See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/341380208

Advances in Implementing Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)

Techniques in Central America and the Caribbean

Article in Sustainability · May 2020

DOI: 10.3390/su12104039

CITATIONS READS

4 1,678

4 authors:

Javier Rodrigo-Ilarri María Elena Rodrigo-Clavero

Universitat Politècnica de València Universitat Politècnica de València
130 PUBLICATIONS 216 CITATIONS 55 PUBLICATIONS 50 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Lidibert González-González Cassiraga Eduardo

4 PUBLICATIONS 4 CITATIONS
Universitat Politècnica de València
59 PUBLICATIONS 609 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

PhD Thesis View project

Strategic Environmental Assessment View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Javier Rodrigo-Ilarri on 14 May 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Article

Advances in Implementing Strategic Environmental

Assessment (SEA) Techniques in Central America
and the Caribbean
Javier Rodrigo-Ilarri *, Lidibert González-González,
María-Elena Rodrigo-Clavero and Eduardo Cassiraga
Instituto de Ingeniería del Agua y del Medio Ambiente, Universitat Politècnica de València (IIAMA-UPV),
46022 Valencia, Spain; lidibert_g@hotmail.com (L.G.-G.); marodcla@upv.es (M.-E.R.-C.); efc@dihma.upv.es (E.C.)
* Correspondence: jrodrigo@upv.es

Received: 9 April 2020; Accepted: 9 May 2020; Published: 14 May 2020

Abstract: The use of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) systems is essential to ensure the
sustainability of plans, programs and policies. This works shows, for the first time in the scientific
literature, a joint vision of the current situation of SEA systems in Costa Rica, El Salvador,
Guatemala, Panama and the Dominican Republic. The analysis has been performed using data
collected from an exhaustive review of the pre-existing literature and specific information obtained
from personal interviews carried out during the SEA forum held in Bogotá in 2018. Legal
mechanisms in the Central American and Caribbean region reveal that specific regulation is not
necessary to apply and develop SEA systems. Little experience in SEA development in the region is
evidenced in the absence of SEA methodologies adapted to the different contexts of policies, plans,
programs and governance circumstances. SEA results’ dissemination procedures have been
performed only in El Salvador and Costa Rica. Besides, results show that no monitoring mechanisms
for the programs implemented under SEA processes have been applied to date. To ensure the future
development of SEA processes in the region under sustainable criteria, it is essential to ensure the
support of decision makers so that plans and policies can be properly adapted.

Keywords: strategic environmental assessment; legislation; development; capacities

1. Introduction
Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is described as an ‘assessment of the likely
environmental effects of policies, plans and programmes [1]. SEA intends to shift policies, plans and
programmes toward sustainable results [2], and is considered a solid support for informed decision
making with a view towards sustainability [3–5]. SEA is a process designed to ensure that significant
environmental effects arising from proposed plans and programmes are identified, assessed,
subjected to public participation, taken into account by decision-makers and monitored. SEA set the
framework for the future assessment of the development projects, some of which require
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). SEA is therefore a set of logical steps which structure the
preparation of plans and programmes. They involve building on and developing the practices that
already accompany the process of planning by deepening the analysis and formalizing the results in
an autonomous report [6].
Performing SEA involves answering a number of basic analytical questions: What is the nature,
magnitude and evolution of the problem? What should be the objectives pursued? What are the main
options for reaching these objectives? What are the likely economic, social and environmental impacts

Sustainability 2020, 12, 4039; doi:10.3390/su12104039 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 4039 2 of 17

of those options? What are the advantages and disadvantages of the main options? Last but not least,
how could future monitoring and evaluation be organized?
SEA analyses do not need to involve a long and detailed study in every case, but they should
allow for an informed debate in all cases. Stakeholder consultation and expertise collection can run
throughout the process. Consequently, the key analytical steps in impact assessment are:
1. Identify the problem;
2. Define the objectives;
3. Develop main actions;
4. Analyze their impacts;
5. Compare the options;
6. Outline monitoring and evaluation.
The role of SEA is dictated by how and where it fits into the decision-making process. SEA can
fulfil two broad roles. Firstly, it can appraise the performance of plans or programmes that have
already been created, or secondly, one can recognize the fact that SEA is a systematic process that can
develop, assess, amend, implement, monitor and review a PPP. This distinction will depend upon
the nature of the decision-making process and the communication between different actors related
to both the PPP process and the SEA procedure.
Only certain plans and programmes are subject to the SEA Directive, although SEA is a useful
process to aid decision-making for a plan maker whether or not it is statutorily required. However,
the SEA Directive potentially has a large scope and may cover a wide range of plans and programmes.
It will almost certainly cover land use plans and programmes and those produced in eight different
sectors, from transport to energy to agriculture. The relationship between SEA and EIA is illustrated
in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Relations between strategic environmental assessment (SEA) and environmental impact
assessment (EIA).

Figure 1 shows the hierarchical relationship between different tiers of assessment, with higher
levels of assessment informing subsequent ones. Although this is clearly a simplification of reality,
the vertical relationship between assessment stages is important in SEA. Figure 1 also summarizes
the legislative requirements for assessment at different stages of the process. There is no legal
requirement for an SEA of high-level policies. SEA should inform subsequent assessment tiers, and
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4039 3 of 17

to do this effectively it must take account of information needs and delivery mechanisms. SEA helps
with the preparation of EIA but does not remove the need for it. SEA provides many benefits and it
ensures that a wider range of alternative options are examined at an early stage in the decision-
making process, and in so doing, overcomes some of the shortcomings of project-level EIA.
According to [3], linking planning activities to the process that involves a SEA is fundamental
for an environmental assessment to be successful. This interconnection marks a clear difference with
the environmental impact assessment, whose processes do not need to be completely scheduled [7].
Managing a SEA along with planning tasks allows environmental criteria to be incorporated, such as
impacts, risks and opportunities, in early decision-making stages [8] which, in turn, allows individual
projects to be set up within a broader sustainability framework [5]. SEA supports strategic decisions
to be completed with an environmental impact assessment, in which case, a more detailed analysis
with a more limited scope is applied [9]. Ref. [10] considers that “the increased use of SEA is not a
substitute for environmental impact assessment, but more of an up-front supplement that can ensure
long-term benefits for the environment, intergenerational equity as regards natural resources, and
can finally lead to sustainable development.”

