Environmental Impact Assessment Review 61 (2016) 2737

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eiar

Energy related Strategic Environmental Assessment applied by

Multilateral Development Agencies An analysis based on good
practice criteria
Ghislain Mwamba Tshibangu a,c, Marcelo Montao b,c,
a
University of Sao Paulo, Brazil
b
Department of Hydraulics and Sanitation, Sao Carlos School of Engineering, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil
c
Av. Trabalhador Sancarlense, 400, Sao Carlos, SP 13566-590, Brazil

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Multilateral Development Agencies (MDAs) have been emerging as responsible for the widespread of Strategic
Received 11 August 2015 Environmental Assessment (SEA) application in low and middle income countries. However, the effectiveness
Received in revised form 22 June 2016 of SEA, as practiced by MDAs, has received limited attention in literature so far. This paper aims to analyse the
Accepted 24 June 2016
use of SEA by MDAs in the context of loan agreements established between these countries. Based on documen-
Available online 7 July 2016
tation gathered in public databases, six energy related cases were reviewed in relation to the moment that SEA
Keywords:
started, the strategic dimensions of proposed actions, compliance with key aspects of SEA, and also to the quality
SEA effectiveness of SEA reports. Results indicate a number of aspects that should be improved in order to increase SEA effective-
SEA quality review ness: SEA is starting after relevant decisions, is applied to actions without clear denition of strategic dimensions
Multilateral Development Agencies and lacks a systematic assessment of alternatives. Regarding the quality of SEA reports, the outcomes reveal a
Low and middle income countries poor quality in baseline description, development and assessment of alternatives and public participation.
2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is a tool to support the
integration of environmental concerns into strategic levels of decision-
making. It has been applied to a growing number of countries. Whilst
in high-income countries SEA is usually mandatory to plans and
programmes and supported by a structured framework, the practice of
SEA in low and middle income countries is still being largely driven by
Multilateral Development Agencies (MDAs) (Tetlow and Hanusch,
2012).
Due to the differences in the context where SEA is applied, it should
be adapted in order to ease an effective application (Fischer and
Gazzola, 2006; Gonzlez et al., 2014; Polido et al., 2014). Although SEA
literature mostly reects the perspective of developed countries
(Fischer and Onyango, 2012), there is a growing interest in the context
of low and middle income countries (Annandale et al., 2001;
Alshuwaikhat, 2005; Chaker et al., 2006; Cashmore and Axelsson,
2013; Oliveira et al., 2013; Victor and Agamuthu, 2013; Montao et
al., 2014; Victor and Agamuthu, 2014). However, SEA practice by
MDAs has received limited attention so far.
This paper relies on a documentation review of six energy related
cases, focusing on the analysis of relevant aspects of SEA, as described
in literature, applied by MDAs in low and middle income countries. Spe-
cically, it aims to: (i) identify and describe the strategic dimensions of
proposed actions; (ii) verify whether ToRs and SEA reports comply with
key aspects of SEA; and (iii) review the quality of SEA reports.
The next section describes the use of SEA by MDAs. Particular atten-
tion is given to the different approaches adopted in environmental as-
sessments and the role that funding agencies play in stimulating the
application of SEA within low and middle income countries. The subse-
quent section explains the methodological aspects adopted in the study.
Results of in-depth reviews of six cases are presented and then
discussed in Section 4, preceding the main conclusions.
2. Strategic Environmental Assessment in Multilateral Development
Agencies

Corresponding author.
Historically MDAs have played an important role in the practice of
E-mail addresses: minduim@sc.usp.br (G.M. Tshibangu), ghistshibangu@hotmail.com environmental assessment in low and middle income countries
(M. Montao). (Snchez, 2006). They have been also a major player in the practice of

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.06.007
0195-9255/ 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
28 G.M. Tshibangu, M. Montao / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 61 (2016) 2737

SEA as this tool is meant to safeguard environmental interests and con-

tribute to environmental governance (Richardson and Cashmore, 2011;
Cashmore and Axelsson, 2013; Cashmore et al., 2014), what sometimes
implies the adoption of an approach that goes beyond the evaluation of
impacts to reshape the institutional framework and governance
(Richardson and Cashmore, 2011). To assist the borrower, loans are
usually linked to technical assistance and capacity building (Rees,
1999; World Bank, 2000). Besides environmental safeguards, institu-
tional strengthening includes, but is not limited to, nancial account-
ability, corporate governance and management skills (World Bank,
2000).
To MDAs, SEA encompasses different types of assessment including
Sectorial Environmental Assessment (EA), Regional EA, Policy EA, Cu-
mulative EA, Programmatic Environmental Impact Assessment, Strate-
gic Basin Assessment, Strategic Impact Assessment, and Strategic
Environmental and Social Assessment (Annandale et al., 2001; Loayza,
2012). Although adopting different approaches (e.g. impact-centered
and policy-centered, as mentioned by Loayza, 2012) their scope in-
cludes the assessment of other likely environmental effects than solely
those to be caused by a particular project or activity.
In this paper we focus on the four main agencies currently operating
in low and middle income countries, namely the World Bank, Inter-
American Development Bank, African Development Bank and Asian De-
velopment Bank. Moreover, they are responsible for an expressive num-
ber of strategic assessments in low and middle income countries.
Tshibangu and Montao (2015) reported 193 SEAs required by these
agencies from 1993 to 2012. The number of SEAs exhibited a continuous
growth during this period, which reinforces the role played by MDAs to
the SEA practice in low and middle income countries (Fig. 1).
The World Bank was the rst MDA to adopt SEA in 1999 (WORLD
BANK, 2013), followed by the African Development Bank and by the
Asian Development Bank, respectively, in 2001 (Banque Africaine de
Dveloppement, 2001) and 2003 (Asian Development Bank, 2003),
then nally by the Inter-American Development Bank in 2007 (Inter-
American Development Bank, 2007). SEA is applied in a similar way
by the MDAs, based on the criteria and procedures adopted by the
World Bank (Tshibangu and Montao, 2015).
Tables 1 and 2 present data concerning the main sectors in terms of
the SEAs number and nancial resources involved in loans during the
selected period, according to data gathered from the websites of the
institutions.1
The top 10 sectors share 78% of the 193 SEAs prepared during the pe-
riod, which illustrates their relevance to low and middle income coun-
tries. Interestingly, SEAs applied to the four major sectors correspond
to 45% of the total. In a similar way, transport and energy are amongst
the three sectors that have been involved in loans during the period
responding by 28% of loans in both World Bank and Inter-American De-
velopment Bank, 40% of loans in the African Development Bank, and
48% in the Asian Development Bank.
Fig. 1. Number of SEA applications by MDAs in low and middle income countries from
1993 to 2012. Source: Based on Loayza (2012) and data extracted from MDAs' database.
the documents needed to cover the purposes of the research, i.e. the
Terms of Reference (ToRs), SEA reports and documents describing the
strategic action must be publicly available.
The institutional websites of MDAs were reviewed in order to iden-
tify the interest documents to the research. During this stage, despite
MDAs disclosure policies, only 15 fully documented cases were found,
corresponding to a variable number of sectors (energy, mining, trans-
port, tourism, agriculture, water resources, and education), different
EA types, and also different MDAs (Table 3). The energy sector was
found to be the largest group with 6 fully documented cases.
WB: World Bank; ADB: Asian Development Bank; AfDB: African De-
velopment Bank; IDB: Inter-American Development Bank.
Given the fact energy is the second largest sector in number of SEAs
prepared during the time period considered in the paper (Table 1), as
well in terms of nancial resources involved (Table 2), the set of 6
cases was assumed to illustrate the context of SEA, as applied by
MDAs in low and middle income countries (Table 4). Box 1 provides a
short description of each one of the six cases studies.
The documentation was analysed using content analysis, as largely
applied in similar studies (e.g., Fischer, 2010; Gonzles et al., 2015;
Noble, 2009; Sadler, 1996).
Three categories of characterisation were adopted in our analysis,
considering they are complementary to each other and related to SEA
effectiveness as pointed by literature. These categories are:
(i) Strategic aspects of selected cases
Taking into account that SEA has to be strategic in order to deal ad-
equately with other levels (policies, plans and programs) of decisions
(Lee and Walsh, 1992; Verheem and Tonk, 2000; Herrera, 2007;
Partidrio, 2007; Tetlow and Hanusch, 2012), the proposed action also
has to be strategic.
Based on literature (Baptista, 1981; Kitchell, 1967; Baptista, 2007;
Fischer, 2007), a number of characteristics intrinsic to strategic actions

