**1. Introduction**

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is a relatively recent environmental process, having made its debut roughly 30 years ago in countries such as the USA and Canada, and international organizations, such as the World Bank, with the objective of transitioning from the "polluter pays" principle to that of prevention [1]. It is, in essence, a process that aims to incorporate the environmental aspect both prior to and during the designing of policies, plans, and programs (PPPs). This integration produces environmentally sound strategies, with a resultant increase in the certainty that any projects and operations which will subsequently be adopted, as well as any other form of general environmental intervention, will not be harmful [2].

SEA requires an exact process, and a defined arrangement of procedures. This process was gradually integrated in a number of states. In Europe, SEA procedures were comprehensively debated and adopted by the European Parliament and Council in July 2001, with Directive 2001/42/EC (SEA Directive). This directive was transposed significantly later into Hellenic environmental law, in August 2006, with the Joint Ministerial Decision MEPPPW/SES/10717/28.08.2006 (SEA JMD), which was later amended by the Ministerial Decision 40238/2017. Furthermore, the required procedures include the description of the current status of the environment, the examination of alternatives, the identification, description, and evaluation of any significant environmental effects, the integration of the results of the environmental assessment and public consultation into the plan or program under approval. and finally, the monitoring of any future impacts stemming from their implementation.

The aforementioned series of procedures is carried out through the use of various methods and techniques. However, international literature finds confusion between the terms methods and techniques, as many researchers and authors consider them synonymous. Typical examples of this are the Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Both Noble and Storey [3] and Therivel [4] agree that GIS are used for the collection, management, classification, and presentation of data, however, the first authors classify them into methods, while Therivel classifies them into techniques.

Many of these methods and techniques, over 350, are cited in international literature, according to Lee [5]. In particular, certain simple methods and techniques, which do not require specialized equipment and quantitative records, have been documented, an example of such being expert judgment. On the other hand, there are methods and techniques which provide adequate levels of accuracy in their results, through the use of specialized software and quantitative records, such as GIS, while those which utilize matrices for the documentation and evaluation of impacts are also quite widespread. However, the terms "methods" and "techniques" are often conflated, with many practitioners and authors considering them to be synonymous. Their differentiation is down to the fact that techniques provide data, while by contrast, methods relate to the identification and description of possible impacts, as well as the compilation and classification of data [3].

Despite the fact that individual SEA methodologies are provided by the existing legislative frameworks, including a number of activities, there are no universal methods and techniques adhered to by all participating parties. In general terms, SEA methods were drawn from those utilized in both Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) surveys, and in policy and planning analysis methods. The ambiguity surrounding SEA, according to Noble et al. [6], which is due exactly to its "strategic" nature, is often the cause of confusion among the responsible competent institutions and practitioners regarding the selection of the most appropriate methods and techniques for each individual situation; this results in only a limited number ultimately being utilized. Furthermore, individual methods and techniques are utilized on a greater scale and at more steps of SEA.

In Greece, SEA processes have been implemented in the preparation of a number of plans and programs following the transposal of the SEA Directive. Zagorianakos [7], by conducting an ex-ante appraisal of the implementation of SEA Directive, came to the conclusion that a series of methodological, institutional, political, and legislative problems in Greece make the implementation of the SEA Directive rather problematic. Subsequently, the evaluation of the degree of application of some key features of the SEA during the transport planning process in the Athens Olympics in 2004 demonstrated that the methodological and procedural flexibility of the SEA is the key to its implementation in countries wherein the environmental assessment of strategic actions is either absent or underdeveloped [8]. However, no surveys or studies have been carried out as of yet in order to systematize the existing experience and practice from the development of methods and techniques during SEA processes.

The present study discusses the research and analysis of the methods and techniques applied during the SEA process. This analysis is not carried out independently, however; firstly, a correlation is made between the methods and techniques, and the existing experience and practice, both in Greece and abroad. Furthermore, a comparative assessment of the international and Greek experience is carried out in order to discern similarities and differences regarding the adoption and utilization of the methods and techniques.

#### **2. Background**

SEA procedures have been widely adopted worldwide, without this necessarily meaning that we are leading to a convergence as regards the legislative framework or the means used between states, due to the variety of legal, cultural, and institutional contexts. Based on the existing literature, the present section seeks to provide insight into SEA identity, institutional framework and its application on a global level, bringing the European experience into focus, and followed by a brief analysis of the position of SEA in the Hellenic Environmental Law. Consequently, an overview of the SEA methodological approach is attempted, and the most frequent methods and techniques used in the relevant procedures are identified and systematized.