2. Scope and Objectives

SEA systems have been applied since the 1980s in the Low Countries, Denmark and the UK [11].
It was at that time that the term SEA was formally introduced and became popular [12]. The SEA
practice stood out in the 1990s and the first decade of the 21st century [4,12]. In 2011, there were 60
countries with an SEA system, of which only Canada and the USA corresponded to the American
continent [4].

General Context of Strategic Environmental Assessment in Latin America

In Latin America, performing an SEA has been reviewed by several authors in countries like
Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Mexico and Peru [13–16], and they revealed a marked heterogeneity
in the levels of SEA-related legal and practical advances [14,16]. The diversity of the legal component
among these countries varies with general laws, like those found in Bolivia, Chile and Peru. The law
in Peru was amended by a Decree-Law, or by a law with a city scope application, as in Mexico for the
Mexican Federal District, or laws for a specific plan, as in Colombia, which passed its “2003–2006
National Development Plan” which, in turn, was passed by Law No. 812 of 2013 [14]. However, there
is either a general lack of national legal framework, or simply there is no legislative framework, as in
Brazil, which possesses an application for provinces, specifically for those of Bahía, Minas Gerais and
São Paulo [16,17].
The experience in Latin America shows that the existence of legal components does not
guarantee that the implementation of the SEA leads to integrating sustainability criteria into the
instruments evaluated, whether they are policies or plans. Such is the case of Peru and Brazil, the
latter specifically in the province of São Paulo. In Peru, the developed SEAs respond to the demands
of bilateral agreements between sectors and development agencies, despite having legal guidelines,
this being the result of the non-mandatory preparation of SEAs, until before 2016 [16]. Ministerial
resolution 175–2016 approves the criteria and mechanisms for the implementation of SEA,
contemplating the mandatory nature of the SEA, the procedures and responsibilities of both the
promoter and the environmental authority, and the scope levels, among other considerations [18].
In the province of São Paulo (Brazil), SEAs are executed in order to meet financing requirements.
The absence of institutional and procedural frameworks limits the proper development of
evaluations. This bottleneck in the advancement of the SEA results from the lack of political support
to make the execution of the SEA’s mandatory [19]. The first SEA was carried out on the Rodoanel
road infrastructure program [17]. The results of the authorities’ assessment were conducted with the
criteria used for an EIA. This SEA was approved despite showing omissions such as the analysis of
alternatives, the assessment of cumulative impacts and weaknesses in the response to the results of
public participation, this being a consequence of the lack of guidelines for SEA assessment procedures
[17] and the lack of SEA competencies of the technical evaluators. The practice levels in Brazil are
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4039 4 of 17

limited to sectoral programmes such as the one mentioned and long-term projects. Regarding
experience, the literature indicates the existence of few cases of SEAs, mainly in tourism, energy and
infrastructure programmes [19].
However, Chile shows substantial improvements in its SEA system. In 2010, SEAs were
conceived as based on EIAs. They focused on formal aspects and the final product was based on the
application of a checklist of legal aspects, while ignoring the basic concepts of an SEA. In 2015,
guidance guides were promoted and they were first applied to the National Spatial Planning policy
(2017). These guides establish the SEA process in stages, and they have the support of senior
management, which can provide training that has transformed the existing process into a strategic
thinking model [15].
The adoption of SEA processes has been marked by processes that have slowed them down in
their different stages. This situation is no different for countries in Central America and the Caribbean,
with irrefutable differences in the way SEAs are applied to those that exist in the aforementioned
Latin American countries. From the mid-20th century, many efforts have been made in Central
America to formalize environmental assessment instruments, among which the creation of the
following stands out: the Organization of Central American States in 1951, the Central American
Commission for the Environment and Development in 1991, the Central American Integration
System in 1991 [20,21], as well as other agreements and action plans. The summary of all these actions
is shown in Table 1 [20,21].

Table 1. Background of actions taken in the Central American region.

Proposers Country Date Proposed Agreement
The San Salvador Charter document was
Meeting for Foreign Secretaries El
1951 signed, which gave way to the Organization of
from Central America Salvador
Central American States
El The Central American Commission for the
Summit of Presidents 1989
Salvador Environment and Development was created
The Tegucigalpa Protocol was signed, which
9th Encounter of Central
Honduras 1991 gave way to the Central American Integration
American presidents
System that formally came into being in 1993.
Promote environmental impact assessments in
Forum of ministers from
Central America and the Caribbean. This
Central America and the Cuba 1995
agreement was reinforced in Buenos Aires in
Caribbean
1996.
Permanent Environmental
Committee of the Latin The United Nations Environment Programme
- 1995
American Parliament prepared a model law on SEA
(Parlatino)
Regional agreement about environmental
Presidents of Central American impacts on human activities. This document
- 1996
countries was not signed and no new version has
appeared to date.
They signed the ‘Agreement to reinforce
Ministries of the Environment
2002 environmental impact assessment systems in
and Natural Resources
Central America’

The mission for forming the Central American Commission for the Environment and
Development was to develop a regional regime of cooperation and environmental integration that
contributes to improve the life quality of the populations in its Member States [22]. These Member
States are grouped in the Central American Integration System, which was initially created by Costa
Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama. Belize joined in 2000, as did the
Dominican Republic in 2013 [23].
In 2002, the Central American Commission for the Environment and Development
acknowledged that a tool with a more holistic focus than an EIA was necessary, and it contemplated
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4039 5 of 17

two strategic large-scale assessment instruments: accumulated effects assessments and SEA. The
differences between both lie in the first being used to assess regional impacts, and the second to assess
policies, plans and programmes and territorial environmental ordering. The development of
reference manuals for these instruments to assess impacts was also proposed [20].
Nowadays, the Central American Commission for the Environment and Development works
with the 2015–2020 “Regional Environmental Framework Strategy”, whose objective is to promote a
region’s environmental integration toward the socio-economic development of its people by
investing efforts and empowering available resources [22].
Given the growing interest shown by regional authorities in using SEA techniques, this paper
presents for the first time the joint view of the situation of SEA systems in the Central American and
Caribbean countries. In the current scientific literature, information regarding the use of SEA
procedures has been only identified for some South American countries, but there has been no
compilation of the processes carried out by governmental institutions in the Central American and
Caribbean region to dare. Consequently, this paper also intends to bridge the information gap
observed in the acceptance and implementation of SEA techniques used in this region. Discussion
lies in the common points that appear in the success or failure of using SEAs. SEA characteristics in
this region and the most relevant information gaps are herein presented. The conclusion centers on
highlighting the common points, virtues and challenges of SEA systems, and the proposals made for
taking necessary and immediate implementation actions in this region.