3. Methods Table 1
Top 10 sectors in number of SEA applications for the period 19932012.
The cases were selected based on the representativeness of the plan- (Source: Based on Loayza (2012) and data extracted from MDAs' database.)
ning sector complemented by data availability, taking into account both Sector Number of SEAs Percentage (%)
the methodological framework and the time period adopted in the
Transport 27 14
paper. It is important to highlight that both the sector and the number
Energy 26 14
of cases chosen to be reviewed have been limited by the availability of Multisector 21 11
Water management 21 11
Agriculture 14 7
Mining 10 5
1 Tourism 10 5
World Bank, World Bank Search. Available at: http://search.worldbank.org/all?
Energy and mining 8 4
qterm=Search. Accessed on: March 16, 2015.
Forestry 8 4
African Development Bank, Search. Available at: http://www.afdb.org/en/search/?
River basin management 6 3
query=. Accessed on: March 16, 2015.
Others 42 22
Asian Development Bank, Search. Available at: http://www.adb.org/search?keywords=.
Total 193 100
Accessed on: March 16, 2015.
 G.M. Tshibangu, M. Montao / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 61 (2016) 2737 29

Table 2
Top 3 sectors in volume of resources involved in loans by different MDAs (millions of US dollars).
(Source: Compiled from MDAs' annual reports.)

The World Bank Inter-American Development Bank African Development Asian Development Bank
(average to 20002012) (average to 20002012) Bank (average to (average to 20002011)
20072012)

Law, justice and public administration 6429.5 Social investments 1563.3 Energy 982.4 Transport and communications 2382.4
(22%) (22%) (21%) (29%)
Transport 4476.6 Transport and communications 1141.6 Transport 923.3 Energy 1597.6
(16%) (16%) (19%) (19%)
Energy and mining 3457.7 Energy 876.2 Multisector 777.8 Multisector 1009.1
(12%) (12%) (16%) (12%)

Table 3
Fully documented cases, as identied by the authors after consulting MDAs' database.

SEA Continent Region Country Sector Sub-sector Year MDA

1 Nam Theun 2 Hydroelectric Project Lao PDR 2005 Hydropower Asia East Asia Lao PDR Energy Hydro 2005 WB
power and
ADB
2 Rampur Hydropower Development Asia South India 2006 WB
Asia
3 Power Development Project Asia South Nepal 1997 WB
Asia
4 Kabeli A Hydro Electric Project Asia South Nepal 2011 WB
Asia
5 Manantali Energy Project Africa West Mali, Mauritania 1995 WB
Africa and Senegal and
AfDB
6 Kribi Gas Power Project Africa Central Cameroon Thermal 2008 WB
Africa Power and
AfDB
7 Modernization of Irrigation SEA Latin America North Mexico Agriculture 2003 WB
and Caribbean America
8 Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprise Project: strategic environmental Africa West Ghana Private Sector 1999 WB
assessment for the export processing zone, Tema Africa
9 Second Mining Sector Capacity Building Additional Financing Project Africa East Mauritania Energy and Mining 2006 WB
Africa
10 Education Sector Support Program Project Africa East Kenya Education 2005 WB
Africa
11 Irrigation and Watershed Management Project Africa Southern Madagascar River Basin Irrigation 2006 WB
Africa Management and drainage
12 Multi-modal Transport Africa Central D R Congo Transport Railway 2008 WB
Africa
13 Mining Sector Capacity Building Project Africa West Mauritania Mining 2010 WB
Africa
14 Nile Basin Initiative Institutional Strengthening Project Africa Nile Nile basin Water Resources 2008 AfDB
Basin
15 Strategic Environmental Assessment for the North Coast Region Latin America South Brazil Tourism 2007 IDB
and Caribbean America

were dened. These characteristics were assumed as describing the
strategic dimensions of the selected cases (Box 2) and then checked to
each case by the means of documental analysis. The documentation de-
scribing the strategic action was thoroughly examined in order to iden-
tify the strategic dimensions of proposed actions.
Furthermore, it is essential that SEA starts early enough in order to
inuence the design of strategic actions and their alternatives
(Therivel, 2004; Fischer, 2007). Therefore the moment when SEA
started was identied, both in relation to the design of proposed actions
and in relation to project-EIAs linked to the action.
(ii) Compliance of ToRs and SEA reports with key aspects of SEA
Therivel (2004, pg. 48) states that any SEA must be good enough to
fulll the aim of SEA to protect the environment and promote sustain-
ability. Thus, at minimum, SEA must deliver information that allows
the understanding of environment and the determination of the likely
effects to be caused, their assessment and mitigation, in a documented
way. Therefore, according to Therivel (2004), there are four crucial ele-
ments for SEA: (a) identication of environmental/sustainability
indicators; (b) identication of problem areas; (c) testing the sustain-
ability of the strategic action objectives, alternatives, statements; and
(d) documenting the SEA ndings.
Here, two separate analyses were carried out. Firstly, ToRs were
analysed to verify their compliance with key aspects of SEA and, second-
ly, the same analysis was carried out to SEA reports. Combined, both
procedures allow comparison between the SEA frameworks as dened
initially in the scoping/ToR stage and subsequently delivered by SEA
reports.
(iii) SEA report quality review
In some aspects, MDAs SEA guidelines differ from SEA literature. Re-
garding public participation, for example, MDAs have different recom-
mendations depending on the environmental impacts of the strategic
action (Tshibangu and Montao, 2015). Therefore, in this paper, quality
review criteria provided by Therivel (2004); Fischer (2007); Sadler
(1996); Doren et al. (2013); Chanchitpricha and Bond (2013) were
adapted to evaluate the quality of SEA reports. Ultimately, the quality
review package consists of 9 sections comprising 27 questions (Box 3).
30 G.M. Tshibangu, M. Montao / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 61 (2016) 2737

Table 4
Selected cases.

