mr. Josh Van Berkel, and Mr. Nils Bull for their kind inputs to the SEA synthesis study.


3/126

Synthesis study on SEA lessons learned, final version

iii

Table of Contents

Disclaimer ........................................................................................................................... 2

Acknowledgement ................................................................................................................ 2

Table of Contents .................................................................................................................... iii

List of abbreviations ................................................................................................................ v

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 6

1.1 Objective of SEA synthesis study ................................................................................. 6

1.2 Approach to the assignment ........................................................................................ 7

1.3 Workshop on SEA lessons learned ................................................................................ 7

2. Main findings and conclusions .......................................................................................... 9

2.1 Link to decision-making .............................................................................................. 9

2.2 SEA process design .................................................................................................. 10

2.3 Scope of SEA ........................................................................................................... 11

2.4 Baseline analysis ..................................................................................................... 12

2.5 Evaluation of impacts ............................................................................................... 13

2.6 Mitigation measures and monitoring ........................................................................... 13

2.7 SEA report .............................................................................................................. 14

2.8 Stakeholders´ participation ....................................................................................... 15

3. Final Remarks and Recommendations ............................................................................. 16

3.1 General remarks on SEA in Indonesia ......................................................................... 16

3.2 Recommendation for future SEA practice .................................................................... 16

3.3 Further recommendations for ESP3 ............................................................................ 19

4. Annex I: Overview of comments from the workshop on SEA lessons learned ....................... 22

5. Annex II: The list of participants at the workshop on SEA lessons learned ........................... 28

6. Annex III: Quality assurance report for SEA pilots ............................................................ 33

6.1 SEA of Medium Term Development Plan of Kubu Raya (RPJMD) ..................................... 33

6.2 SEA of Kota Serang Regional Spatial (Spatial Plan) and Long-Term Regional Development Plan(RPJPD) ............................................................................................................................ 36

6.3 SEA of Padang Bay City Development Plan .................................................................. 40


4/126


iv

6.4 SEA of National Mid-Term Development Plan for Palm Oil Sector .................................... 44

6.5 SEA of Spatial Plan of West Sumatera Province ............................................................ 47

6.6 SEA for Lake Maninjau Management Plan .................................................................... 50

6.7 SEA for Kapuas Watershed Management ..................................................................... 53

6.8 SEA for Kota Banjarbaru Spatial Plan .......................................................................... 56

6.9 SEA for Padang New City (Post Earthquake Development Plan) ...................................... 59

6.10 SEA of Water Resources Management and Conservation on Bali ..................................... 62

6.11 SEA for Amandit River Basin Management .................................................................. 66

6.12 SEA of Aquaculture Sector ........................................................................................ 69

6.13 SEA of Coal Mining Sector ......................................................................................... 72

6.14 SEA for Provincial Spatial Plan of the North Sulawesi .................................................... 76

6.15 SEA for Spatial Plan of Central Sulawesi Province ......................................................... 81

6.16 SEA for Medium-Term Development Plan of the Central Java Province ............................ 84

6.17 SEA for Border Road Development Plan in West Kalimantan .......................................... 88

6.18 SEA for Spatial Plan of Jambi Province ........................................................................ 91

6.19 SEA for Mataram Metropolitan City Plan ...................................................................... 95

6.20 SEA for Spatial Plan of National Strategic Area (KSN) Sunda Strait................................. 98

6.21 Rapid Environmental Assessment (REA) for Proposed Diversion of the Citanduy River ..... 102

6.22 SEA for Regional Medium-Term Development Plan of Bangka Belitung Province .............. 105

6.23 SEA for Regional Medium-Term Development Plan of Hulu Sungai Utara District ............. 109

6.24 SEA Pre-Scoping for National Strategic Area Sorowako ................................................ 114

6.25 Environmental Assessment for Sei Mangkei Development Area ..................................... 117

6.26 Preliminary Environmental Analysis for KSN Prambanan .............................................. 120

6.27 SEA for Spatial Plan (RTRW) of Tasikmalaya District .................................................... 123


5/126


v

List of abbreviations

Bappenas The State Ministry of National Development Planning

ESPII Indonesia-Denmark Environmental Support Programme,Phase 2, Component 1

FDG Focus Group Discussion

KLH Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup (Ministry of Environment)

KSN National Strategic Area

LEPM Law on Environmental Protection and Environment no. 32/2

MoHA Ministry of Home Affairs

MoPW Ministry of Public Works

PPP Policy, plan or programme

QA Quality assurance

RPJMD Mid-Term Development Plan

RPJPD Long-Term Development Plan

RTRW Spatial Plan

SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment

ToR Terms of Reference


6/126


6

1. Introduction

1.1 Objective of SEA synthesis study

Indonesia and Denmark have cooperated in the field of environment through an EnvironmentSupport Programme since 2005. The second phase was running from 2008 to 2012 and consistedof 3 components including a component on improving institutional capacity of public sectorinstitutions. This component (known as component 1) has 3 outputs:

1)

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) reform and decentralized process strengthened(implemented by Ministry of Environment / KLH)

2) Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) in development planning and policy analysis(implemented by Ministry of Environment (KLH), National Development Planning Agency(Bappenas), Ministry of Home Affairs/MOHA), Ministry of Public Works (MoPW)

3)

Role of Economic Instruments/EI (implemented by KLH).

The major activity under Component 1 was a support to the Strategic Environmental Assessment

(SEA), both for preparation of guidelines and input for regulations, training at different levels andpreparation of following pilot SEAs:

• SEA of Medium Term Development Plan of Kubu Raya (RPJMD)•

SEA of Kota Serang Regional Spatial (Spatial Plan) and Long-Term Regional DevelopmentPlan (RPJPD)

• SEA of Padang Bay City Development Plan•

SEA of National Mid-Term Development Plan for Palm Oil Sector•

SEA of Spatial Plan of West Sumatera Province• SEA for Lake Maninjau Management Plan•

SEA for Kapuas Watershed Management•

SEA for Kota Banjarbaru Spatial Plan•

SEA for Padang New City (Post Earthquake Development Plan)• SEA of Water Resources Management and Conservation on Bali•

SEA for Amandit River Basin Management•

SEA of Aquaculture Sector• SEA of Coal Mining Sector• SEA for Provincial Spatial Plan of the North Sulawesi•

SEA for Spatial Plan of Central Sulawesi Province•

SEA for Medium-Term Development Plan of the Central Java Province• SEA for Border Road Development Plan in West Kalimantan•

SEA for Spatial Plan of Jambi Province•

SEA for Mataram Metropolitan City Plan• SEA for Spatial Plan of National Strategic Area (KSN) Sunda Strait•

Rapid Environmental Assessment (REA) for Proposed Diversion of the Citanduy River•

SEA for Regional Medium-Term Development Plan of Bangka Belitung Province• SEA for Regional Medium-Term Development Plan of Hulu Sungai Utara District• SEA Pre-Scoping for National Strategic Area Sorowako

•

Environmental Assessment for Sei Mangkei Development Area•

Preliminary Environmental Analysis for KSN Prambanan

It has to be noted that above listed SEAs represent only part of SEA application in Indonesia,since a number of SEA cases (more than 100) was supported from the national budget in 2011and 2012. The SEA for Spatial Plan (RTRW) of Tasikmalaya District was included in the SEAlessons learned study as the representative of such SEAs.

Preparation of the synthesis study on SEA lessons learned has been assigned by the Royal DanishEmbassy in Jakarta in order to summarize experience from practical application of SEA withinthe ESP2. The respective ToR for the assignment stipulates the overall objective of the review asto “assess the procedures, relevance and quality according to national and international SEAstandards, actual and potential impacts and capturing good practice”. The synthesis study issupposed to address suitability of the

•

The procedures, what are the procedures and are they suitable to address the problemand improve the situation in Indonesia


7/126


7

• Relevance of the SEA and the result•

Quality of the SEA according to national and international SEA standards•

Actual and potential impacts, what is the actual and potential impact of the SEA on theenvironment, democratisation, good governess in Indonesia?

•

Capturing good practice, are the SEA following good practice for SEA

The SEA lessons learned study shall analyse pilot SEA’s prepared under the ESP2 in order toprovide recommendations for further SEA development in Indonesia as well as give specificsuggestions towards the ESP3.