3. Materials and Methods

This research work aims to learn the details of applying SEAs to Central American and the
Caribbean region. The countries to be evaluated were initially the Central American Integration
System member states: Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama
and the Dominican Republic [23]. Finally, Belize, Honduras and Nicaragua were withdrawn due to
a complete lack of information.
Field data and specific information were obtained during the forum “Exchange of experiences
with countries of the Central American region on Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)” held
in Bogotá between 23rd–26th July 2018, hosted by the Ministry of the Environment and Sustainable
Development of Colombia (Minambiente) and sponsored by the Presidential Cooperation Agency
(APC-Colombia). The objective of this forum was to share and exchange experiences in
environmental assessment matters between member countries of the Central American Commission
for Environment and Development (CCAD). The forum was an exchange workshop on the
Colombian experience in the appropriation of the use of Strategic Environmental Assessments,
Strategic Environmental and Social Assessments and Regional Strategic Environmental Assessments,
in order to obtain and disseminate new knowledge and skills within a framework of international
technical cooperation and long-term mutual support.
This forum was part of the activities of the Mesoamerica Project, which promotes expanding and
improving capacities and making effective the implementation of specific projects for societies in the
field of infrastructure, interconnectivity and social development in Belize, Colombia, Costa Rica, El
Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama and the Dominican Republic.
The method applied to collect the information consisted of individual consultations regarding
each of the representatives of the assessed countries. This activity was carried out during the forum
development. Every official of the governmental institutions represented in the forum was
approached, conducting a personal interview using a common questionnaire. In addition, an
extensive literature review was carried out, which confirmed the information gap on SEA systems
for the countries under analysis.
Therefore, the research methodology was done following two steps: (i) fieldwork and (ii)
collection of existing data. More details about these two steps are given below.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4039 6 of 17

3.1. Fieldwork
Data were collected from face-to-face interviews and surveys given to government officials of
the five countries of the Central American and Caribbean region. The surveys included both open
and exploratory questions. The respondents were the people in charge of managing the processes
related to the SEA within the ministries and/or governmental agencies. The selection of the
respondents–interviewees was based on the fact that they are the ones who have complete knowledge
of the functioning of the SEA systems and, therefore, are able to provide reliable information. The
institutions and posts of those surveyed in each country are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. List of institutions and civil servants of the processed surveys.

Country Institution Post of the Surveyed Person
National Technical Environmental Head of the of the Strategic Environmental
Costa Rica
Secretary Assessment Dep.
Ministry of the Environment and Specialist in Strategic Environmental
El Salvador
Natural Resources Assessment
Ministry of the Environment and
Guatemala Environmental Consultant
Natural Resources
Panama Ministry of the Environment Environmental Policy Manager
Dominican Ministry of the Environment and Planning Management-Environmental
Republic Natural Resources Regulations and Research Dep.

Surveys and interviews were held on 27th–28th July 2018 and were forwarded by email. The
distributed questionnaire included eleven questions about both the legal–institutional component
and the methodological component. Of the eleven questions about the methodological component,
the last six of them were not answered in the majority of cases as they were related to stages of the
SEA study that are yet to be implemented (e.g., analyzing alternatives, determining uncertainties, the
costs of conducting SEA studies, etc.). The full set of questions included in the survey is shown in
Table 3.

Table 3. SEA Survey. Full set of questions.

Legal-Institutional Component Methodological Component
1. What is needed to implement SEA in your Ministry of 1. Has your Ministry of Environment an official
Environment? methodology with which all SEAs must be governed?
2. In what types of policies, plans and programmes do you 2. What is the name of the methodology used by your
have experience applying SEA? Ministry?
3. Is it mandatory under your legislation to apply the SEA
3. Indicate which types of criteria and formats are required.
to all policies, plans and programmes?
4. Which criteria apply to identify which policy, plan or 4. Which procedures are used to evaluate SEAs from the
program require SEA? environmental governing body perspective?
5. When a certain SEA is satisfactory for your Ministry, 5. Which phase of SEA is considered to be the most
which type of permit or license is issued? important to achieve the objectives of the alternatives?
6. According to the legislation, who is in charge of 6. How is evaluated the environmental and sustainability
carrying out the SEA: the Ministry or the owner of the contributions of each alternative with respect to the
plan or policy? objectives?
7. Which is the internal structure of your Ministry to 7. How are the selection criteria of the optimal alternative
support the SEA elaboration process? established?
8. Do you consider that the methods of evaluating current
8. What is the economic cost of applying a SEA?
alternatives lead to optimal results? Why?
9. Who does the SEA Department or its equivalent inside 9. If you had to focus the selection of alternatives, would
your Ministry depend on? you focus on risks or on uncertainties? Why?
10. Does the Ministry require private consultants to 10. If you needed to formulate an alternative, what basic
provide some type of certification to prepare SEAs? characteristics should not be missing in this one?
11. Based on the progress that the SEA has had, what point
11. What are those requirements or procedures to be
or phase or procedure do you consider to be the Achilles’
certified consultants by the Ministry?
heel of the SEA?
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4039 7 of 17

Responses were supplemented by the data collected with the documents provided by each
country during the forum “Exchange of experiences with countries of the Central American region
on Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)” aforementioned. Later, surveys were sent to civil
servants to confirm the collected data.

3.2. Collection of Existing Data

Step 2 consisted of revising the state-of-the-art of the scientific papers published about SEA
applications in the Central American Integration System countries. The search criterion was to search
for the term “Strategic Environmental Assessment” and include the country’s name at the end.
Findings were limited to: (i) the 2012 World Bank document entitled “The Strategic Environmental
Assessment in the World Bank” (specifically Chapter 7, on the Latin America and the Caribbean
region) and (ii) the 2018 publication by the UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the
Caribbean (where Chapter IV is about the use of SEA as a strategic management instrument by 18
countries). Other documents obtained from the websites of governmental and regional institutions
were also used.
The description of how the SEA systems operate in each country was made according to the
following characteristics: (i) existence of legislation and regulations; (ii) performance responsibilities
in the SEA system; (iii) the sectors in which developments are underway; (iv) existence of a
methodology, authorizations or approval criteria of SEA studies; and (v) local professional capacities.