Components Country Type of EA Year/MDA Reference

Manantali Energy (i) 200 MW hydroelectric plant; Mali, Strategic Environmental 1995 (Environmental Resources Management,
Project (ii) 2 KV high voltage TLs* (306 km and 821 km), and Mauritania and Assessment WB and 1995; World Bank, 1997, 2006a)
a 132 KV TL (219 km); Senegal AfDB
(iii) 11 substations and a dispatching center;
(iv) Training and technical assistance.
Kribi Gas Power (i) 216 MW natural gas-red power plant; Cameroon Regional Environmental 2008 (World Bank, 2008; World Bank, 2011a,
Project (ii) 100 km 225-kV double-circuit TL; Assessment WB and 2011b)
(iii) Associated infrastructure facilities such as AfDB
pipelines.
Power (i) Fund for private development of small and Nepal Sectorial Environmental 1997 (Nepal, 1997; World Bank, 2003a,
Development medium-sized hydro schemes; Assessment WB 2003b)
Project (ii) Micro-Hydro Village Electrication (up to 100
kW);
(iii) Improvement of grid transmission and
distribution
Kabeli A Hydro (i) Small peaking run-of-river hydropower; Nepal Cumulative 2011 (World Bank, 2011d; World Bank, 2010,
Electric Project (ii) Associated civil work Environmental WB 2012, 2014)
Assessment
Nam Theun 2 (i) 1070 MW Hydropower facility; Lao PDR Cumulative Impact 2004 (International Advisory Group et al.,
Hydroelectric (ii) Management of environmental and social impacts Assessment WB and 2004; World Bank, 1998, 2005a)
Project ADB
Rampur (i) 412 MW run-of river hydroelectric scheme; India Cumulative and Induced 2006 (World Bank, 2006b; World Bank,
Hydropower (ii) Measures for ensuring higher availability of the Impact Assessment WB 2005b, 2007a, 2007b)
Development upstream Nathpa Jhakri hydropower project;
(iii) Technical assistance

WB: World Bank; ADB: Asian Development Bank; AfDB: African Development Bank.
TL: Transmission Lines.

The reports were reviewed using the grade system introduced by
Lee and Colley (1992) and modied by Fischer (2007). The marking
scores (Box 4) vary from A (best) to G (worst). The scores were applied
to the 27 questions individually and also to each section, taking into ac-
count the judgment of the analysts. Importantly, section scores are
based on individual scores but do not reect any arithmetic procedure
(such as, e.g., the average). The approach to assign a score to the overall
report has followed Lee et al. (1999), based on the judgment of the an-
alysts regarding section's scores supplemented with a brief synopsis of
the report's strengths and weaknesses and a consideration of whether
it meets SEA best practice criteria.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Strategic aspects of selected cases
Regarding the moment in the decision-making process at which SEA
was applied, the outcomes show that all of the six SEAs have started late
in the design cycle of the strategic action (Table 5).
Only in one case SEA was conducted prior to the Environmental Im-
pact Assessment (EIA) of subsequent projects, although it started after
relevant denitions of the proposed action. Nevertheless, in this case
we consider the timeframe between strategic action design and its im-
plementation was large enough to check for the respective strategic di-
mension (Table 6). In another case, SEA had started simultaneously to
EIA. In all of the other cases SEA started after EIA, thus being expected
it would present (at best) a limited inuence in relevant decisions.
The results reect similar ndings reported in literature that point to
the late application of SEA in low and middle income countries and the
low inuence in strategic decision making as major issues to be over-
come (Snchez and Silva-Snchez, 2008; Pellin et al., 2011; Malvestio
and Montao, 2013; Victor and Agamuthu, 2014). Ideally, SEA should
start with the denition of strategic objectives (Therivel, 2004), thus an-
ticipating the subsequent EIAs (Bina, 2007; Noble, 2009; Verheem and
Tonk, 2000).
Strictly speaking, a proposed action would only be considered strate-
gic when it accomplishes with all of the six dimensions (Baptista, 2007).
Therefore, considering the overall results, the conceptual dimensions of
a strategic action are not completely veried in ve of the six cases
(Table 6). Only one case (Power Development Project) was checked to
all of the six dimensions of a strategic action as dened in the literature.
The dimensions scope and types of alternatives (as dened accord-
ing to Box 1) were veried to all six cases, what could be revealing much
more an intrinsic aspect of large energy projects than suggesting their
strategic level. Although this may need further investigation, it is a rele-
vant and positive aspect to the practice of SEA in low and middle income
countries once it contributes to the involvement of decision makers and
planners in processes with a broader scope than regular EIAs (following,
e.g., the para-SEAs described by Dalal-Clayton and Sadler (2005)).
It is relevant to highlight the ndings for timing and spatiality di-
mensions. As a rule, proposed actions subject to SEA have a clear deni-
tion of the interventions to be made and also a short time schedule
between design and implementation two large constraints to the ef-
fectiveness of SEA as reported by Tetlow and Hanusch (2012) and
Bidstrup and Hansen (2014).
Finally, in three cases the objectives of the proposed actions were de-
scribed in terms of the main values and proponent purposes, consider-
ing the whole set of aims, thus facilitating the adoption of a strategic
approach in environmental assessments. Similarly, in three cases, the
proposed action was described with a low level of detail, thus indicating
that there was space for relevant decisions to be taken.
4.2. Compliance of ToRs and SEAs with SEA key aspects
As a rule ToRs were followed by SEA reports, what means when a
specic topic was required by the ToR it was included in the SEA report.
Our ndings point to some drawbacks when we consider the key as-
pects of a SEA ToRs and SEA reports have failed to consider all of
the SEA key aspects, with a larger gap in the objectives tests, alternatives
and statements against sustainability objectives (Table 7).
Nevertheless, it is important to highlight that, to this particular as-
pect and to the establishment of environmental/sustainability indica-
tors, the SEA reports followed a broader scope than the initially
requested by ToRs.
Sustainability was tested at least to one aspect (objectives, alterna-
tives, statements) in each SEA report, though this was explicitly
 G.M. Tshibangu, M. Montao / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 61 (2016) 2737 31

Box 1
Description of the six cases.