The views of the key agencies involved in the SEA activities within ESP2 (i.e. KLH, Bappenas,MOHA and MOPW) as well as national and international consultants have been integrated in thedraft study. Its preparation also involved survey among several provinces where SEA pilots hadbeen conducted in order to find out if and how the results and recommendations provided bySEAs were considered in the final version of the plans and/or its approval.

1.2 Approach to the assignment

The evaluation of the SEA pilots was based mainly on the environmental reports, which wereevaluated against quality criteria covering altogether eight main quality issues:SEA process design

•

Scope of SEA• Baseline analysis•

Evaluation of impacts•

Mitigation measures and monitoring• SEA report•

Decision-making•

Stakeholders´ participation

The matrix was prepared for each quality issue using following scale:•

Fully covered – F•

Partially covered – P• Missing – M• Not applicable (information are not available or a quality aspect is not relevant for SEA

which is a subject of the review)1 – NA

A short summary was prepared at the end of each matrix reflecting detailed quality criteria.

In addition, several provinces where SEA pilots were conducted were approached with a simplequestionnaire focused on of and how the SEA results have been considered in the final approvalof the plans assessed and/or during their implementation. Findings from the survey areintegrated in the final version of the SEA synthesis study together with the conclusions from theworkshop organized on April 9, 2013, in Jakarta (see chapter 1.3 below).

1.3

Workshop on SEA lessons learned

The workshop on the SEA lessons learned was held in Jakarta on April 9, 2013, as a part of theassignment. The objective of the workshop was to present and discuss lessons learned from eachkey ministry involved in ESP2 SEA activities as well as from the international consultants and themain findings of the lessons learned synthesis study. This draft version of the SEA synthesisstudy provides an overview of comments raised during the workshop and indicates how these(together with inputs received after the workshop) are taken into account in this final version ofthe report (Annex I)

1 E.g. if final decision hasn’t been adopted yet


8/126


8

The list of participants can be found in Annex II, the agenda of the workshop is provided in atable below:

Time Agenda Note

08.30 – 09.00 Registration

09.00 – 09.15 Opening Royal Danish Embassy

09.15 – 10.15 Lessons learned – KLH and Bappenas Representatives of KLHand Bappenas

10.15 – 10.45 Coffee break

10.45 – 11.45 Lessons learned – MoHA and MoPW Representatives of MoHA

and MoPW11.45 – 12.45 International consultants´ perspective International consultants

involved in ESP2 SEAactivities

12.45 – 13.00 Discussion

13.00 – 14.00 Lunch

14.00 – 14.45 SEA lessons learned study – main conclusionsand recommendations

Integra Consulting

14.45 – 15.15 Concluding discussion

15.15 – 15.30 Closing remarks Royal Danish Embassy

Integra Consulting


9/126


9

2. Main findings and conclusions

The findings and conclusions below are structured along the key aspects addressed in quality

evaluation reports for individual SEA pilots. It needs to be pointed out that not all SEA pilotspresent full scale SEA – altogether five of them were conducted as scoping exercise or rapidassessment. The following sections also reflect comments and inputs raised at the lessons learnedworkshop (see sub-chapter 1.3 above).

2.1 Link to decision-making

The primary objective of the SEA is to influence decision-making. This can happen either directlywhen SEA provides inputs that change the proposed PPP during its elaboration or when it providesinformation for formal decision-making that leads to changes in the proposed PPP during itsadoption. In recent years, it becomes increasingly acknowledged that SEA can also influencedecision-making indirectly by facilitating debates among the key stakeholders and informing theirfuture decisions on matters pertaining to implementations or future revisions of the proposed

PPP. In both cases, however, the primary review criterion is whether SEA process has influenceddecision-making and how. Actually, this aspect can be seen as the largest weakness of SEApractice in Indonesia so far. In fact none of SEA reports reviewed indicated whether and how theresults of SEA were considered in the final decision (approval of the plan).2

Obviously, the role of SEA and its decision-making focus was not always clear – in several casesSEA didn’t clearly address single document, but tried to cover a number of planning documents.Very often there was no link to decision-making – i.e. the SEA was not directly focusing on asingle planning and decision-making process to provide inputs to.

While these situations would not fit into conventional SEA practice in which the primary aim ofthe SEA is to influence one single proposed plan, programme or policy, they may still belongamong more flexible instruments opening and influencing policy-making debates that wererecently promoted by the World Bank as part of their approach to ‘policy-SEA’ or ‘institution-centred SEAs’. The key question is whether and what did the SEAs actually influence.

The information provided by many of the reviewed SEA reports is unfortunately insufficient to judge whether the undertaken SEAs actually brought any significant changes in decision-makingby either directly changing the proposed PPP or by expanding the policy-making horizons anddeliberations among the key stakeholders and decision-making actors. It appears that most SEAseither did not change anything or brought only “cosmetic” changes in the proposed PPP – e.g. byediting normative statements in the proposed PPPs. However, as it can be summarized from thesurvey among the provinces as well as discussed at the SEA lessons learned workshop, there areseveral SEA cases which led to changes in the planning document (e.g. RTRW of West SumatraProvince accepted the condition proposed by SEA “to maintain minimum 30% of area to bedeveloped as forests and open spaces” and also included – following SEA recommendation – theprogramme on development of organic agriculture. RPJMD of Bangka Belitung Province included

programme “to establish legislation programme on mining practices to control communitymining” as well as appropriate budget was allocated on monitoring and evaluation of good miningpractices). In case of SEA for RPJMD of Hulu Sungai Utara District, buppati attended the finalSEA meetings and accepted all SEA recommendations.

Some other SEAs may have brought some indirect changes to respective policy-making byexpanding knowledge of decision-making actors of risks that they need to consider in futuredecision-making. In some cases a lack of implementation of SEA conclusions is a result of slow(or non) implementation of the plan itself (as e.g. the experience with RTRW of Central Sulawesi,which integrated a number of SEA results, shows).

2 However, it needs to be noted that in many cases the SEA reports were finalized (due to the assignment´sdeadline) before the plan was finalized and thus the SEA reports could not reflect the decision-making.


10/126


10

As it can be concluded from discussions regarding the existing SEA practice in Indonesia at theprovincial and local levels, presentation of SEA results and recommendations by the SEA teamto the head of relevant agency, who has the responsibility and authority to accept (or reject) SEArecommendation in the draft planning document, can be seen as an important moment when it

can be decided about (non)acceptance of SEA results. This single event can actually influencefurther formal process, since the head of the planning agency then presents the plan (includingSEA results) to the governor or bupati/mayor, which has a mandate to adopt the final decision.As found regarding the MOHA SEA pilots, the recommendations formulated by SEA for RTRW ofJambi Province (2011) were presented at the final High Level Meeting with the Governor, andthe Governor accepted almost all the recommendations (however this was not the case for otherSEA pilots conducted by MOHA).

Whereas the ESP1 and ESP2 focused on methodologies and procedures, the ESP3 should paymuch more attention to the actual outcomes of the SEAs to further support first indications ofSEA influence on decision.

Recommendations for the ESP3:

We recommend that each and every pilot SEA supported by ESP3 should be thoroughlyevaluated by gathering information from the stakeholders concerned on the following matters:

1.

How actively was the planning authority involved in SEA process?2. What changes in the proposed PPP occurred as a result of SEA? How are these changes

being implemented in practice?3.

Why did the SEA influence decision-making or failed to do so?4. What do the key decision-making actors and affected stakeholders think of the undertaken

SEA? What have they learnt through the SEA? What elements of the SEA do they regardas the most and least useful? How would they improve the SEA in the future?

It is advisable that such evaluations are done by independent reviewers and internallydiscussed with the teams that undertook SEAs and ESP3 advisors only. The primary objective

for these reports is to be frank and therefore it may not be advisable to debate them in openforums. Their objective is to provide informal feedback to teams that undertook SEA and agreeon improvements in future processes.