4. Results
Results have been obtained first in terms of the institutional and legal framework characteristics
and the procedures followed by the environmental organizations in charge. Secondly, the application
of the SEA is analysed in terms of their operating capacity and procedures.

4.1. Legal Framework

In the studied Central American and Caribbean region countries, environmental by-laws date
back to the 1990s, except for Guatemala, whose environmental law was passed in 1986. Initially, the
environmental legislation of Guatemala and Panama did not contemplate SEAs as an environmental
management instrument. These legislations have been amended so they can adapt components to the
international commitments that each country makes and include some aspects required by the
scientific advances made in these areas.
In Costa Rica, Executive Decree No. 31849-MINAE-S-MOPT-MAG-MEIC was passed, being this
the General Regulation about environmental impact assessment procedures. Point 37 (Art. 3) defines
the concept of SEA management. Chapter VII (Art. 62 to 67) sets out very precise outlines about a
specific operational process.
El Salvador has an organized legal framework, which denotes the maturity of the system. The
legal instrument is its Environmental Law, passed on 2nd March 1998 with Decree No. 233. (Art. 5),
which defines SEA as an environmental assessment instrument to be used as part of an
environmental assessment system (Art. 16). Article 17 specifies the responsibilities and general
actions to be taken as regards this instrument.
El Salvador also possesses specific legislation about SEA, through its General Regulation on the
Natural Environment, which was published on 21st March 2000. Articles 14, 15, 16 and 17 define
environmental authorities’ functions, the obligations of those featured in the document in relation
with environmental assessments. Article 16 provides details of the SEA reports’ contents. Article 17
refers to the ways of presenting and passing reports. Apart from this regulation, the operational
process of SEA making is addressed by the procedures included in these documents: issuing
guidelines and evaluating SEA reports (EAM-EIA-PR-01) and supervising to ensure that the setout
SEA recommendations are met (EAM-EAE-PR-02), both of which are dated 18th January 2017.
Among all the countries studied, Guatemala and Panama are the only ones that did not consider
SEA when their legal environmental instrument was enacted. Guatemala has had an environmental
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4039 8 of 17

law since 28th November 1986, published under Decree 68–86. Moreover, Governmental Agreement
No. 137 of 11th July 2016 publishes environmental assessment, control and follow-up (RECSA). Its
Article 29 defines and depicts the responsibilities of the governing body and of those who promote
the documents to be assessed. The environmental law of Panama (known as Law 41–98) dates back
to 1st July 1998, and has been considered the first legislation about SEA because its Article 5 regulates
the Environmental Law by means of the Executive Decree No. 4 of 1st February 2017. All this means
that El Salvador is the country in the study area that has most widely integrated the SEA system into
its legislation.
The environmental legislation of the Dominican Republic came into force on 18th August 2000
with the General Environmental Law (64–00). Article 16 point 27 defines the concept of SEA as an
instrument in the environmental assessment process according to Article 38. Article 39 confers this
law to be of specific application, and also assigns the respective operational responsibilities to carry
out the operational process. Article 39 also regulates the creation of SEA guidelines to perform the
SEA process. A draft has been available since November 2018, but it is still pending.
Details of the legal instruments and articles that promote the application of SEA techniques in
each country are shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Environmental laws and regulations.

Country Legal Instrument Date SEA Articles Regulation
Executive Decree 31849- 28th General Regulation on
Art. 3.37
Costa Rica MINAE-S-MOPT-MAG- June environmental impact assessment
Arts 62–70
MEIC 2004 procedures
2nd General Regulation of Environmental
Environmental Law
El Salvador March Art. 17 Law 21st March 2000. Art. 14, 15, 16,
(Decree No. 233)
1998 17.
Law on protecting and Regulation on the evaluation, control
28th
improving the natural It does not and environmental follow-up
Guatemala Nov
environment, Decree No. include SEA (RECSA). Governmental agreement
1986
68–86 No. 137-2016, 11th July 2016. Art. 29
SEA not
General Environmental 1st July
Panama included in
Law. Law 41–98 1998
legislation (1)
18th
Dominican General Environmental Art. 16.27,
Aug Guidelines being reviewed
Republic Law. Law 64–00 16.38–39
2000
Note: This assessment is considered in Executive Degree No. 4 of 1st February 2017, which regulates
Art. 5 of the Environmental Law.

All these environmental laws, as part of the execution and responsibility mandates of the SEA,
as well as the authorizations that the governing environmental organization must issue after revising
the SEA documentation, present high heterogeneity. Performing SEA is considered compulsory in El
Salvador and the Dominican Republic, while Costa Rica expects SEA to be only applied to territorial
planning, as regulated by Decree 32967, which supplements the aforementioned Decree 31849. Unlike
the aforementioned countries, this Decree is voluntary in Panama. In Guatemala, the mandatory
nature of the process is not indicated.
The legislations of El Salvador, Panama, Guatemala and the Dominican Republic explicitly
indicate that the responsibility for making SEAs is assigned to those featured in the instrument to be
evaluated. This fact is not explicitly indicated in the legislation of Costa Rica.
Table 5 summarizes these legal and institutional components.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4039 9 of 17

Table 5. Summary of legal/institutional components.