Manantali Energy Project

The Manantali Energy Project is a regional development project that involved Mali, Mauritania and Senegal, and part of an overall project
involving the development of the Senegal River Valley. The project implementation was in charge of two agencies including the Organisation
pour la Mise en valeur du fleuve Senegal (Organization for the Development of the Senegal River) and the Socit de Gestion de 1nergie de
Manantali (Energy Management Company of Manantali). The first one is the Senegal River Basin authority whilst the last holds the assets of
Manantali dam, hydroelectric plant, and transmission lines (World Bank, 2006a). Pre-investment studies were conducted between 1964 and
1970. Engineering studies were launched in 1976 and the project was closed on June 2004. Considering the high cost of petroleum fuels
particularly in Mali, the Manantali Energy Project was a lower-cost alternative in comparison with thermal-based power generation (World
Bank, 2006a). The SEA was conducted by an international consultancy in order to examine environmental and social impacts. The study
began in 1993 with the financial assistance of US$ 10.50 million awarded by the WB (Environmental Resources Management, 1995).
Kribi Gas Power Project
Considering planned mining and industrial projects, and the low electricity supply faced by the country, the government of Cameroon has
adopted a Strategy for Growth and Employment 20102019 to increase the installed generation capacity to 3000 MW by 2020. The Kribi
Power Development Company was in charge of Kribi power plant and transmission line, approved in 2011 by the WB and AfDB with a
commitment amount of US$ 82.00 million and EUR 30 million respectively (World Bank, 2011b). In 2008, a private consultancy firm
conducted a Regional Environmental Assessment to specifically analyse the indirect, induced and cumulative environmental and social
impacts in the Kribi region within a 10 to 15 year time frame (World Bank, 2008).
Power Development Project
Recognizing the necessity to solve energy constraints and to develop water resource potential, the Government of Nepal had invested in the
development of Nepal's hydroelectric potential. Conducted by the Ministry of Water Resources, the Power Development Project aimed to
address part of energy sector constraints such as inefficiency of the power system, lack of private capital, bad quality of power supplies and
high cost of power. Approved in 2003, the total project cost including interest during construction was US$ 133.4 million, of which WB loan
was US$75.6 million (World Bank, 2003a). The project was closed in 2013. A Sectorial Environmental Assessment was required to serve as
a criterion to identify candidate projects for Power Development Fund support. The assessment was prepared in 1997 by the Government of
Nepal through its Ministry of Water Resources and Ministry of Population and Environment (Nepal, 1997).
Kabeli A Hydro Electric Project
In December 2008, the Government of Nepal approved the Energy Crisis Management Action Plan to alleviate the crisis through investments
and policy reforms. Despite efforts made to expand the cross-border transmission linkages between Nepal and India, power shortages had
continued to hamper the country. Further, the lack of investment funds impeded hydropower development. To solve these problems, the
Ministry of Energy issued a large amount of survey licenses for five transmission corridors, one of them was the Kabeli River corridor (World
Bank, 2010). After a competitive tender based in the tariff on January 31, 2010, the Government of Nepal and the project company, Kabeli
Energy Limited signed the Project Development Agreement (World Bank, 2010). The World Bank approved the US$ 40.5 million loan
requirement in 2014 (World Bank, 2014). A Cumulative Impact Assessment was prepared by a Nepalese consultancy firm on December 2011
(World Bank, 2011c).
Nam Theun 2 Hydroelectric Project
Authorities in Lao PDR had long considered the energy exportation as the most promising option to increase Government incomes and
improve the population living standard. To develop the hydropower sector, the authorities had asked a foreign consortium (Nam Theun
Electricity Consortium) for assistance in the construction and operation of the Nam Theun 2 Hydropower Project (World Bank, 1998). The
Nam Theun 2 Hydroelectric Project was owned by private shareholders and the Lao Government, jointly implemented by the Nam Theun 2
Power Company and the Government of Lao PDR, and supported by several financial institutions including the WB and ADB. The various
financing partners funding the project had committed a total of US$1.45 billion. The WB commitment amount was US$ 42.00 million (World
Bank, 2005a). In 2004, an association of two consultancies prepared a Cumulative Impact Analysis under the technical assistance provided
by ADB and with technical input from the WB (International Advisory Group et al., 2004). Both institutions' loans were approved in 2005.
Rampur Hydropower Development
To reduce the gap in energy supply, there was a need of loss reduction and efficiency gains. According to the Government, additional
100,000 MW was needed to provide electricity to all households by 2012 (World Bank, 2005b). Recognizing the insufficient private
investment in hydropower to meet the needed expansion, the Government of India had requested the WB loan to strengthen organizations
involved in the sector, increase the installed capacity and consolidate gains within the sector (World Bank, 2005b). The project developer was
an association of the Government of India and Government of Himachal Pradesh (one of the Indian States). In 2007, the World Bank approved
a commitment amount of US$ 400.00 million (World Bank, 2007b). The project closed in 2014. A Cumulative and Induced Impact
Assessment was required to identify environmental impacts likely to occur because of the construction and operation of the project. The
assessment was prepared by DHI water and Environment, also finalized in 2006 (World Bank., 2006c).

required by only two ToRs. In the Power Development Project (Nepal),
for example, ToR required the development of the country's hydropow-
er potential needed to be achieved considering environmental and so-
cial dimensions of sustainability. Usually, SEA alternatives and
statements are tested against sustainability objectives based on the sig-
nicance of environmental, socioeconomic and health components. In
another case (Cumulative Impact Assessment of the Kabeli A Hydro-
electric Project, Nepal), alternatives were tested based on the
components of the natural and human ecosystems () attributed for eco-
nomic, social, environmental, aesthetic or ethical reasons (pg. 37 of the
SEA report). The Regional Environmental Assessment of the Kribi Gas
Power Project applied a similar approach.
The fact that 3 of 6 ToRs had clearly established the use of an envi-
ronmental/sustainability indicator to support environmental assess-
ments express that this SEA key aspect is reasonably internalised in
the practice of SEA by MDAs. Here, Nam Theun 2 Hydroelectric Project
32 G.M. Tshibangu, M. Montao / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 61 (2016) 2737

Box 2
Strategic dimensions.

Dimensions Verification guide

Objectives Do the SA* objectives express the broader lines, main values and purposes of coordinating institution, thus indicating the
nature of the whole set of aimed results?
Timing Is the moment of SA design far from the implementation of related actions/projects?
Observation: After the SA formulation, a period of time is necessary to make its implementation effective.
Spatiality Does the SA indicate the direction (north, south, east or west) of the development or refer to a region (e.g., city or state)?
Observation: the exact location of a SA is uncertain, disperse.
Scope Does the SA involve (or refer) at least (to) one of the following: (i) more than one sector; (ii) a whole sector, an area or a
region; or (iii) a group of projects linked to each other or to larger plans?
Level of details Is the SA described with a low level of detail and specificity?
Types of Are the SA alternatives related to political, regulative, technological, fiscal, economic initiatives, and/or involve a wide
alternatives area?
Source: based on Baptista (1981); Kitchell (1967); Baptista (2007); Fischer (2007).
*SA: Strategic Action.

Box 3
SEA report quality review criteria.