2.2 SEA process design

When it comes to the linkages between planning process and SEA reviewed SEA pilots wereconducted in very various contexts regarding their position to the planning

• Ex-post i.e. after the draft plan was prepared•

Post-factum i.e. SEA was carried out for already approved and even partially implementedplans aiming at providing inputs to the next planning cycle

•

Free standing i.e. not attached to any PPP, when SEA was understood rather as planningitself

•

Ex-ante i.e. during preparation of the plan and providing inputs that support planelaboration

Despite that need for integrated approach and facilitating synergies between SEA and planningwere often invoked throughout of SEA reports (see for example the SEA for Sei Mangkei wherethe issue is extensively elaborated in theory), in fact it is difficult to find a clear evidence ofworking functional linkages between the two processes, even in cases where the SEA wasconducted as an ex-ante exercise (and thus having good opportunity to integrate with planning).The importance of properly linking SEA to the planning process can be illustrated by experiencefrom Agam, where SEA was conducted both for RPJM as well as RTRW. While in case of the RTRWthe SEA was not part of the planning process, the SEA for RPJM was integrated in the planpreparation – and as expressed by Agam representatives at the lesson learned workshop, thelatter case was easier regarding integration of SEA results in the RPJM.


11/126


11

In some observed cases, it seems that the SEA proceeded as an ex-ante more thanks to delaysexperienced by the planning process, rather than thanks to thought-out process design (see forexample SEA KSN Prambanan). In such context then SEA often did not wait for further progressof the planning and concluded with preliminary analyses and recommendations, leaving the

opportunity to comment on and influence more advanced versions of the plan to some littlespecified future SEA follow-up. On the other hand, in several cases, the SEA had been plannedwell in advance (e.g. SEA for RPJMD of Bangka Belitung Province), however even this could notguarantee that SEA process will cover entire planning and decision-making cycle.

However, progress can be seen considering the overall design and methodological approach toSEA. SEA pilots conducted in later stages of ESP2 (2011 and 2012) usually followed logical stepsand analyses to be conducted in SEA – starting from definition of the scope of assessment (i.e.a list of strategic issues), through description of existing conditions, impacts evaluation,formulation of mitigation measures and conclusions and recommendations, while in earlier casesoften such a logical sequence of tasks and analyses cannot be found or these SEAs addressedonly selected analyses (e.g. there is no clear impacts evaluation, baseline analysis is missingetc.). On the other hand it can be noted that despite applying above mentioned logical steps andanalyses in later ESP2 SEAs, the SEA processes did not fully utilize opportunities for providinginputs to the plans preparation.

The issue of linking the SEA with planning was even more complicated in SEA pilots where SEAwas not carried out directly by planning agency. It was mainly obvious in SEA pilots supportedby Bappenas – besides getting insufficient information on the planning process, the problemsalso related to data gathering and involving right persons from the planning agency (ministry).

Especially in early years (2008 – 2010) SEAs were largely carried out as a series of meetings andfocus group discussions (FDG), where SEA experts were mainly facilitating the discussions andthe entire process. Later SEA pilots include more substantial analytical inputs from the SEAexperts or we carried out almost solely by the consultants. It neither case, it is neverthelessoften not clear who is responsible for specific analyses and recommendations made.


SEA reports supported through ESP3 should clearly identify authors of the specific analysesand recommendations put forward. The authors of the relevant analyses and conclusionsshould be made accountable for their accuracy and technical soundness.

It is also important to ensure that the SEA pilots will have an opportunity to follow the planningprocess until (or even after) the final decision is made. Since very often planning processes donot run as originally planned (due to various technical as well as political reasons), it isimportant to keep future SEA pilots administratively flexible and allow extensions of theprocesses.

2.3 Scope of SEA

SEA pilots in general covered not only environmental topics, but also wider sustainable issues(e.g. energy availability, transportation, social problems). The majority of SEA pilots define thescope of assessment as a list of strategic issues/topics, which tend to be rather general (e.g.public health). The territorial dimension of likely impacts is often missing or is limited to the areawithin administrative borders of the district or province. Also, identification of vulnerable areasor localities potentially particularly affected by the PPP implementation is often not elaborated,instead a formal definition of likely influenced area is adopted and the territory in focus is treatedas more or less homogenous when analyzing the issues worth considering in the future phasesof SEA.

The scoping output (i.e. the selection of issues for further more detailed scrutiny) often fail toprovide clear justification (demonstrably based on analytical parts of SEA) and explicit verdictsas to why/for what reasons it is important to further analyze and assess impacts on particular


12/126


12

issues while others can be excluded. Notable exception is the Report on REA for ProposedDiversion of the Citanduy River, where the limited scope of assessment is clearly explained(including territorial dimension), well justified and presented.

It seems that the list of issues to be addressed in SEA stipulated by the Law on EnvironmentalProtection and Management (i.e. carrying capacity and environmental absorption capacity fordevelopment, estimation of the impact and risk on environment, performance of ecosystemservices, utilization efficiency of natural resources, levels of vulnerability and adaptive capacityto climate change, levels of resilience and the potential for biodiversity) does not providesufficient guidance for the scope of SEA. The above listed issues are often missing, or justformally mentioned in the SEA report, while the analyses are focused on differently defined topicsand issues. Several SEAs discuss the issue of carrying capacity, however without any concreteconclusions. However, this fact alone should not be seen as a failure of the involved consultants.The above listed aspects of the environmental quality are highly complex issues and any attemptto address them as defined within the respective legislation is likely to result either in formalisticapproach or in time- and resources- intensive endeavor fairly exceeding typical SEA scope.

This also poses a peculiar challenge to ESP3 program since it is the main donor instrumentsupporting uptake of SEA in Indonesia. Projects funded by Danida should comply with the nationallegal frameworks – and this is valid for SEA as well. In this regard, it can be considered that (i)all supported SEAs would be required to explain how their analyses relate to the legalrequirements of the Law on Environmental Protection and Management, or (ii) modifications ofthe SEA section of the LEPM would be initiated in order to make the legal framework betterreflecting the practical application of SEA in the county.


In case the modification of the LEPM are initiated, the amended law should ensure the flexibilityof the SEA focus and scope and rather provide provision on how to arrange the scoping stagefrom the procedural point of view including consultations with relevant authorities and otherstakeholders (possibly also including general public). The amendments of the LEMP should also

introduce requirements for clear statement regarding consideration of the SEArecommendations in decision-making to be issued by responsible decision-makinggovernmental authority.

If the first option mentioned above is chosen, it should be required for SEA processes that aresupported within the ESP3 to clearly define the key issues of concern that they focus on andexplain how they relate to carrying capacity and environmental absorption capacity fordevelopment, estimation of the impact and risk on environment, performance of ecosystemservices, utilization efficiency of natural resources, levels of vulnerability and adaptive capacityto climate change, levels of resilience and the potential for biodiversity.

This explanation can be brief and the SEA teams can later focus on the specific issues ofconcern that they identified. However, it must be clear how the issues addressed by the SEArelate to at least the most relevant concerns defined by the Law on Environmental Protection

and Management.

2.4 Baseline analysis

The baseline analysis is very often completely missing in SEA pilots conducted in 2008 – 2010 orSEA reports provide only description of situation – and in several cases for only selected strategicissues addressed in a given SEA. Obviously, elaboration of baseline analysis was driven byavailability of data or knowledge of participants attending the FDGs or meetings rather than theeffort to prepare well focused basis for evaluation of likely impacts.

However, the situation was significantly improved in 2011 – 2012, when an extensive baselinesstudies were conducted (e.g. SEAS for KSN) or include well structured description of trends andtheir drivers (e.g. SEA for PRJMD Bangka Belitung). Nevertheless, the analyses remain in most


13/126


13

cases very descriptive. The trends in time are often not identified or poorly documented, andmain drivers of environmental change and their links to the interventions prospectively proposedby the PPP are rarely explicitly acknowledged. Zero/do nothing scenario (e.g. likely furtherdevelopments without PPP implementation) is often not established or evident from the baseline

analysis. In some case the analysis of baseline trends is not always focused on key issues ofconcern identified within the SEA. Hence it may be difficult to make a link between the baselinestudies and impact assessment.

Recommendation for the ESP3:

ESP3 should encourage those undertaking SEA to prepare proper analysis of baseline trendsand focus it on each of the issues of concern.