Integration of SEA in the Legislation
Executive Decree No. 31849-MINAE-S-MOPT-MAG-MEIC. SEA matters appear in Art. 3,
point 37 and in Chapter 7 (Art. 62–70). However, from the practical point of view, only one
Costa Rica
exercise known as SEA is regulated for territorial planning, with no regulation in force to
apply policies, plans and programmes.
Art. 17 of the Environmental Law, and in Arts. 14, 15, 16 and 17 of the General Regulation of
El Salvador
the Environmental Law
Law on protecting and improving the natural environment,
Decree No. 68–86. SEA is considered in the Regulation on the assessment, control and
Guatemala
environmental follow-up (RECSA). Governmental agreement No. 137-2016, dated 11th July
2016. Art. 29.
Law 41 of 1st July 1998 (General Environmental Law, Rep. of Panama) “It includes the reforms
Panama passed by laws: 18 of 2003; 44 of 2006; 65 of 2010 and 8 of 2015. Thus, SEA is established as an
environmental management instrument in the Rep. of Panama in Title II, Chap. 1, Art. 5.
Dominican
Yes, in Law 64–00 and its articles 16, 38 and 39.
Rep.
Existence of Regulations and/or Guidelines
Costa Rica They do not exist
El Salvador There possess guidelines
Guatemala Only RECSA, but no guidelines exist
Regulation on the Environmental Impact Assessment process (in 2009), which includes: “Title
Panama
XII: Strategic Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes”.
Dominican
A draft of guidelines exists, but has not yet been published
Rep.
Compulsory Nature of SEA
Costa Rica Only for territorial planning
El Salvador Compulsory
Guatemala Not indicated
Panama Voluntary
Dominican
Compulsory
Rep.
Responsibility of Executing SEA
Costa Rica Not defined
El Salvador The person/organization featured on the instrument to be assessed
Guatemala The person/organization featured on the instrument to be assessed
Panama The person/organization featured on the instrument to be assessed
Dominican
The person/organization featured on the instrument to be assessed
Rep.
Permits Issued after Assessing the Document
Costa Rica Not defined
El Salvador Resolution is issued to pass the report
Guatemala Not defined
Panama No license type is issued
Dominican
Not defined
Rep.
Governing Organizations’ Structure to Support SEA
Costa Rica It does not exist
El Salvador Assessment Management
Guatemala It does not exist
Panama Planning Management
Dominican
It does not exist
Rep.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4039 10 of 17

4.2. Operating Capacity/Procedures

Despite the little experience acquired in making SEAs, the conducted survey identified how the
hierarchical structures of the studied countries share one common element: they place the technical
support units in SEA close to decision makers. Costa Rica, El Salvador and Panama have an
administrative/technical structure in charge of processing SEAs. Costa Rica and El Salvador conceive
them as assessment guidelines, while Panama’s management of the operating capacity of processes
is based on planning. Guatemala and the Dominican Republic do not currently possess an organic
structure for SEAs. However, when the Dominican Republic environmental law came into force,
namely Law 64–00, its first flow chart included a SEA department in its environmental assessment
management department, which was in operation until 2004.
In those countries with active operational units, these units are in charge of issuing the reference
terms that act as a guide to making SEAs. In El Salvador, the assessment management department
issues the guidelines that adapt to the policies, plans and programme type. The methodology is only
expected to be based on environmental sustainability mechanisms. These same requirements apply
in Costa Rica. Meanwhile, Guatemala, Panama and the Dominican Republic do not possess any
methodological outlines to be applied.
According to the survey results, a total number of 163 SEAs studies have been performed in
Central American countries to date. The experiences in the studied countries focus on the following
sectors: energy, metal mining and two more studies related with health and infrastructure sectors in
El Salvador (five SEAs in total); the expected territorial planning in legal terms for Costa Rica, with a
total number of 153 SEAs; protected areas and those with wildlife for Panama, with a total number
of three SEAs; energy for the Dominican Republic, as well as an SEA document in the sanitation
sector, devised according to the principles rooted in an environmental impact assessment, with a total
number of two SEAs. No sectors are indicated for performing SEAs in Guatemala, although the
literature review reflects that a project pilot was carried out in 1997 called “Private participation in
infrastructure” [24]. Figures 2 and 3 shows the distribution of SEAs by countries and productive
sectors.

Figure 2. Number of SEA analysis on each Central American country.

Sustainability 2020, 12, 4039 11 of 17

Figure 3. Distribution of SEAs analysis by productive sectors.

When surveying civil servants about how policies, plans and programmes are selected so an
SEA is applied to them, collected data indicate that in Panama, “possession criteria are applied to
some type of natural resource that has been made a priority or is important in national life”.
According to legal terms, Costa Rica applies the SEA methodology only to territorial planning, while
the remaining countries have not set criteria to define which instruments must be assessed by
strategic environmental techniques.
Very poor operational development was found regarding the conditions to issue final licenses
or grants. After evaluating the SEA document, only Costa Rica and El Salvador have issued a
resolution to pass reports. None of the other countries have established conditions to deliver such a
permit or defined documents that back the SEAs that have been performed, even by the
environmental authorities themselves.
Regarding the existence of local technical capacity, we must record that, although some
legislation systems have considered drawing up lists of certified consultants in SEA matters, none of
the studied countries has an authorized list of local consultants for performing SEA tasks, nor was
any evidence found for a follow-up process for some of the SEAs made.
Table 6 summarizes the operational capacity and procedures component.

Table 6. Summary of the operational capacity/procedures component.

Type of Projects Undertaken

National Technical Environmental Secretary has no SEA registered for policies,
plans and programmes. There are registers of 153 cases of territorial planning that
Costa Rica
have conducted environmental studies according to SEA principles, of which 90%
are regulatory plans.
Biofuel policy, energy policy, metal mining sector, development strategy in marine
El Salvador
coastal strips.
Guatemala No projects have been undertaken.
Panama Instruments related to Protected Areas and Wildlife
Dominican National Energy Plan. An SEA also exists for the sanitation sector with
Rep. methodologies rooted in environmental impact assessments.
Instruments Determined that Required SEA
Costa Rica Only territorial planning, as set out in legislative terms.
El Salvador Not determined
Guatemala Not determined
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4039 12 of 17

Criteria of belonging applied to some type of natural resource that is a priority or is

Panama
important in national life.
Dominican
Not determined
Rep.
Expected or Proposed Methodology
Costa Rica It does not exist
Suitable guidelines for policies, plans and programmes are issued and an
El Salvador
environmental sustainability-based methodology is requested.
Guatemala It does not exist
Panama It does not exist
Dominican
It does not exist
Rep.
Certified Consultants by a Government Environmental Organization
Costa Rica No SEA outlines exist. No list of certified consultants exists.
El Salvador No SEA outlines exist. No list of certified consultants exists.
No such list exists, despite being included in environmental assessment, control
Guatemala
and follow-up (RECSA).
Panama No such list exists, although work is being doing on these requirements.
Dominican Neither legally expected outlines, nor lists of certified consultants for strategic
Rep. assessments exist.