Section 1: SEA objectives

1 The report refers to the contents and main objectives of the strategic action.
2 SEA objectives are outlined.
3 Environmental and sustainability visions and problems are considered when developing the SEA objectives and indicators.
Section 2: Scoping
4 Environmental authorities were consulted about the scope and information level which must be considered by SEA.
5 SEA focuses on significant issues, disregarding less significant ones, and justifies the reasons for eliminating issues from further
consideration.
6 The scope explicitly includes other relevant policies, plans and programs (PPPs).
7 The scope presents what would be considered reasonable alternatives to be assessed.
8 The scope considers technical, procedural and other difficulties found (such as data deficiencies or uncertainty).
Section 3: Baseline information
9 Relevant aspects of the environment current state and the possible evolution without the strategic action are described. Environmental
characteristics of areas that may be significantly affected are described.
10 Methods used to investigate the affected baseline are appropriate to the assessment task size and complexity.
Section 4: Links to other strategic actions
11 Links to other strategic actions and to higher/lower levels of decision are clearly identified and described.
12 Conflicts with other strategic actions are clearly stated, suggesting how they could become compatible in order to promote sustainability.
Section 5: Alternatives/options
13 Alternatives considered in the report are clearly related to the described baseline, and/or to achieve sustainability visions.
14 The report considers do nothing and most environmentally beneficial alternatives, amongst others.
15 The report provides justifications for the alternatives elimination from further consideration.
16 The report explains how the environmental and sustainability effects are identified and compared to each alternative.
Section 6: Identification and evaluation of key effects/impact analysis
17 The report explains how the significant impacts on the environment are identified and assessed.
18 The report explains how the likely indirect, cumulative, synergistic and high-order impacts are identified and assessed.
19 The techniques used for impact prediction and evaluation are appropriate.
Section 7: Effects mitigation and monitoring
20 The report refers to the measures envisaged to avoid, reduce, repair, compensate and/or enhance any significant impacts of
implementing the strategic action.
21 The report refers to the measures envisaged for monitoring impacts.
Section 8: Consultation and decision-making
22 Environmental and other authorities and the public are given an early and effective opportunity within appropriate timeframes to express
their opinion on the draft strategic action and SEA report before adoption of the strategic action.
23 The report explains how the views of the public and relevant stakeholders were considered.
24 The report describes how the SEA was conducted.
Section 9: Communication
25 The report is clear and concise in its layout and presentation, and uses maps and other illustrations where appropriate.
26 The report uses simple, clear language and avoids unnecessary technical jargon.
27 The report is written without bias in an impartial and open manner.
Source: based on Sadler (1996); Therivel (2004); Fischer (2007); Doren et al. (2013); Chanchitpricha and Bond (2013).
 G.M. Tshibangu, M. Montao / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 61 (2016) 2737 33

Box 4 case, indicators were based on previous studies and issues that have
Scoring system. risen during the design of the proposed action. Potentially, according
to Fischer (2007) and Therivel (2004), environmental and sustainability
Grade A Well performed with no important omissions.
indicators can also be applied to the baseline description and to the
Grade B Satisfactorily performed and complete with only minor
monitoring programs design.
omissions/inadequacies.
Grade C Satisfactory despite some omissions or inadequacies.
4.3. Quality review of SEA reports
Grade D Well attempted but, in general, unsatisfactory because
of omissions or inadequacies.
Tables 8 and 9 present the outcomes of quality review to sections
Grade E Unsatisfactory, revealing significant omissions or
and overall grades. The outcomes indicate that SEA reports performed
inadequacies.
poorly in terms of SEA objectives, scoping, development of alternatives,
Grade F Very unsatisfactory with important tasks poorly
mitigation/monitoring and consultation, revealing signicant omissions
attempted.
and inadequacies. Some reports showed good quality when informing
Grade G Not attempted at all.
the links to other PPPs, the baseline, analysis of impacts, and also in
Source: Fischer (2007) terms of the presentation, appropriate language, and impartiality. Fig.
2 shows graphic sections and overall grades representation.
Overall, only one report showed to be satisfactory despite some
Table 5 omissions or inadequacies (grade C), with other two being graded as
Moment of SEA application. well attempted but unsatisfactory because of omissions and inadequa-
Moment of application in relation Moment of application cies (grade D). Two reports were considered unsatisfactory, revealing
to proposed action's design in relation to EIA signicant omissions and inadequacies (grade E), and one report was
Manantali Energy After design After two EIAs considered very unsatisfactory with important tasks poorly attempted
Project (grade F). In this scenario it is reasonable to assume that SEA reports are
Kribi Gas Power After design After two EIAs barely being able to deliver relevant information to support the
Project
decisions.
Power After design Before EIA
Development The high variability in the assigned scores indicates that the practice
Project of SEA by MDAs is still to be consolidated (which may be related to the
Kabeli A Hydro After design Simultaneously to EIA different types of assessment labeled SEA, as previously mentioned).
Electric Project Considering the performance along each individual criterion (Fig. 3)
Nam Theun 2 After design After EIA
Hydroelectric
it is evident there is a large gap between the practice of SEA by MDAs
Project and best practice criteria. As a positive outcome, 35% of the questions
Rampur After design After EIA were assigned an A score (well performed task with no important omis-
Hydropower sions), thus indicating a promising aspect in the practice of SEA by
Development
MDAs. Interestingly, the number of questions considered to be satisfac-
tory (grades A, B or C) is roughly the same as the unsatisfactory ones
(grades D, E, F or G), respectively 52% and 48%. Related to the latter
the number of questions that were assigned a G score (task not
Table 6
Strategic dimensions of proposed actions.
attempted at all) deserves special attention: nearly 27% of the total.

Power Kabeli Nam 4.4. Discussion

Manantali Kribi Development A Theun 2 Rampur

Objectives 0 0 0 To a great extent, the outcomes suggest a larger gap between SEA
Timing 0 0 0 0 0
practice and best practices than the one previously reported to other
Spatiality 0 0 0 0 0
Scope contexts. McGimpsey and Morgan (2013) have recognised some weak-
Level of details 0 0 0 nesses of SEA application in transport planning in a non-mandatory
Types of context (New Zealand), suggesting there is a weak linkage with base-
alternatives line, development of alternatives and impacts prediction and a reason-
0: Not veried; : Veried. able performance in terms of the denition of objectives, monitoring
and public participation. Fischer (2010) reviewed 125 SEA reports pre-
pared to spatial planning in the UK nding a low quality in terms of im-
can be presented as a good example. Both ToR and Cumulative Impact pacts assessment, consultation and SEA recommendations.
Analysis refer to the development of environmental/sustainability indi- Fischer et al. (2011) have assessed a number of SEA reports prepared
cators as a methodological resource to support the assessment. In this to support UK development of municipal waste management strategies.

Table 7
Key aspects of SEA in ToRs and SEA reports.

Power
Manantali Kribi Development Kabeli A Nam Theun 2 Rampur

ToR SEA ToR SEA ToR SEA ToR SEA ToR SEA ToR SEA

Indicators 0 0 0
Problem areas 0 0
Testing sustainability Objectives 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Alternatives 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Statements 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Documentation

0: Key aspect not veried; : Key aspect veried.

34 G.M. Tshibangu, M. Montao / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 61 (2016) 2737

Table 8
Quality review criteria scores.