2.5 Evaluation of impacts

The quality of impacts´ evaluation significantly differs among SEA pilots. It was carried out mainlyon qualitative basis as verbal description (qualitative and general), in some cases accompaniedby simple numerical evaluation, however the trend of gradual tendency to provide detailed andbetter substantiated description of the likely impacts can be seen. Earlier SEA pilots are veryvague in impacts, which is usually only general or this analysis is even missing in SEA. Theapproach to the impacts´ evaluation was improved in pilots conducted in 2011 – 2012, whichare more complete and use more rigorous methods and tools (e.g. spatial analyses).

Some of SEA pilots limit the evaluation of impacts on to few PPP´s components and/or to fewstrategic issues: e.g. SEA for RTRW of Jambi Province evaluates five development programs ontwo strategic issues defined in scoping.

There is obvious link between quality of impacts´ evaluation and baseline analysis: a thorough

and robust analysis of baseline, if and when conducted, provided basis for more detailed andclearer evaluation of likely impacts. However, in some cases there is a very weak link betweenbaseline analysis and impacts´ evaluation – e.g. although baseline analysis elaborated in SEA forthe RPJMD in Bangka Belitung Province can be considered as well developed, the impacts aredescribed in a very general way and the evaluation does not consider problems and driving forcesidentified in previous stage.

Recommendation for the ESP3

Since the SEA processed should ideally involve both the analytical and participatoryapproaches, ESP3 should encourage all supported SEA processes to include at least the basicanalyses – i.e. the basic spatial analyses showing relationships between environment anddevelopment, or identification and at least basic description of impacts all developmentscontained in the proposed PPP that may have significant impacts on environment.

2.6 Mitigation measures and monitoring

In general, the most of SEA pilots provide general suggestions on mitigation of likely impactswhich can be understood as “policy guidance”. Typically, the mitigation measures are not linkedto impacts identified and therefore it is difficult to determine their rationale and technicalsoundness. Mitigation measures are often described through normative statements that lacksubstance or can be easily interpreted in different ways. When reading SEA reports, we hadnumerous questions on whether the proposed mitigation measures actually help to optimizeenvironmental performance of the PPP. With few exceptions (e.g. SEA/REA for ProposedDiversion of the Citanduy River) there are also not indications of expected effectiveness or

limitations associated with proposed mitigation measures.


14/126


14

The brief description of the proposed measures and the language used in many cases indicatesthat these recommendations were not discussed with the relevant decision-making actors andstakeholders concerned and they are in fact not ready for implementation. They lack details onwho should implement them, and on how and when this should be done.

On the other hand, SEA for Sunda Strait KSN or RTRW of Jambi Provinces defined a number ofwell described mitigation measures corresponding with likely impacts, and several measures gobeyond the plan – oriented towards to other plans (RPJMD in case of SEA in Jambi Province) – or address administrative structures for management of likely impacts during the implementationof the plan (establishing KSN Sunda Strait Social Welfare Panel was suggested by the SEA forSunda Strait KSN).

Most of SEAs didn’t address monitoring – there were neither indicators, nor monitoring systemdescribed.

Recommendation for the ESP3

ESP3 should encourage all future supported SEAs to present the mitigation measures in asimple manner (as proposed further) that helps the stakeholders review and appreciateproposals put forward by SEA teams.

The required logic of mitigation measures presentation should be: identified impact ->corresponding mitigation measure proposed -> recommendation for its implementation (whoshould implement them and when) -> responses from the planning team. Suchrecommendations should be prioritized especially if more than approx. 10 mitigation measuresor changes in the PPP are proposed.

ESP3 should also encourage further SEA pilots to propose relevant indicators (in accordancewith key issues addressed and main likely impacts identify) and optimally suggestresponsibility for monitoring during the PPP implementation.

2.7 SEA report

There are significant differences between SEA repots produced by the pilots. Reports producedin earlier stages are focused mainly on documenting the SEA process i.e. record the discussionsand meetings and do not describe substance (i.e. baseline information, impacts, mitigationsmeasures), while reports from 2011 – 2012 usually follow logical steps of SEA and provide overallinformation. However, in many cases the methodology is not described or only very generally.Considerable lack of link between the SEAs and planning processes is illustrated by the fact thatnone of the reports provide overview on if and how the recommendations were integrated in thedraft/final plan.

The SEA reports vary significantly in terms of structure and overall reader-friendliness. Certaindocumentations suffer from lack of logical linkages between individual sections and from frequentreplication of whole paragraphs in different chapters of the report (e.g. SEA SEI Mangkei).Sometimes the apparent lack of proof-reading leaves whole sections of the English versiondocuments unintelligible (e.g. SEA for RPJMD of Hulu Sungai Utara District).

Also, SEA reports lacked more detailed description of stakeholders’ participation and especiallydocumentation of the conclusions from the consultations and how these were considered in theSEA.

A description of the SEA team authoring the report including contact details is not regularlypresented (with few exceptions, e.g. Rapid Environmental Assessment for Proposed Diversion ofthe Citanduy River, Pacangsanak). Experience of MOHA (as found out during preparation of the

SEA synthesis study) indicates that SEA reports drafted by SEA consultants were usually of abetter quality compared to the situation when the responsibility for writing the SEA report hadbeen assigned to the local government SEA team.


15/126


15


SEA reports produced within the ESP3 should clearly present information generated within the

SEA process in a publicly accountable and defensible manner. In order to test whether the SEAreports meet that objective, ESP3 secretariat is advised to always send few copies of the SEAreports to several randomly selected stakeholders that followed the SEA process or areinterested in it. These stakeholders should be asked for feedback on the following shortquestions that test whether the SEA report: accurately presents the SEA process covers all key issues addressed in the SEA presents findings and recommendations in a clear and easy-to-use manner.

2.8 Stakeholders´ participation

Although in a number of cases the SEA was conducted almost entirely through FGDs andmeetings, the SEA pilots did not involve broader range of stakeholders (especially NGOs andcommunity representatives) and were limited to governmental officials. The JATAM NGO waspartially involved in SEA for RPJM Bangka Belitung (the pre-scoping consultation was conductedand JATAM participated at the final workshop) as well as few NGOs attended the meetingsorganized within SEA on Coal Mining Sector. Representatives of WWF actively participated in theSEA for RTRW of Jambi Province (MOHA, 2011) and were directly instrumental in one of therecommendations accepted by the Governor, i.e. to integrate the Road Map of SumateraEcosystem into the provincial spatial plan.

None of SEA pilots provided a room for public consultations and SEA reports were only publishedat the ESP2 website (advanced drafts or final versions) – it seems that only within SEA for KSNSunda Strain the scoping report as well as the draft SEA report were published on the ESP2 web

site together with contact emails and opened for comments. This SEA case also enhanced thegood practice and efficiency of consultations by distributing the presentations as well asbackground documents were distributed to invited participants in advance before formalmeetings.

Very often, the SEA reports fail to document details on participation, format and outputs ofactivities conducted to facilitate stakeholders´ participation.

Obviously, a feedback to the invited stakeholders was rarely provided i.e. no information wasavailable if and how the comments raised were integrated in the SEA and/or the plan assessed.


Each SEA report should include annexes that present all key stakeholder consultations

organized within the SEA process. Documentation on these meetings can be brief but shouldalways include meeting aims, agenda, participants, and main conclusions reached at the event.

SEA Reports should be made visibly available for public comments on the websites of therelevant planning or decision-making authorities.


16/126


16

3. Final Remarks and Recommendations

3.1 General remarks on SEA in Indonesia

Based on evaluation of SEA pilots, some positive progress of SEA system development due toESP programs can be seen in Indonesia. Whereas initial SEA approach relied largely on ad hocapproach and very theoretical deliberations on possible impacts of the proposed PPPs, later SEApilots tend to apply a structured SEA approach that includes many of the main steps and stages.Consequently analyses are more detailed and better focused on the key problems. Few SEAs alsodemonstrated focused and rigorous stakeholder consultations.