5. Discussion
The work carried out reveals that SEA systems and their development are clearly evidenced in
the studied countries. Despite the heterogeneity of the extent of advances made in the region, the
characteristics of these SEA systems can be summarized by the following three main aspects:
1. Importance attached to the legal component. One of the distinctive features of the SEA
experience is that each country has generated its own instruments [25]. Currently, all the
evaluated legal frameworks include the SEA figure, and they clearly define the SEA concept,
which is considered as an instrument of environmental application. Sometimes, they even define
who is in charge of leading the SEA study. To put an SEA system into practice, these
specifications are beneficial because the meaning of SEA is potentially very broad and, unless it
is limited by legislation, a regulation or some form of mutual agreement, its purpose and scope
can be easily misinterpreted [17]. The legal mechanisms in the region reveal that a legal mandate
or regulation is not necessary to apply and develop a SEA system. This is especially true in those
countries where these assessments are considered as compulsory, for which a large gap in the
progress made in SEA matters has been identified. According to the World Bank, if there is no
legal basis, there is no incentive to use public resources when applying an SEA [24]. Nonetheless,
the analysis of data collected in this study allows us to disagree, as data evidences that the
decision makers’ willingness is the essential driver for an SEA system to be set up. Ref. [26] refers
to decision makers and politicians as “the groups that decide whether the SEA must be set up
or not”. As an example, it has been seen that in Panama, SEA development is voluntary,
although several performed SEAs exist. Conversely, SEA is compulsory in the Dominican
Republic, yet only one SEA has been performed in the 19 years that environmental legislation,
including SEAs, exists. El Salvador has a functional and operational evaluation system with a
strategic vision, due to the one-and-a-half-year training received and sponsored by decision
makers, a fact that makes a difference compared to the other countries of the region. Therefore,
if decision makers are not receptive to other (environmental) values while making decisions, the
use and influence of SEA will diminish [27], and SEA will be used only to bridge implementation
gaps [28]. In this sense, it is necessary to promote knowledge of SEA among decision-makers,
with the aim that their capacity or interest increases, therefore making the progress of SEA
consistent with their legal requirements;
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4039 13 of 17

2. No specified methodologies. The fact that little experience has been acquired in the region has
not allowed methodologies that adapt to the different contexts of policies, plans and
programmes and governance circumstances of development. Only El Salvador and Costa Rica
have promoted methodological outlines based on sustainability criteria. Methodological
guidelines in El Salvador contain indications about SEA report contents by referring to those
applied in Europe;
3. Gaps in the final response mechanisms of governing organizations and follow-up organizations,
as well as limited local technical capacities. Once the components used to perform SEA studies
have been seen, the effect of local experience clearly comes over. Except for El Salvador and
Costa Rica, the answers given by the governmental institutions in charge of evaluating SEA
studies indicate that procedures are lacking to communicate the results of the revisions made. It
has not been possible to identify the follow-up mechanisms used in the evaluated countries, and
the continuity stage and effect of SEA on the projects that depend on policies, plans and
programmes proved futile. When these procedures are applied, SEA evaluation can be done, but
the impact that SEA has on executed programmes is not being assessed [29] because the
application of the strategic assessment results are not being followed up. No official list of local
SEA professionals exists, despite the legislation specifies a requirement to draw up these lists;
that is, despite possessing lists for EIA specialists, these lists are missing for SEA. In some Latin
American countries, international experience has been sought to bridge this gap until local
capacities have been generated.
(1) The experience in Latin America shows that the existence of legal components does not
guarantee that SEA implementation leads to integrating sustainability criteria into the
instruments evaluated, whether they are policies or plans. This is evident in the operation
of the SEA management systems in Chile and El Salvador. They both share a common
characteristic which has been responsible for the successful advancement of these systems.
Both Chile and El Salvador have received support from decision makers and this has
translated into an increase in the response capacity of their SEA management systems.
These two countries have specific legislation about SEA. However, the implementation of
SEA systems was only possible when the decision makers understood the importance of
applying SEA to ensure development under sustainability criteria as a real matter of
concern. Both Chile and El Salvador are examples of the positive impact of having the
support of decision makers to advance the implementation of SEA systems. To illustrate an
opposite case, we cite the situation in the Dominican Republic, where SEA has existed as
an environmental assessment instrument since the legislation was enacted. However, the
lack of support from senior management has hampered the progress of the management
system, being, at present, still at its early stages;
(2) The SEA systems of Chile and El Salvador have distinctive features with respect to countries
that have legislation and carried out SEA studies, but without obtaining results from
sustainable strategies. These peculiar features were acquired by Chile and El Salvador after
the support of the decision makers. They can be summarized as follows:
(a) Training: civil servants received SEA training, which allowed obtaining a system based
on strategic thinking and not for the sole purpose of simple legal compliance
(b) Regulation: Formation of guidelines and orientation guidelines in which they have
developed in detail the stages of the SEA process;
(c) Disclosure of concepts: Knowledge of SEA concepts and the legal responsibilities of
proponents of SEA studies;
(3) The SEA management system of the province of São Paulo in Brazil is a benchmark of the
results that a management system produces when it lacks training, regulation and
knowledge of SEA concepts. Finally, the consequences of the lack of a strategic scheme have
great impact on projects derived from SEA-free plans and policies developed without
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4039 14 of 17

sustainability criteria, and on environmental impact assessments performed only under

general legal requirements.