Manantali Kribi Power Development Kabeli A Nam Theun 2 Rampur

S1 - Objectives
1 The contents and main objectives of the strategic action A F G D G G
2 SEA objectives G C C D C A
3 Consideration of environmental and sustainability visions and problems G A A C C A
S2 - Scoping
4 Key actors involvement G G G A F A
5 Priority issues and relevant impacts B G F E E A
6 Other relevant PPPs B A A F A A
7 Reasonable alternatives A A C G C G
8 Difculties encountered A B G A A A
S3 - Baseline information
9 Environment conditions B A G A G A
10 Use of suitable database and methodologies G A G B G B
S4 - Links to other strategic actions
11 Links with PPPs B A B B A A
12 PPPs conicts D A G F A F
S5 - Alternatives/options
13 Alternatives considered A A G A E G
14 Types of alternatives G E G G F G
15 Reasons for eliminating alternatives B F B G G G
16 Alternatives effects A G G G D G
S6 - Identication and evaluation of key effects/impact analysis
17 Signicant impacts B F G B A A
18 Indirect and cumulative effects B F G E E A
19 Techniques for impacts prediction and evaluation A E G B B A
S7 - Mitigation and monitoring of effects
20 Mitigation A D F G G D
21 Monitoring A F F G G D
S8 - Consultation and decision-making
22 Subject to public review and expert comment E B G A F F
23 Responses to the views of the public and relevant stakeholders G A G D F F
24 SEA conduction A A C G F A
S9 - Communication
25 Clearness and conciseness B B E B A A
26 Language A A A A A A
27 Writing A A A B A A