On the other hand, it can be noted that the full potential of SEA has not been explored – a visibleinfluence of SEA on the relevant PPPs in terms of avoiding or mitigating potential adverse impactson environment and public health is very rare. This fact is caused by several main factors

• Lack of analytical work and substantiation of SEA results (with several exceptionspresented e.g. by SEA for Sunda Strait Spatial Plan, SEA for Pandang Bay City

Development, SEA for Lake Maninjau Management in Agam District), conclusions andrecommendations: Without proper analysis of problems, environmental and health trendsrelevant to the PPP assessed, impacts evaluation has to remain only on general andqualitative basis – and thus it also leads to only generally formulated recommendationstowards PPP.

• Limited stakeholders’ involvement and participation: Although the most of SEAs wereconducted through a series of meetings and debates, many SEA processes didn’t involvebroader range of stakeholders (especially NGOs and community representatives) and werelimited only to governmental officials. In some cases the participants involved were notthe key persons fully capable to present the view of the respective agency. Also, the formatof public involvement events – typically a loosely structured discussion – is often notsufficient for facilitation of serious substantial input to the SEA.

• Lack of communication with the decision-makers: Even if some SEAs were presented tothe decision-makers at the end of the process (e.g. SEA for Hulu Sungai Utara), it seemsthat involvement of decision-makers during the process was very low and thus there wasusually no opportunity to facilitate integration of any significant suggestions to beintegrated in the plan assessed. Actually, none of SEA pilots had a chance to follow theplanning process until its approval and thus there was no opportunity to provide inputsdirectly in the decision-making.

• Lack of communication with the planners: A number of SEA pilots were conducted onlyafter the PPP was drafted (ex-post) or even approved (“post-factum”), there was in manycases simply no opportunity to communicate with planners.

There is a risk that if SEAs are performed with no effects to the PPP assessed (and thus don’tlead to improved protection of environmental resources and human health), such approach willafter certain period create a distrust among community in this tool and SEA will be seen as onlyformal exercise with no real benefits (or even worse as way to legitimate strategic decisions with

likely significant adverse environmental and health impacts).

3.2 Recommendation for future SEA practice

• Clearly link SEA to particular planning and decision-making process – only sucharrangement allows that results and conclusions from SEA can be considered in the PPP and/orits approval, and thus it can fulfill a primary role of SEA i.e. to provide inputs into planningand decision-making process. Each specific SEA should at the beginning of the assessmentclearly define its position in relation to planning i.e. which planning process the assessmentfollows, what type of the decision-making is at the end of the process, what will be theprocedure of the PPP implementation etc.

•

Communicate with planning agency – SEA is supposed to provide inputs in the PPP andits preparation. To achieve this, an intensive communication between SEA team and planningagency teams is essential. If suggestions and conclusions from SEA are not properly


17/126


17

communicated, then these might be disregarded by planners. Mutual communication shouldoptimally start at the beginning of SEA and continue throughout entire process. If possible,an informal written statement can be prepared by the planning agency in cooperation withthe SEA team stipulating mechanism and tools of communication as well as how results of

SEA are going to be considered both in the planning process as well as in the decision-making.This statement can be attached to the SEA report, which would enable to monitor how thecommitments accepted initially are fulfilled. In reality, many of SEA pilots were conducted asan “ex-post” exercise (i.e. for already drafted PPP). However, even this approach might bebeneficial under certain circumstances – there still can be a chance that suggestions raisedby SEA will be integrated when making the final modification of the PPP or these will beadopted by decision-maker. In order to increase chances for integrating SEA results inimplementation of the current PPP (or possibly in future planning) an intensive communicationwith planners and decision-makers is essential – since there is no formal guarantee that SEAconclusions will be practically used once the PPP is drafted, very probably these will be usedonly if seen as useful by planners and decision-makers and meeting their needs. If SEA isimplemented in an “ex-ante” way (i.e. in parallel with planning process) it is important toproperly analyse steps and stages of the planning process at the beginning of SEA. This shouldbe optimally done together by SEA and planning teams. The experience from MOHA SEA pilotsshows that involving members of the planning team into the SEA team is beneficial in termsof increased understanding of the planning process and the content of the plan as well asproviding a room for integrating SEA recommendations in the plan.

• Present SEA results to the key decision-makers: As it can be concluded from discussions

regarding the existing SEA practice in Indonesia at the provincial and local levels, presentationof SEA results and recommendations by the SEA team to the head of relevant agency, whohas the responsibility and authority to accept (or reject) SEA recommendations in the draftplanning document, can be seen as an important moment when it can be decided about(non)acceptance of SEA results. This single event can actually influence further formalprocess, since the head of the planning agency then presents the plan (including SEA results)to the Governor or Bupati/Mayor, which has a mandate to adopt the final decision. Thereforeit can be recommended to organize high profile meeting when the SEA report is drafted and

present the key SEA recommendations and suggestions towards the plan to the head ofplanning agency and/or to Governor or Bupati/Mayor to achieve his endorsement of SEAresults.

• Find appropriate balance between analytical work and consultations – SEA shouldn’t

be perceived as only consultations process (as widely applied in Indonesia). Even ifstakeholders´ consultation and participation present an important and inseparable part of theSEA process, SEA also has to include certain analytical work, which is supposed to beperformed by SEA team and thus providing a background for discussions with stakeholders.Without knowledge of the baseline trends likely future trends cannot be estimated which inturn does not allow proper impacts analysis – such approach leads to only very formal andnormative conclusions and mitigation measures. As it was mentioned at the lessons learnedworkshop, the “quick appraisal” approach widely applied at the local level from the nationalbudget can be seen as insufficient (as e.g. experience of West Sumatera Province from

supporting three districts/cities to undertaking SEA indicates).

• Substantiate all findings and conclusions – Impacts´ evaluation as well as all suggestions

made by SEA have to be substantiated by appropriate data and information, supported byexamples, references, illustrated by graphic aids (maps, graphs) etc. which need to bedescribed in the SEA report. Otherwise the planning agency and other stakeholders might bereluctant to consider evaluation and suggestions provided by SEA, since they might notunderstand on what base these have been made.

• Open SEA process (in certain steps) for public scrutiny – a number of SEAs conductedso far in Indonesia invited for consultations mainly governmental agencies – ministries,departments within provincial government, municipal governments etc. This is a veryimportant target group and it needs to be involved indeed (as well as non-governmental

sector). However, there should be opportunities within the SEA process when all interestedstakeholders can express their view on the PPP and relevant likely impacts. Generally, it canbe recommended to open the SEA process for public, NGOs and all other interested


18/126


18

stakeholders in two stages: (i) in scoping, when defining issues to be addressed by SEA, mainenvironmental and health problems to be solved etc., and (ii) when draft SEA report is ready.

•

Provide feedback to stakeholders involved and document consultations – SEA should(optimally in the SEA report) summarize all comments and conclusions from the consultationprocess and indicate which have been integrated (and how) in the SEA and / or the PPPassessed and which have been refused (and why). This overview serves as a source ofverification that SEA dealt with comments and suggestions made by stakeholders involved. Iffeedback on stakeholders´ inputs is not provided it can lead to loss of confidence in specificSEA case and in longer-term perspective it might result in low credibility of SEA as such.

• Pay attention to well defined ToR for SEA – There is a broad variety of PPPs, which differsin many aspects: level of planning, territory covered, stages and analysis usually performedwithin preparation of the PPP, focus and substance of PPP, stakeholders involved etc. Asalready previously mentioned, each SEA – to be efficient – should carefully take into accounta context which it is to be conducted in. Ensuring this requires planning of SEA process beforeit starts. It can be done by the planning agency assigning the SEA; it can be done also by theSEA team once established. The conclusions can be summarized in a form of the ToR, whichusually serves to define details of a specific SEA process to be conducted – its time-schedule,budget, expertise needed, stages and links to the planning process, analysis to be performed,key stakeholders to be involved etc.

• Informal consultations: Besides the workshops and focused group discussions it is highlyrecommended to conduct additional meetings with selected stakeholders and partners (as itwas done with JATAM within SEA for RPJMD Bangka Belitung). These meetings can serve forvarious purposes – e.g. in the pre-scoping and scoping stage might help to receive data andinformation to be used in baseline analysis (e.g. from KLH regarding biodiversity or waterquality, universities, Ministry of Forestry data on forestry etc.), later in the process usually itis necessary to discuss in detail impacts´ evaluation and mitigation measures with relevantinstitutions and NGOs etc.