6. Conclusions
For the first time, this paper presents an up-to-date overview of the advances made in Central
America and the Caribbean region in the application of SEA techniques. As the existing literature
does not include detailed information on each of the SEA systems in these countries, this work allows,
finally, to acquire precise and detailed information obtained from the governments of the current
SEA development in the Central American and Caribbean countries. In addition to the originality of
the information presented, it should be noted that this work includes a detailed scrutiny, which
makes it a useful tool for decision-making by regional authorities, who have shown increasing
interest in the implementation of SEAs for their region.
The diagnosis made sheds light on the necessary points to work on in all the countries of the
region, which will improve SEA systems and, at the same time, minimize the information gap existing
in the SEA management of the region.
Results shown in this work reveal a region where SEA practical evaluation and necessary follow-
up mechanisms have not been set up yet. However, keen interest has been shown in possessing
legislation in SEA matters, a strong starting point, as it is much easier to lead decision makers to
promote these assessments if they are legally required. This fact indicates that SEA analyses are
executed thanks only to decision maker’s willingness. This strong point was evidenced in all the
countries of the study area. However, the state of SEA application in each one of the five studied
countries of the Central American and Caribbean region is different:
 El Salvador is the one that has most widely integrated SEA into its legislation and made it
operational. The country has conceived and structured its SEA management system based on
strategic thinking, which allows SEA’s results to integrate sustainability criterial;
 Panama needs to invest efforts to extend regulations that offer details of operational SEA
functioning, because it lacks specific guidelines to run SEA processes. It still requires promoting
the importance of SEA tools under sustainable development criteria at high decision-making
levels, and thus being able to receive support to develop the whole SEA system;
 The position of Costa Rica is still very basic as it limits the sectors for which SEAs are applied to
those considered by the 2002 Central American Commission for the Environment and
Development recommendations that indicate the application of SEAs to territorial planning
matters. Although Costa Rica is the country in the Central American and Caribbean region with
the most SEA reports executed, they are all of a general nature, supported by its legislation and
limited to a single productive sector. These implementation characteristics, plus the absence of
regulations that define the SEA’s scope and training based on sustainability criteria, do not place
Costa Rica as the country in the region with the highest development of SEA management. The
progress level of the SEA management system should not be measured by the number of SEA
reports made, but by the results provided by them in the context of sustainability. A similar
experience in Latin America has been found in Chile. Between 2010–2015, Chile performed 300
SEAs. However, they did not present progress with the results obtained until incorporating
strategic thinking into their SEA management system;
 Guatemala and the Dominican Republic need to consolidate both their legal and operational
components, which are currently almost nonexistent. These two countries have the least
experience and progress in the implementation of SEA systems in the Central American and
Caribbean region. The Dominican Republic and Guatemala have in common the lack of support
from decision-makers due to their ignorance of the importance of the SEA process. Under this
scope, the performance of SEAs is motivated by simple legal compliance.
In the region, the main obstacle for the development of SEA systems is the lack of knowledge of
decision-makers in the application of SEA techniques. When overcoming this difficulty, the
performance of SEA systems will be greatly improved, also accounting for sufficient technical
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4039 15 of 17

conditions to achieve sustainable results. Those systems should integrate strategic thinking views
which allow integrating sustainability criteria while also adapting SEA to the planning processes.
It is important to highlight one common aspect that has been found for all the countries except
for El Salvador: in the region, there is no methodology which allows providing comprehensible and
achievable alternatives and there is a lack of techniques to ensure that the most suitable alternative
for regional contexts is selected. The existence of these techniques will facilitate the development of
achievable strategic measures in each country in the region.
SEA systems evolve with time, as do regional variations, and all these changes are influenced by
social, economic and technological contexts [30]. The Central American Commission for the
Environment and Development has considered, since 2002, an accurate route to be followed by SEAs,
which evidently focuses on the environmental assessment criteria established at that time.
Nowadays, SEA appears to be better-established after almost two decades of research and work
experience. The main weaknesses of the aforementioned strategic management systems indicate that
an immediate set of actions is required for the whole region:
1. Incorporate guidelines establishing SEA processes or stages;
2. Draft technical guidance documents allowing the implementation of the guidelines;
3. Raise levels of awareness and understanding in decision makers;
4. Identify the institutional changes required in each country to guarantee the success of SEA
implementation;
5. Add to the legal framework of each country the necessary requirement to synchronize SEA with
planning;
6. Create regional agreements for the dissemination and exchange of experiences. These may
consist of sharing practical experience through forums or regional meetings;
7. Develop good practice guides adapted to the actual conditions of the region;
8. Develop SEA methodologies adapted to the realities of the region. These methodologies must
include an analysis of alternatives and consider simple criteria for selecting the most viable
alternative;
9. Create an inter-institutional disclosure mechanism, whose objective is to establish a gear
between all the actors involved. This measure will increase the awareness and responsibility of
each institution while complying with SEA legislation;
10. Development of SEA capabilities. These should consider the participation of decision makers,
officials both from the governing body and from other governmental institutions, and
consultants;
11. Establish profiles of the technical teams that will develop SEAs, defining competencies and
previous experience;
12. Generate a list of SEA consultants for the region;
13. Establish quality control indicators for SEA documents;
14. Carry out internal and external audits of the management system, whose main objective is
verifying the performance levels in each country. Regional authorities are responsible for
external audits;
15. Propose regional environmental goals regarding SEA. The goals finally established must
correspond to the reality of each country, both socially, economically and at the level of
implementation of the SEA management system;
16. Propose a follow-up mechanism to the established regional goals.
Putting into practice these actions will reinforce the cross-sectional axis of “A regional system
for environmental systems” [22], allowing the region to establish norms for the operational levels of
the SEA system based on these indicators while narrowing or even closing gaps in the region’s
strategic management system.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.R.-I. and L.G.-G.; methodology, L.G.-G., E.C., M.-E.R.-C. and J.R.-I.;
formal analysis, J.R.-I., L.G.-G., M.-E.R.-C. and E.C.; investigation, L.G.-G. and J.R.-I.; resources, L.G.-G. and J.R.-I.;
data curation, L.G.-G. and J.R.-I.; writing—original draft preparation, L.G.-G., J.R.-I., M.-E.R.-C. and E.C.;
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4039 16 of 17

writing—review and editing, L.G.-G. and J.R.-I; supervision, J.R.-I., M.-E.R.-C. and E.C. All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments: Authors thank the Ministry of the Environment and Sustainable Development of Colombia
(Minambiente), the Presidential Cooperation Agency (APC-Colombia), the Central American Commission for
the Environment and Development and the Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources of the
Dominican Republic for collaborating in the data collection. The Forum ‘Exchanging experiences with Central
American countries about SEA, hosted by Colombia’. It was held in Bogotá between 23 and 26 July, 2018, hosted
by the Ministry of the Environment and Sustainable Development of Colombia (Minambiente), and sponsored
by the Presidential Cooperation Agency (APC-Colombia). Participants were the Central American Commission
for the Environment and Development as a claimant organization of the region. Other participants: Alexander
von Humboldt Institute for Research on biological Resources (IAvH) and Maria Partidário as an international
expert on SEA.