According to the authors review questions that obtained above average A more detailed discussion is needed to alternatives development.
scores included in particular those that are of a more descriptive nature, The development of alternatives is a recognised challenge to SEA effec-
i.e. those that list objectives, targets and baseline data (Fischer et al., tiveness (Gonzlez et al., 2015). The poor consideration of alternatives
2011, p. 562). Nevertheless, an unsatisfactory overall level of quality in SEA has been reported in both developing and developed countries
was assigned to 11 out of 25 SEA reports reviewed at that time. (Fischer, 2010; Malvestio and Montao, 2013; Bidstrup and Hansen,
According to our ndings SEA reports were considered unsatisfacto- 2014). Also, the effective consideration of strategic alternatives is a
ry regarding the description of the strategic action and SEA objectives, topic of particular interest in low and middle income countries
scoping, development of alternatives, monitoring, and consultation. (Alshuwaikhat, 2005).
More concerning here is the fact that a score G (task not attempted at We suggest that the lack of compliance of SEA reports with ToRs is
all) had prevailed in 6 review questions: description of context and an evidence of a highly exible SEA process, that could be related to
main objectives of the strategic action; key actors involvement; the the purposes of MDAs (and particularly the World Bank) to maintain
use of suitable database and methodology; types of alternatives; the their position as a leading institution on international development fo-
reasons for the elimination of alternatives; and the assessment of alter- cusing on knowledge generation, as described by Cashmore and
natives effects. Axelsson (2013); Cashmore et al. (2014). Based on our ndings, we sug-
gest that a fully exible SEA process is much more consequence than the
Table 9 opposite of this purpose. Also, according to the aforementioned authors,
Sections and overall scores. the World Bank has been developing a new approach to SEA focused on
the policy level and on the institutions (including organizations and
Power Kabeli Nam
Manantali Kribi Development A Theun 2 Rampur governance systems) as the root causes of environmental problems.
Timing was found to be a major constraint to the purposes of SEA to
SEA objectives E D D D E D
Scoping D E F E E D inuence the development of strategic actions. As a rule SEA was ap-
Baseline E A G B G B plied after project design (six out of six cases) and after EIA (four out
Links to other C A E D A D of six cases), thus suggesting SEA was playing some type of corrective
PPPs role (if it was playing a role at all). Timing was also highlighted by
Alternatives C E F F F G
Banhalmi-Zakar and Larsen (2015) as an important characteristic of
Impact analysis B F G D C A
Mitigation and A E F G G D SEA, which should get early in the planning process a pre-condition
monitoring to guarantee some capacity to inuence the strategic actions.
Consultation E B F D F E On another hand, consolidated/mandatory SEA systems tend to
Communication B B C B A A
show less variability in terms of SEA reports quality. A review of effec-
Overall grade C D F E F D
tiveness prepared by the Irish Environmental Protection Agency (EPA,
 G.M. Tshibangu, M. Montao / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 61 (2016) 2737
Fig. 2. Graphic representation of sections and overall scores (grades AG from top to bottom).
Fig. 3. Cumulated grades by individual criterion.
2012) shows a basic standard of quality which is usually achieved by
SEA reports. In a complementary way, the Portuguese Environmental
Agency (APA, 2010) suggests the SEA reports basic level of quality is re-
lated to the need for compliance with legal requirements.
Another relevant aspect related to the quality of SEA reports, in a
more operative aspect, is related to the availability of data and informa-
tion. The SEA reports prepared for Kribi Gas Power Project, Kabeli A
Hydro Electric Project and Nam Theun 2 Hydroelectric Project explicitly
refer to the absence of baseline data as the main difculty to the assess-
ment. According to Alshuwaikhat (2005), this situation is commonly
observed in low and middle income countries and affects the prediction
and monitoring of environmental effects.
5. Conclusions
This paper provided a characterisation of the SEA usage by MDAs as a
safeguard instrument in loan agreements with low and middle income
countries. The ndings indicate that SEAs are not applied early in the
planning process and, also, proposed actions are deemed of low strate-
gic focus. Generally, considering the cases studied in this paper, ToRs
and SEA reports do not comply with key aspects of SEA as reported in
the literature. Nevertheless the use of SEA in this context can promote
a relevant contribution to the involvement of decision makers and plan-
ners from low and middle income countries in processes with a broader
(and more strategic) scope than regular EIAs.
We suggest that the context in which SEA is applied by MDAs in low
and middle income countries is leading to a low level of quality of SEA
35
reports. Omissions and inadequacies observed include, amongst others,
the description of the strategic action, key actors involvement, focus on
main issues, alternatives, consideration of indirect, and cumulative ef-
fects, mitigation and monitoring. With such a low quality in relevant as-
pects of the SEA report, the delivered information shall not inuence
subsequent decisions.
Our ndings are coherent with SEA theory and practice, to the
extent that SEA objectives, scoping and alternatives development
present a strong relation with each other (Fischer, 2007; Therivel,
2010). These aspects are also strongly related to the core objec-
tive of SEA, which is to inuence strategic decisions in order to in-
troduce environmental and sustainability issues in policies, plans
and programs. Therefore, we indicate that the low quality ob-
served in these aspects of SEA is also reecting the context of
application.
Whether SEA may deliver, or not, the expected outcomes of an envi-
ronmental safeguard instrument is an issue that still requires further in-
vestigation. Despite the increasing number of SEAs applied along the
years, our ndings suggest that there is considerable scope for improve-
ments in how MDAs undertake SEA.
Acknowledgements
The authors want to thank the National Counsel of Technological and
Scientic Development (CNPq) and the Sao Paulo Research Foundation
(FAPESP) for the research nancial support.
36 G.M. Tshibangu, M. Montao / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 61 (2016) 2737
References
Alshuwaikhat, H.M., 2005. Strategic environmental assessment can help solve environ-
mental impact assessment failures in developing countries. Environ. Impact Assess.
Rev. 307317.
Annandale, D., Bailey, J., Ouano, E., Evans, W., King, P., 2001. The potential role of Strategic
Environmental Assessment in the activities of Multi-lateral Development Banks. En-
viron. Impact Assess. Rev. 21, 407429.
APA, 2010. Denio de critrios e avaliao de relatrios ambientais [Development of
Criteria and Environmental Reports Assessment]. Agncia Portuguesa do Ambiente/Por-
tuguese Environmental Agency. Available at http://www.apambiente.pt/_zdata/
AAE/Balanco_Aplicacao_AAE/RelatorioFinal_Revisto.pdf (Accessed on July 2015).
Asian Development Bank, 2003. Environmental Assessment Guidelines.
Banhalmi-Zakar, Z., Larsen, S.V., 2015. How strategic environmental assessment can in-
form lenders about potential environmental risks. Impact. Assess. Project Appraisal
33 (1), 6872.
Banque Africaine de Dveloppement, 2001. Procdures d'valuation environnementale et
sociale pour les oprations lies au secteur public de la Banque africaine de
dveloppement (29 p.) .
Baptista, M.V., 1981. Planejamento: Introduo Metodologia do Planejamento Social
[Planning: Introduction to Social Planning Methodology]. Ed. Moraes, So Paulo, So
Paulo.
Baptista, M.V., 2007. Planejamento Social: intencionalidade e instrumentao [Social plan-
ning: intentionality and instrumentation]. 2 ed. Ed. Veras, So Paulo.
Bidstrup, M., Hansen, A.M., 2014. The paradox of strategic environmental assessment. En-
viron. Impact Assess. Rev. 47, 2935.
Bina, O., 2007. A critical review of the dominant lines of argumentation on the need for
strategic environmental assessment. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 27, 585606.
Cashmore, M., Axelsson, A., 2013. The mediation of environmental assessment's inu-
ence: what role for power? Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 39, 512.
Cashmore, M., Richardson, T., Axelsson, A., 2014. Seeing power in international develop-
ment cooperation: environmental policy integration and the World Bank. Trans.
Inst. Br. Geogr. 39 (1).
Chaker, A., El-Fadl, K., Chamas, L., Hatjian, B., 2006. A review of strategic environmental
assessment in 12 selected countries. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 26, 1556.
Chanchitpricha, C., Bond, A., 2013. Conceptualising the effectiveness of impact assessment
processes. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 43, 6572.
Dalal-Clayton, B., Sadler, B., 2005. Strategic Environmental Assessment: A Sourcebook and
Reference Guide to International Experience. Earthscan, London.
Doren, D.V., Driessen, P.P.J., Schijf, B., Runhaar, H.A.C., 2013. Evaluating the substantive ef-
fectiveness of SEA: Towards a better understanding. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 38,
120130.
Environmental Resources Management - ERM, 1995. Mali, Mauritania, et Senegal - Projet
Energie Manantali. Evaluation Environnementale. Available at http://documents.
worldbank.org/curated/en/1995/09/442563/mali-mauritania-senegal-projet-
energie-manantali-evaluation-environnementale (Accessed on: 05.14.2014).
EPA (Ireland)., 2012. Review of effectiveness of SEA in Ireland: key ndings and recom-
mendations. Irish Environ. Protection Agency.
Fischer, T.B., 2007. The Theory and Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment: To-
wards a More Systematic Approach. Earthscan, London (186p).
Fischer, T.B., 2010. Reviewing the quality of strategic environmental assessment reports
for English spatial plan core strategies. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 30 (1), 6269.
Fischer, T.B., Gazzola, P., 2006. SEA effectiveness criteria equally valid in all countries?