• Enhancing internal logic of the assessment: Work with results from scoping and baseline

analysis when evaluating the impacts – this is actually the main task of the impacts evaluationi.e. to estimate how the trends (and specific problems, concerns and drivers) can be affectedby the PPP implementation. Unfortunately none of SEAs provided this information.

• Deal with monitoring: It can be recommended suggesting the key indicators (1 – 2) foreach strategic environmental issue, which would follow the main impacts identified – thesecould be used (i) directly during the PPP implementation, and/or (ii) as a basis fordetermination of relevant indicators at the project level. Introducing at least simple monitoringschemes would provide a basis for future SEAs and enabling better analysis of likely evolutionof the environment.

• SEA reports: Following issues may be considered in next SEA reports:o

It would be useful to have more detailed information on the relevant stakeholders´identification and selection e.g. what criteria were used, whether certain stakeholders wereexcluded from the participation etc.

o To add to the table summarizing main comments received during consultation a columnbriefly indicating how these comments have been considered in the SEA and/or the PPP.

o

It can be recommended to mention also key conclusions from SEA and mainrecommendations towards the PPP in the executive summary (since it is supposed to bethe main – and in some cases only – part of the document, which will be read by the topdecision-makers).

o Providing information on the composition of the expert team who carried out SEA anddrafted the report i.e. team leader as well as all experts involved in the assessment (oftenthe SEA reports only indicate the governmental agency and/or consulting company).

o

Clearly indicate which version of the planning document is considered in the SEA report

and all evaluation (i.e. if SEA covered the final version or worked with the draft etc.).


19/126


19

• Internal SEA management: It can be recommended having more clear managementstructure with well arrange chain of command for each SEA process – with defined SEA coreteam i.e. leading expert (responsible for overall coordination, communication withgovernmental authorities, integrating inputs from other experts in the reports, drafting

reports etc.) ad several (3 – 6) key experts selected along the strategic issues to be addressedin a given SEA. This core team would be conducting all analytical works which would be thenconsulted within wider environmental working group and the planning team.

• Clearly defined role of KLH: In order to avoid overlaps in SEA activities, it would be optimal

to clearly define responsibilities of each key ministry involved in SEA activities so far (i.e. KLH,MOHA, Bappenas and MOPW). Considering the current operation of entire SEA system inIndonesia as well as its possible further evolution, following role can be suggested for KLH:o Managing and updating the legal frameworko Providing methodological support and advices (this should be demand-driven and focused

especially on sectoral ministries and non-governmental sector)o

Conducting quality assurance reviews for the most important SEAs (if requested byplanning agency, community or NGOs) and provide an expert opinion on quality ofparticular SEA

o

Operating SEA information system (see below) i.e. ensuring technical management ofnecessary IT system as well as maintaining the database and coordinating inputs into it

o Becoming a national focal point for communication with international SEA community (e.g.IAIA)

3.3 Further recommendations for ESP3

In addition to recommendations provided in chapter 2, following points can be mentioned to beconsidered in the ESP3 design:

• Focusing support only to SEA pilots: The overall SEA system can be considered as

established in Indonesia – there is a legal framework, key ministries have developed themethodological documents, and a number of local governments already have experience withSEA. Therefore the main focus should generally be aimed at enhancing the SEA practice.Indonesian SEA system can be seen in a transition period – from initial stage with only SEAcases conducted within various donors´ activities to functioning scheme where SEA isconsidered as a standard tool. Considering this, it can be recommended that also ESP3 SEAactivities should solely support practical application of SEA, which shall be in line withinternational good practice.

• Careful selection of SEA pilots to be supported: As concluded in chapter 2, a number of

SEA pilots within ESP2 were conducted in a context, which did not enable to influence planningand decision-making (as this should be seen the main role of SEA). It is also important toclearly assign responsibility of conducting SEA directly to the planning agency (e.g. sectoral

ministries developing national policies should be coordinating SEA). Therefore a specialattention needs to be given to selection of right cases. Following criteria should be considered:o Stage of planning enabling conducting SEA in parallel with planning: The SEA needs

to be planned well in advance before the actual planning process starts to properlyintegrate SEA into planning.

o

Commitment of the planning agency to work with SEA inputs: Only thosegovernmental agencies (ministries, provinces, districts) which will demonstrate itsreadiness to work with SEA inputs shall be supported by ESP3. It can be done in aform of a written agreement between Danida and respective governmental agencystipulating mechanism and tools of communication as well as how results of SEA aregoing to be considered both in the planning process as well as in the decision-making.The commitment should also include indication of providing additional funding fromthe local budget to support involvement of the local experts.

o

Willingness of the planning agency to open the SEA pilot to wider stakeholders:

Proper consultations with all relevant stakeholders are essential part of SEA.Experience from ESP2 shows that in the many cases the consultations were limited


20/126


20

to only governmental officials, and wider public was not involved. Therefore beforeproviding the support from ESP3, the scope of consultations shall be agreed.

The above mentioned general points can be turned into more detailed evaluation questions,

which however still need to be focused on planning process and openness of planning agencyfor integrating of SEA results and consultations. Should there be a need for more detailedinformation on the key environmental and social problems in the respective area or sectorand the appropriate SEA approach, the ESP3 might consider supporting initial brief analysis(pre-scoping) which then would provide a basis for selecting cases for full SEA application.

To our knowledge, the ESP3 support to SEA should be demand driven and thus thegovernmental agencies should therefore be asked to address the points above in theirapplication (including also a description of the planning process). The selection can be donein two steps:

o Step 1 would be “pre-selection” based only on applications,

o

Step 2 would require a meeting with representatives of respective governmentalagency (optimally high profile officials) in order to discuss and agreed on the optimalarrangement of the SEA process.

When selecting the SEA pilots for RPJPD/RPJMD at the provincials/districts/municipalitieslevel, the ESP3 should carry out consultations with the MOHA´s Directorate General ofRegional Development to obtain the Regent/Mayor General Election Schedule. Since theRPJMD has to be completed in three months and legalized in six months respectively after thegovernor/regent/mayor is inaugurated. This information will help to identify which localgovernments are in the position to conduct SEA in parallel with planning process. Similarly,there should be communication with MOPW regarding the RTRWs.

• Promoting basic principles of SEA good practice: Obviously, there is still a room forfurther improvement of coordination among the national authorities involved in SEA i.e. KLH,MOHA, Bappenas and MOPW as well as national and international consultants regardingapproaches to SEA. Although it can be understandable given a fact that SEA practice is still

evolving in Indonesia, on the other hand such situation might potentially lead to confusionespecially at the district and municipal levels – what is role of SEA, which approach should befollowed etc. Therefore is can be recommended that SEA pilots supported within ESP3 wouldbe strongly encouraged to follow basic principles of SEA good practice as they are describedin section 3.2 above.

• Integrating any capacity building activities in SEA pilots: Obviously, as experience ofprovinces providing support to districts and municipalities in conducting SEAs at the local levelindicate (e.g. from West Sumatera, South-East Sulawesi), there is a huge demand for furthertraining on practical SEA application. Therefore this should not be organized as stand-aloneactivity, but only as a part of SEA pilots. It means that “observers” (i.e. trainees) should beinvited to the workshops to be normally conducted within the SEA process to see the practice.After workshop, the training session can be carried out, explaining wider context and provingnecessary theoretical background as well as illustrating other possible approaches on real case

examples. Such training events should invite both technical experts as well as - in case ofSEAs of RTRW – representatives of BKPRD (Regional Coordinating Board for Spatial Plan) andBKPRN (National Coordinating Board for Spatial Plan) since these represent important actorsin the approving process. For SEAs of RPJPD/RPJMD the representatives of the local legislativeboard as the approving body should be invited.