Conflicts of Interest: Authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Victor, D.; Agamuthu, P. Policy trends of strategic environmental assessment in Asia. Environ. Sci. Policy
2014, 41, 63–76, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2014.03.005.
2. Brown, A.L.; Therivel, R. Principles to guide the development of strategic environmental assessment
methodology. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 2000, 18, 183–189, doi:10.3152/147154600781767385.
3. do Rosário Partidário, M. Strategic Environmental Assessment Better Practice Guide—Methodological Guidance
for Strategic Thinking in SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment; Portuguese Environment Agency and Redes
Energéticas Nacionais (REN), SA: Lisboa, Portugal, 2012.
4. Tetlow & Hanusch. Strategic environmental assessment: The state of the art. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais.
2012, 30, 15–24, doi:10.1080/14615517.2012.666400.
5. White, L.; Noble, B.F. Strategic environmental assessment for sustainability: A review of a decade of
academic research. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2013, 42, 60–66, doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2012.10.003.
6. TranSEA EU INTERAct Project. Guidelines for Strategic Environmental Assessment; Application at Interreg
Programme and Projects; Agenda 21 Consulting: Padova, Italy, 2006.
7. Unalan, D.; Cowell, R. Adoption of the EU SEA Directive in Turkey. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2009, 29,
243–251, doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2008.11.003.
8. Geneletti, D. Reasons and options for integrating ecosystem services in strategic environmental assessment
of spatial planning. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 2011, 7, 143–149,
doi:10.1080/21513732.2011.617711.
9. Ramos, T.B.; Montano, M.; de Melo, J.J.; Souza, M.P.; de Lemos, C.C.; Domingues, A.R.; Polido, A. Strategic
Environmental Assessment in higher education: Portuguese and Brazilian cases. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 106,
222–228, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.12.088.
10. Alshuwaikhat, H.M. Strategic environmental assessment can help solve environmental impact assessment
failures in developing countries. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2005, 25, 307–317,
doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2004.09.003.
11. Therivel, R. Strategic Environmental Assessment in Action; Earthscan, Ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2010.
12. Noble, B.; Nwanekezie, K. Conceptualizing strategic environmental assessment: Principles, approaches
and research directions. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2017, 62, 165–173, doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2016.03.005.
13. Margato, V.; Sánchez, L.E. Quality and outcomes: A critical review of strategic environmental assessment
in Brazil. J. Environ. Assess. Policy Manag. 2014, 16, doi:10.1142/S1464333214500112.
14. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. Access to Information, participation and
justice in environmental matters in Latin America and the Caribbean. In Towards Achievement of the 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development; ECLAC: Santiago, Chile, 2018. Available online: www.eclac.org
(accessed on 30 April 2020).
15. Rozas-Vásquez, D.; Gutiérrez, P. Advances and challenges in the implementation of strategic
environmental assessment in Chile. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 2018, 36, 425–428,
doi:10.1080/14615517.2018.1490048.
 Sustainability 2020, 12, 4039 17 of 17

16. Biehl, J.; Köppel, J.; Rodorff, V.; Pérez, M.E.H.; Zimmermann, A.; Geißler, G.; Rehhausen, A. Implementing
strategic environmental assessment in countries of the global South—An analysis within the Peruvian
context. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2019, 23–39, doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2019.02.009.
17. Sánchez, L.E.; Silva-Sánchez, S.S. Tiering strategic environmental assessment and project environmental
impact assessment in highway planning in São Paulo, Brazil. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2018, 28, 515–522,
doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2008.02.001.
18. MINAM. Criterios y Mecanismos para la Implementación del Proceso de Evaluación Ambiental Estratégica (EAE)
en el Marco del Sistema Naciona de Evaluacion de Impacto Ambiental (SEIA): Resolución Ministerial N°175–2016-
MINAM; MINAM: Lima, Perú, 2016.
19. Montaño, M.; Oppermann, P.; Malvestio, A.C.; Pereira, M. Current state of the SEA system in Brazil: A
comparative study. J. Environ. Assess. Policy Manag. 2014, 16, 1450022, doi:10.1142/S1464333214500227.
20. Central American Commission for the Environment and Development. El Plan de Acción Centroamericano
de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental; CCAD: San José, Costa Rica, 2002.
21. Aguilar, G.; Hernández, G. EIA en Centroamérica No. 1 Estado del Arte; Serie sobre Evaluación de Impacto
Ambiental (EIA); IUCN-Mesoamerica; CCAD: San José, Costa Rica, 2002.
22. Central American Commission for the Environment and Development. Estrategia Regional Ambiental Marco
2015–2020; CCAD: San Salvador, El Salvador, 2014.
23. Central American Integration System. Sistema de la Integración de Centroamérica. 2019. Available online:
www.sica.int (accessed on 3 June 2019).
24. World Bank. Strategic Environmental Assesment in the World Bank; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2012.
25. Cervantes, B.A.; Torres, M.C.P.; Castañón, A.A. Sustentabilidad ambiental, del concepto a la práctica.
Gestión Política Pública 2012, 12, 291–332.
26. Verheem & Tonk. Strategic environmental assessment: One concept, multiple forms. Impact Assess. Proj.
Apprais. 2000, 18, 177–182, doi:10.3152/147154600781767411.
27. van Doren, D.; Driessen, P.P.; Schijf, B.; Runhaar, H.A. Evaluating the substantive effectiveness of SEA:
Towards a better understanding. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2013, 38, 120–130,
doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2012.07.002.
28. Stoeglehner, G.; Brown, A.L.; Kørnøv, L.B. SEA and planning: ‘Ownership’ of strategic environmental
assessment by the planners is the key to its effectiveness. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 2009, 27, 111–120,
doi:10.3152/146155109X438742.
29. Acharibasam, J.B.; Noble, B.F. Assessing the impact of strategic environmental assessment. Impact Assess.
Proj. Apprais. 2014, 177–187, doi:10.1080/14615517.2014.927557.
30. Cherp, A. Environmental assessment in countries in transition: Evolution in a changing context. J. Environ.
Manag. 2001, 62, 357–374, doi:10.1006/jema.2001.0438.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

View publication stats