#### *2.1. Identity and International Institutional SEA Framework*

Numerous definitions have been offered in international literature for SEA, by researchers who have studied both its theory and practice. The most comprehensive of these was formulated by Partidario [9] (p. 19), according to whom, "SEA is a systematic, on-going process for evaluating, at the earliest appropriate stage of publicly accountable decision-making, the environmental quality, and consequences, of alternative visions and development intentions incorporated in policy, planning, or programme initiatives, ensuring full integration of relevant biophysical, economic, social and political considerations". Essentially, SEA is utilized at the international level in order to assess environmental impacts during planning, at a higher level than that of the project in question, i.e., during the preparation and enactment of PPPs with the objective of integrating the aspect of sustainable development at an early stage of planning.

The widespread adoption of SEA procedures, which have been included in the legal framework of roughly 60 states, directly correlates with the increased understanding of the relationship between development and the environment [10]. It was initially connected with the expansion of procedures and practices utilized within the context of EIA projects at higher levels of decision-making [11], while, primarily in recent years, gradual efforts have been made for the reinforcement of its "strategic" approach [12].

The primary attributes of SEA, according to Sadler and Verheem [13] are:


In 1969, the USA was the first state to enact legislation incorporating EIA procedures through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The NEPA also includes provisions for the assessment of environmental impacts at the strategic or extra-project level, a procedure titled Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) [1]. At the UN level, the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe ratified the SEA Protocol, within the framework of the Fifth Ministerial Conference "Environment for Europe", which was held in Kiev, Ukraine, in May 2003. The protocol came into effect on 21 July 2010, and has been ratified by the EU and 32 other nations [14].

On the other hand, in the European Union (EU), the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) was the Directive that required the assessment of potential environmental impacts before the approval of the implementation of the plan or project on Natura 2000 sites [15]. However, there was no comprehensive legislative framework to incorporate the environmental aspect at the PPP level until 2001. The first institutionalized assessments of environmental impacts pertained to the project level were through Directives 85/337/EEC and 97/11/EC (EIA Directives). The European Commission submitted three reports (in 1993, 1997, and 2003) to the European Parliament regarding their implementation and effectiveness. The common conclusion of all three of these reports was that, despite the significant progress which had been achieved by the member states regarding their implementation, high-level environmental protection remained a desideratum.

It thus became apparent that, in order to achieve effective, high-level environmental protection over time, the environmental aspect needed to be integrated into the higher levels of decision making, which established the framework for subsequent permits regarding the execution of projects, i.e., at the level of strategic planning of policies, drafting, and programming [16]. However, the lack of a comprehensive institutional SEA framework provided an incentive for certain member states to adopt such systems in the 1980s and 1990s [4]. Regardless, the utilization of a variety of different procedures demonstrated the need for adoption of a comprehensive institutional SEA framework at the EU level, leading to the submission of a preliminary proposal for discussion by the European Commission in 1990 [17]. The publication of the official proposal from the European Commission was submitted in December 1996, and it became the subject of in-depth debate. It was ultimately adopted in July 2001 as Directive 2001/42/EC. Table 1 presents the SEA steps and outputs, according to Thérivel [4].


**Table 1.** Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) steps and outputs [4].

Several authors have conducted research on the SEAs legislative framework, its application and effectiveness in areas such as urban planning in Italy and in Spain [18–26]. Specifically, Spain has incorporated the SEA Directive through the Law 9/2006, which was later replaced by the Law 21/2013, and more recently by the Law 9/2018. The latest was a medium to drive significant changes that have been made to the SEA processes in order to ensure the protection of Natura 2000 sites [18]. It is

important to highlight the specific differentiation of the authority that is responsible for developing and adopting the plan or program and the relevant authority that is responsible for assessing the environmental impacts of the proposed plan or program [26].

In the case of Italy, the SEA Directive was incorporated into Italian law by national decree 152/2006, and amended in 2008 and 2010. The distinctive characteristic of the Italian system is the regional diversification of SEA procedures due to the legal provisions varying between regions [26]. However, due to the inadequacy of existing legislation, the regional legislative framework has only complied with the minimum requirements of the European directive, along with the Italian national decree [19]. Notwithstanding this shortcoming, SEA has gradually introduced concepts such as carrying capacity and resilience at the planning stage. Simultaneously, it is also leading to progress of public consultation and decision makers' accountability [25].