Improve sub-contracting: SEA-related tasks within the ESP3 should be sub-contracted onlyto experts who can demonstrate clear analytical and writing skills as well as goodunderstanding of the planning processes and decision-making mechanisms. It is highlyrecommended that candidates interested in EPS3 assignments on SEA pilots are required tosubmit examples of their previous analytical work as part of their application process. Shouldthe tenders be opened for SEA pilots, it can be considered to invite proposals which wouldinclude both international and national experts as one team. This should lead to more efficient

cooperation between both counterparts compared to ESP2 approach, when the nationalexperts were responsible for conducting SEA, while international consultants were assignedto “only” provide inputs (which may be or may be not accepted). Suggested scheme for ESP3


21/126


21

would mean same level of responsibility for the final result and should also be easier in termsof management and coordination from Danida´s side. In addition, duration of sub-contractsshould enable sufficient timeline for SEA process to follow the planning and decision-makingprocess until the approval of the PPP. Thus, the SEA teams and experts would be able to

provide assistance to planners and decision-makers to integrate SEA recommendations intofinal drafts of PPPs as well as into the final decision. Such arrangement might require multi-year sub-contracts.


22/126


22

4. Annex I: Overview of comments from the workshop on SEAlessons learned

PARTICIPANT COMMENT/INPUT CONSIDERATION IN LESSONS LEARNED STUDY

Ibu Meta (Bappedaof Agam)

She gave appreciation to Bangda and ESP 2 facil itation in SEAfor the Lake Maninjau. Based on their experience doing thisSEA, they undertook SEA for RTRW and RPJM on their own(budget & human resources). SEA for RTRW was not part ofthe planning process of RTRW (ex-ante). It was difficult to

integrate SEA results into RTRW. SEA for RPJM was part ofthe planning process. It was easier to integrate SEA resultsinto RPJM. Suggestion: there should be a regulation requiringthat SEA should be undertaken in a specific planning process.

Information on Bappeda´s experience was added insection 2.2

Ibu Siti Aisyah(Bappeda of WestSumatra)

a.

The first point is the same as that of Agam (see No. 1)presented differently.

b. Provincial government of West Sumatra has assistedthree districts/cities undertake SEA but their preferencehas been “quick appraisal” which is insufficient.

Paragraph on “quick appraisal” was added in section3.2

Pak Irhasy Ahmady(WALHI)

a. He does not see KLH’s strong role in making SEA work. b. He questions why non-government stakeholders are

not given significant role in significant role in the SEAprocess.

c. What could SEA contribute to MP3EI that has alreadybeen approved?

Point regarding the role of KLH was added to section3.2.

The importance of non-governmental stakeholders ismentioned both in sections 2.8 and 3.2.

SEA for MP3EI was not supported in ESP2, thereforethis case was not analysed.

Ibu Titin Masfetrin

(Bapedalda of KotaPadang)

a. The fact that international and national consultants

have different approaches to SEA application madeconfusion among local SEA team members.Suggestion: make agreement first before coming tolocal government.

b. Local governments should given sufficient knowledgeand skills to do SEA. Tour of duty among officials takesplace frequently. Sometimes, officials move to a newposition more than once in a year. Suggestion: Bangdashould undertake SEA socialization sessions for localgovernment on an annual and continuous basis.

Point regarding better coordination regarding SEA

approach was added in section 3.3.

The importance of integrating capacity buildingactivities in SEA pilots supported in ESP3 ismentioned in section 3.3


23/126


23

c. SEA recommendations often are not considered aspriority by decision makers in the process of annualbudgeting and programming. Suggestion: Bangdashould prepare regulation requiring local government toreport on the implementation of SEA recommendations.

Ibu Meta (Bappedaof Agam)

KLH recently release a regulation on construction of finalgarbage/waste disposal destination (TPA). The planning ofboth RTRW and TPA is always contracted out to a third partyconsulting firm. Consulting firms do not have SEA capacity.They need to be given sufficient knowledge and skills in SEA.Also there should clear formal guidance/regulation on how todo SEA. But formal regulation is often neglected, notenforced.

The importance of integrating capacity buildingactivities in SEA pilots supported in ESP3 and thuslinking the training to SEA practice is mentioned insection 3.3

Bappeda of South-East of Sulawesi

He shared his experience in undertaking SEA of Kedari Bay,as follows:

Kendari Bay is cross-sectoral and cross-territorial There have been ample data collected by different

studies Bappeda did not have sufficient human resources

(capacity) But a number of local university lecturers already

learned SEA in two-day SEA sessions by Pak Chay – not enough

Bapped therefore invited Pak Chay and one otherperson to be a resource persons

Lesson: through facilitated SEA process, participantscould learn a lot. As an example, they found out thatsedimentation was actually caused by infrastructuredevelopment activities rather than by practices in the

wider upland catchment areas

Experience of the province was added in section 3.3 aswell as the importance of integrating capacity buildingactivities in SEA pilots supported in ESP3 was stressedout in section 3.3.

MOHA SEA must not be solely standing exercise – must be linked tothe PPP

Dissemination and facilitation of knowledge must be done inlayers, not individually for each of hundreds of districts andprovinces – they must learn horizontally from each other.

Proper linking SEA to the planning process ismentioned in section 2.2

The importance of linking training with real SEAapplication in SEA pilots supported in ESP3 wasstressed out in section 3.3.


24/126


24

META Spatial plans prepared by third parties

It is good to invite local parliaments – they are more receptiveand willing to cooperate, than local governments.

Need for guidelines for consultants

Mitigation measures should not be normative, must bespecific

Importance of linking mitigation measures to impactsidentified is mentioned in section 2.6

Ibu WahyuIndraningsih (KLH)

In response to issues raised by participants:

She expects that the study will produce a synthesisclassified per issue. This will be used for reinforcingpolicies and strategies of SEA application, in particularthe draft PP on SEA that should be enacted by the endof this year.

The process of developing mutualunderstanding/agreement on SEA should continue.

There has been SEA guidance for RTRW and RPJM.There have not been enough guidance on SEA for otherPPPs (sectoral).

Documentation is important but not yet sufficient. Toknow whether a plan has been developed through anSEA process or not is largely a matter ofdocumentation.

Monitoring – not enough has been done Communicating SEA to other stakeholders in an

effective manner is an important factor There is need for a mechanism to ensure integration of

SEA recommendations into plans.

The findings of the lessons learned study arestructured along the key quality aspects (chapter 2).

Arie Djoekardi(national SEAconsultant; planner)

a.

SEA should be positioned as part of the process offormulating of public policy, do not be caught indiscussing the detailed processes of SEA.

b. SEA must use language understandable to theplanners, the aim should not be to make people tolearn understand SEA but for SEA consultants to learnprocesses of spatial planning and formulatesuggestions in the language of planners and to find aplace where SAE can fit within the planning process!

The lessons learned study addressed both aspects – linking SEA to the planning and decision-makingprocesses as well as analyses to be undertaken – since both these aspects are equally important.

Communication between planning and SEA processes(i.e. between planning and SEA teams) is stressedout by the study as one of the key factors of efficientSEA resulting in integrating SEA results in the plan.


25/126


25

c. Agree with the notion to focus on capacity building. Butnational consultants should be a priority in capacitybuilding under ESP 3, so that they do not causeconfusion among local governments.

d.

Regarding recommendation to ESP3 "SEA-related taskswithin the ESP3 should be sub-contracted only toexperts who can demonstrate clear analytical andwriting skills", I suggest to be added with the followingwords "and good understanding about the associatedregulation and the process, procedure, mechanism andinstitutionalization of formulating and stipulating thePPP in question"

The most significant lack of SEA understanding andskills for SEA practical application can be found at thelocal level, therefore the lessons learned studysuggests integrating training in SEA pilots.

Suggested text was modified and added to the pointin section 3.3

Ibu Inge (KLH) a. Do not focus on the technicalities of SEA but please seeSEA as a tool that could be used in the formulation ofpublic policies. SEA is to improve accountability. It is aprocess for mutual learning and learning together, toimprove wisdom together.

b. Responsibility to undertake SEA should be the initiatorsof PPPs themselves.

c. SEA promotes accountability

Not specific suggestion.

Pak Edison(Bangda)

Next year there will be some 168 local government preparingRPJM. What can ESP 3 do to assist them and us?

The importance of linking training with real SEAapplication in SEA pilots supported in ESP3 wasstressed out in section 3.3. We consider this approachas the most efficient way of capacity building.

Pak Chay Asdak(nationalconsultant)

a. It was mentioned that there has not been a mechanismfor integrating SEA recommendations into plans. Whatis your recommendation?

b. Beside RTRW and RPJM/P, who will provide regardingSEAs for other PPPs? Such PPP as MP3EI?

c. Constraint to capacity development is that participantsto SEA processes change

d.