In summary, the SEA legislative framework constitutes a perpetually developing process worldwide, with the objective of environmental assessment, evaluation, and management of the environmental impacts of human activity. This development does not necessarily result in the convergence and integration of SEA procedures between states. The differing approaches, which have been and continue to be developed, are due to the divergent, among others, legal, political, cultural, and institutional frameworks of each state. Chacker et al. [27], after comparing the implementation of SEA in 12 selected countries, discovered, despite the noted variety in procedures, the existence of significant similarities:


#### *2.2. SEA in Hellenic Environmental Law*

Before the transposal of the SEA Directive, there were no official procedures in place in Hellenic environmental law for the implementation of SEA procedures during the preparation of plans and programs [28]. The evaluation of environmental impacts was limited to the assessment of projects and activities through EIA. The absence of environmental protection provisions at the initial planning stages was characteristic in the case of plans or programs of a strategic nature, such as the construction of the Egnatia Motorway. However, in the relevant Hellenic literature, certain projects of wide scope and extent have been documented, which incorporated procedures similar to SEA in the drafting of the corresponding EIA reports [28,29]. One such notable example was the EIA report on the installations put into place for the Athens Olympics in 2004.

However, despite the existence of this specific legal gap, and the explicit wording of the SEA Directive that "Member states shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this directive before 21 July 2004" (Article 13, L197/34), it was transposed into Hellenic law two years after the deadline (no. MEPPPW/SES/107017/28.08.2006 JMD and its amendment with MD 40238/2017). The competent authority for the supervision, evaluation, processing, and approval of the preliminary environmental screening and environmental report (SEIA) of the SEA is the Directorate of Environmental Licensing. This authority belongs to the Ministry of the Environment and Energy. The SEA is defined, according to this Joint Ministerial Decision, as the procedure for assessment of the environmental impacts of a plan or program, which includes:


It is worth noting at this point that there is a clear differentiation between the SEA JMD and the corresponding SEA Directive. The SEA JMD namely consists of 11 articles and 4 annexes, whereas the SEA Directive consists of 15 articles and 2 annexes, and it is a transposition of the Directive into the measures and particularities of Greek reality. Moreover, in the SEA JMD, we can highlight that:


#### *2.3. SEA Methodological Approach*

According to Partidario [30], a model is considered strategic when it includes a visualization of long-term goals, flexibility in the management of complex systems, ability to adapt to dynamic environments and conditions, and focus on the crucial elements. SEA exhibits a strategic approach when the definition of the long-term goals, the adoption of courses of action and the application of the necessary resources have all been assured [31]. Within the framework of its "strategic" nature, SEA must, by necessity, ensure that the strategic actions do not exceed the boundaries, beyond which the impacts will cause irreparable damage to the environment [4]. Therefore, when the SEA decisions and procedures are adhered to at a higher level, their reassessment at lower levels is rendered unnecessary, resulting in conservation of time and resources [4]. The strategic programming framework is demonstrated in Figure 1.

**Figure 1.** Basic strategic planning model ([32], following [33–35]).

An overview of the bibliography reveals that there is no common reception in the SEA approach. Over the years, various researchers and organizations have suggested SEA types, on the basis of the spatial design and the objective of the evaluation (regional and sectoral policy—[36]), the role played by SEA in the protection of environmental matters during the decision-making process (marginal, compliance, constructive—[37]), the means by which SEA is connected to or interacts with policy-making or planning procedures (single opportunity, parallel, integrated, decision centered—[30]) or based on a general SEA typology (formal, near-equivalent, para-SEA, [38]). In Figure 2, we have decided to present the approach formulated by Noble and Nwanekezie [39], due on the one hand to it being less complex, centered on the fundamental principles of SEA, while on the other reflecting the most recent scientific thought on the means by which SEA will improve strategic decision-making.

**Figure 2.** Impact assessment-based and strategic-based conceptualization of SEA [39].

According to the authors, SEA can function within a wide strategic scope, to either a lesser or greater extent. In the former case, SEA is based on predetermined procedures, correspondent to those rooted in EIA. Notable examples are the SEA outlined in European Directive 2001/42/EC and The Canadian CEAA Directive [38]. By contrast, in the latter case, during SEA processes, the focus of the evaluation is centered on the issue. The incentive is to locate the appropriate PPP or a suitable alternative strategy, which will provide a resolution to the issue, with the objective of achieving the intended PPP goals [40].