National consultants – please note Pak Arie’s input(that national consultants should receive priority incapacity development)

Proper linking SEA to the planning process as well aswell-substantiated proposals (by analyses, literatureetc.) significantly increase the chance that SEArecommendations will be accepted by planners andintegrated in the plan. Both these aspects are stressout in the lessons learned study.

Ensuring that SEA is conducted is primarilyresponsibility of the governmental agency preparingthe plan.

Changes of governmental staff positions is indeed aproblem for long-term capacity building, however themost probably possibilities how to affect this issue gobeyond ESP3 mandate.


26/126


26

Comments and inputs raised at the workshop (as wellas those received in written form are summarized inthis table).

Pak Kabul Sarwoto(nationalconsultant)

The critical point in SEA is decision making by governor andbupati/mayor. No matter how good the SEA is, if the resultsare not adopted it is useless. Suggestion: MOHA should enacta regulation requiring governor an bupati/mayor to acceptSEA results

Link to Decision Making: We recommend that the integrationof the SEA result into the PPP be strengthened in ESP-3 bystrengthening the capacity of the institutions reviewing the

PPP before being legalized, i.e.:

The Draft RTRW/D (Regional Spatial Plan) is to bereviewed by Badan Koordinasi Penataan RuangDaerah – BKPRD ( Regional Coordinating Board forSpatial Plan) and Badan Koordinasi Penataan RuangNasional – BKPRN ( National Coordinating Board forSpatial Plan). So, the capacity of those institutionsneed to be strengthened to make sure that the “real”SEA has been integrated into the Spatial Plan, not justa SEA for “administrative” requirement purposes.This need is due to the heavy political considerationby a considerable number of Heads ofKabupaten/Kota to prioritize economic considerationmore than the environmental consideration.

Also the Provincial and Ministry of Home Affairsreviewers on the RPJP/D and RPJM/D (Regional Long-term and Medium-term Development Plans) need tobe strengthened in their capacity to understandwhether a well prepared SEA has been incorporatedin the development plans, before passing theDevelopment Plan for being legalized. Thesereviewers need to know the well prepared SEA, not just the existence of a SEA as “administrative”requirement fulfillment.

The requirement for Public Access to the SEA processresults should be legalized in the GovernmentRegulation, so that the public can also control how farthe SEA results have been integrated into the PPP. Inthe public consultation on the draft PPP, it should also

The importance of governor/bupati adoption of SEAresults is reflected in section 2.1. and new point wasadded in section 3.2. However, the decision on(non)accepting the SEA results should still be the right(and responsibility) of governor or bupati.

The importance of linking training with real SEAapplication in SEA pilots supported in ESP3 wasstressed out in section 3.3. Involvement of BKPRDand BKPRN members added in section 3.3.

The importance of involving public in SEA processesis mentioned both in sections 2.8 and 3.2.


27/126


27

be explained which SEA recommendations have beenincorporated in the PPP.

Further Recommendations for ESP-3 – Careful selection ofSEA pilots to be supported: The report has been providing thisrequirement, I just would like to add more detail informationto make sure that the stage of planning will enable to conductSEA in parallel with planning. ESP-3 should consult theDirectorate General of Regional Development (Ditjen.Bangda) of MoHA, to obtain the Regent/Mayor GeneralElection Schedule. After the Regent/Mayor is inaugurated thedraft RPJM/D (Regional Mid-term Development Plan) has tobe completed in 3 months and legalized in 6 months. Ditjen.Bangda will also be able to inform which RTRW/D (RegionalSpatial Plans) are going to be prepared/reviewed/revised. Theinformation from Ditjen. Bangda will be valuable in knowingwhich local governments are in the position to conduct SEA inparallel with process.

The point regarding communication with MOHA andconsidering the schedule of elections was added insection 3.3.

Ibu Tri DewiVirgiyanti(Bappenas)

With regard to lack of analytical work, stakeholderparticipation, etc., in the case of SEA in Bappenas under ESP2, Bappenas is not the proponent of PPP. The sectoralministries are. Bappenas is introducing SEA and developingcapacity in both Bappenas and sectoral ministries. Under ESP3, the proponent will do the SEA. Bappenas will take the leadrole in doing SEA for RPJMN, while relevant sectoral ministrieswill take the lead in doing SEA for sectoral plans that needSEA.

The point added in section 2.2 as well as sentenceadded in section 3.3.

Ibu Eva Rantung(BLHD of Central

Sulawesi)

Their Spatial plan allegedly integrated SEA recommendations– but is not approved – three years in limbo...

Information added in section 2.1.


28/126


28

5. Annex II: The list of participants at theworkshop on SEA lessons learned

No NAMA INSTITUSI

1 Dr. Kabul Sarwoto YIPD

2 Nizhar Marizi Secretariat of Working Connectivity Team for MP3EI

3 Imelda Sinaga Secretariat of Working Connectivity Team for MP3EI

4 Chay Asdak, Ph.DExpert on Drafting of Implementing Rules for KLHS-

MP3EI/University of Padjadjaran Bandung

5 Atih Rohaeti DariahExpert on Drafting of Implementing Rules for KLHS-

MP3EI

6 Arie D. Djoekardi Ex-KLH (Consultant)

7 Rudy P. Tambunan Research Center of Applied Geography, UI

8 Irhasy Ahmady WALHI

9 Ilah Ladamay BAPPEDA Sulawesi Tenggara

10 Dani Mitraplan Consultant

11 Riki Handriana BAPPEDA Banten


29/126


29

12 M. Khairun Anwar, S.Sos, M.Si BLH Kabupaten Kubu Raya

13 Titin Masfetrin KLHS Kota Padang (Pasca Gempa)

14 Yuneli Meta, S.Pt, MT, M.Sc BAPPEDA Agam District

15 Meilinda, ST, M.Si Environmental Management Agency

16 Ir. Siti Aisyah, M.Si Environmental Management Agency

17 Fahmi DjauhariSEA of RPJMD from Hulu Sungai Utara, South

Kalimantan

18 Sri Jamriatul KhairohSEA of RPJMD from Hulu Sungai Utara, South

Kalimantan

19 Ir. H. Adi Yani, MH BAPPEDA of West Kalimantan

20 Bustami Secretary of BLH Kubu Raya District

21 M. Apriji BLH Banjarbaru

22 Amruddin Ado Bangda, MoHA

23 Peter Oksen ESP 3

24 Devina F. Anasruron Danish Embassy


30/126


30

25 Louise Grenier ESP 3

26 Farida S Sucofindo

27 Ratni Bappeda Central Sulawesi

28 Mappatoba Andi Bappeda Central Sulawesi

29 Tri Dewi Virgiyanti Bappenas

30 Tim Mac Hansen Danish Embassy

31 Hesti D. Nawangsidi ITB

32 Adi Wiyana Consultant to MoHA

33 Dwi Nurcahyadi SEA Consultant to MoHA

34 Trine Bargsteen Danish Embassy

35 Bobbi SchijfNetherlands Commission for Environmental

Assessment

36 Inge Retnowati MoE

37 Josh Van Berkel DHI


31/126


31

38 Kim Harboe Independent

39 Edison Siagian MoHA

40 Reny Windyawati MoPW

41 Anastasia Widya K MoPW

42 Wahyu Indraningsih MoE

43 Eva BLHD of Central Sulawesi

44 Ina Susiana BAPPEDA Banten

45 Irfan Kurniawan BAPPEDA Banten

46 Hayati Sari Hsb Sucofindo

47 Monica Kappiantari ESP 3

48 Ida Lestari ESP 3

49 Martin Smutny Consultant, Integra Consulting

50 Michal Musil Consultant, Integra Consulting


32/126


32


33/126


33

6. Annex III: Quality assurance report forSEA pilots

6.1 SEA of Medium Term Development Plan of Kubu Raya (RPJMD)

Name of pilot SEA in Medium Term Development Plan of Kubu Raya(RPJMD)

Responsible authority MOHA

Year of implementation 2009

National consultants involved Yes

International consultantsinv

ESP3 SEA Synthesis Study April 2013 Final Report ENG Rev0

Documents