The case of Italy. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 26, 396409.
Fischer, T.B., Onyango, V., 2012. Strategic Environmental Assessment-related research
projects and journal articles: an overview of the past 20 years. Impact Assess. Project
Appraisal 30 (4), 253263.
Fischer, T.B., Potter, K., Donaldson, S., Scott, T., 2011. Municipal waste management strat-
egies, strategic environmental assessments and the consideration of climate change
in England. J. Environ. Assess. Policy and Manag. 13 (4), 541565.
Gonzlez, J.C.T., Torre, M.C.A., Miln, P.M., 2014. Present status of the implementation of Stra-
tegic Environmental Assessment in Mexico. J. Environ. Assess. Policy and Manag. 16 (2).
Gonzlez, A., Therivel, R., Fry, J., Foley, W., 2015. Advancing practice relating to SEA alter-
natives. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 53, 5263.
Herrera, R.J., 2007. Strategic Environmental Assessment: the need to transform the envi-
ronmental assessment paradigms. J. Environ. Assess. Policy and Manag. 9 (2),
211234.
Inter-American Development Bank, 2007. Implementation Guidelines for the Environ-
ment and Safeguards Compliance Policy.
International Advisory Group, 2004. Laos; Nam Thuen II Power Company Ltd.; EcoLao;
Norplan. Cumulative impact analysis and Nam Theun 2 Contributions Final Report.
Laos; EcoLao Available at http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2004/10/
6290227/laos-nam-theun-2-hydroelectric-project-environmental-assessment-vol-
12-22-cumulative-impact-analysis-nam-theun-2-contributions-nal-report
(Accessed on: 05.14.2014).
Kitchell, R.E., 1967. Planejamento: um sistema para ao [Planning: a system to action].
Revista de Administrao Pblica 1 (1), 75101.
Lee, N., Colley, R., 1992. Reviewing the Quality of Environmental Appraisals, Occasional Paper
24. Department of Planning and Landscape, second ed. University of Manchester.
Lee, N., Walsh, F., 1992. Strategic environmental assessment: an overview. Project Ap-
praisal 7 (3), 126136.
Lee, N., Colley, R., Bonde, J., Simpson, J., 1999. Reviewing the Quality of Environmental Ap-
praisals, Occasional Paper 55. Department of Planning and Landscape. University of
Manchester.
Loayza, F., 2012. Strategic Environmental Assessment in the World Bank, Washington DC
(116 p) .
Malvestio, A.C., Montao, M., 2013. Effectiveness of Strategic Environmental Assess-
ment applied to renewable energy in Brazil. J. Environ. Assess. Policy and Manag.
15 (2).
McGimpsey, P., Morgan, R.K., 2013. The application of strategic environmental assess-
ment in a non-mandatory context: regional transport planning in New Zealand. En-
viron. Impact Assess. Rev. 43, 5664.
Montao, M., Oppermann, P., Malvestio, A.C., Souza, M.P., 2014. Current state of the SEA
system in Brazil: a comparative study. J. Environ. Assess. Policy and Manag. 16 (2),
1450022 19 pages.
Nepal, 1997. Power Development Project: Sectoral Environmental Assessment. World De-
velopment Sources, WDS 1997-2. Katmandu, Nepal. Ministry of Water Resources and
Ministry of Population and Environment Available at http://documents.worldbank.
org/curated/en/1999/11/441648/nepal-power-development-project-sectoral-
environmental-assessment-vol-1-3 (Accessed on: 05.14.2014).
Noble, B.F., 2009. Promise and dismay: the state of strategic environmental assessment
systems and practices in Canada. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 29, 6675.
Oliveira, I.S.D., Montao, M., Souza, M.P., 2013. Strategic Environmental Assessment to
improve infrastructure impact assessments in Brazil. J. Environ. Prot. 4, 11891196.
Partidrio, M.R., 2007. Scales and associated data what is enough for SEA needs? Envi-
ron. Impact Assess. Rev. 27, 460478.
Pellin, A., Lemos, C.C., Tachard, A., Oliveira, I.S.D., Souza, M.P., 2011. Avaliao Ambiental
Estratgica no Brasil: consideraes a respeito do papel das agncias multilaterais
de desenvolvimento [SEA in Brazil: considerations about the role of MDAs]. Engenharia
Sanitria e Ambiental 16 (1), 2736.
Polido, A., Joo, E., Ramos, T.B., 2014. Sustainability approaches and strategic Environmental
Assessment in small islands: an integrative review. Ocean & Coastal Management 96,
138148.
Rees, C., 1999. Improving the effectiveness of Environmental Assessment in the World
Bank. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 19, 333339.
Richardson, T., Cashmore, M.P., 2011. Knowledge and environmental assessment: the
World Bank's pursuit of good governance. J. Polit. Power 4 (1), 105125.
Sadler, B., 1996. Environmental Assessment in a Changing World: Evaluating Practice to
Improve Performance. Internacional Study of the Effectiveness of Environmental As-
sessment. IAIA e Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.
Snchez, L.E., 2006. Avaliao de Impacto Ambiental: conceitos e mtodos. [Environmental
Impact Assessment: Concepts and Methods]. So Paulo, Ed. Ocina de Textos.
Snchez, L.E., Silva-Snchez, S.S., 2008. Tiering strategic environmental assessment and
project environmental impact assessment in highway planning in So Paulo, Brazil.
Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 28, 515522.
Tetlow, M.F., Hanusch, M., 2012. Strategic Environmental Assessment: The State of the
Art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. v. 30, n.1, pp. 1524.
Therivel, R., 2004. Strategic Environmental Assessment in Action. Earthscan, London.
Therivel, R., 2010. Strategic Environmental Assessment in Action. second ed. Earthscan,
London.
Tshibangu, G.M., Montao, M., 2015. L'valuation environnementale stratgique dans les
pays en voie de dveloppement: le rle des Agences multilatrales de
dveloppement [SEA in Developing Countries: The Role of MDAs]. VertigO la revue
lectronique en sciences de l'environnement, Regards/Terrain http://dx.doi.org/10.
4000/vertigo.15605 (Available at) http://vertigo.revues.org/15605.
Verheem, R.A.A., Tonk, J.A.M.N., 2000. Strategic Environmental Assessment: One Concept,
Multiple Forms. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. v. 18, n. 3, pp. 177182.
Victor, D., Agamuthu, P., 2013. Strategic environmental assessment policy integration
model for solid waste management in Malaysia. Environ. Sci. Pol. 33, 233245.
Victor, D., Agamuthu, P., 2014. Policy trends of strategic environmental assessment in
Asia. Environ. Sci. Pol. 41, 6376.
World Bank, 1997. Mali, Mauritania & Senegal Regional Hydropower Development Pro-
ject. World Development Sources, WDS 1997-2. World Bank, Washington, DC Avail-
able at http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/1997/06/694730/mali-
mauritania-senegal-regional-hydropower-development-project (Accessed on:
05.14.2014).
World Bank, 1998. Laos - Nam Theun 2 Hydroelectric Project. World Bank, Washington
DC Available at http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/1998/09/440410/laos-
second-nam-theun-hydroelectric-project (Accessed on: 05.14.2014).
World Bank, 2000. Reforming Public Institutions and Strengthening Governance A
World Bank Strategy. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development,
Washington DC.
World Bank, 2003a. Integrated Safeguards Data Sheet, Report n. AC76.
World Bank, 2003b. Nepal - Power Development Project. Report No: 2363 1-NP. World
Bank, Washington, DC Available at http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/
2003/04/2290452/nepal-power-development-project (Accessed on: 05.14.2014).
World Bank, 2005a. MIGA, Project Appraisal Document on a proposed IDA grant (Nam
Theun 2 Social and Environment Project) in the amount of SDR 13.1 million (US$
20 million equivalent) to the Lao People's Democratic Republic and a proposed IDA
partial risk guarantee in the amount of up to US$ 50 Million for a syndicated commer-
cial loan and proposed MIGA guarantees of up to US$ 200 million in Lao People's
Democratic Republic and Thailand for a syndicated commercial loan to and an equity
investment in The Nam Theun 2 Power Company Limited for the Nam Theun 2 Hy-
droelectric Project, Report n. 31764-LA.
World Bank, 2005b. Laos - Nam Theun 2 Hydroelectric Project. World Bank, Washington
DC Available at http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2005/03/5720417/lao-
nam-theun-2-hydroelectric-project (Accessed on: 05.14.2014).
World Bank, 2006a. Overview of regional energy projects and project performance as-
sessment report for the Mali, Mauritania and Senegal regional hydropower develop-
ment project (Credits 2970,2971 and 2972), Report n. 38134.
World Bank, 2006b. Mali, Mauritania & Senegal Regional Hydropower Development Pro-
ject. World Bank, Washington, DC Available at http://documents.worldbank.org/
 G.M. Tshibangu, M. Montao / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 61 (2016) 2737
curated/en/2006/12/7345335/mali-mauritania-senegal-regional-hydropower-
development-project (Accessed on: 05.14.2014).
World Bank, 2006c. Cumulative and Induced Impact Assessment. Government of India.
Available at http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2006/09/7161410/india-
rampur-hydropower-project-environmental-assessment-vol-2-9-cumulative-
induced-impact-assessment (Accessed on: 05.14.2014).
World Bank, 2007a. India - Rampur Hydropower Project. World Bank, Washington, DC
Available at http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2007/01/7345138/india-
rampur-hydropower-project (Accessed on: 05.14.2014).
World Bank, 2007b. Project Appraisal Document on a Proposed Loan in the Amount of
US$ 400 million to the Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam LTD with the Guarantee of the Republic
of India for Rampur Hydropower Project, Report n. 38178-IN.
World Bank, 2008. Regional Environmental Assessment of the Kribi region. World Bank,
Washington, DC Available at http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2008/02/
9044716/cameroon-kribi-gas-power-project-environmental-assessment-vol-4-9-
regional-environmental-assessment-kribi-region (Accessed on: 05.14.2014).
World Bank, 2010. Nepal - Kabeli A Hydroelectric Project. World Bank, Washington, DC
Available at http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2010/04/14390096/nepal-
kabeli-hydroelectric-project-nepal-kabeli-hydroelectric-project (Accessed on:
05.14.2014).
World Bank, 2011a. Project Appraisal Document on a Proposed IDA Guarantee in the
Amount of up to CFA 40 Billion (US$82 Million Equivalent) and on a Proposed IFC a
Loan in the Amount of up to EUR 64 Million (US$86 Million Equivalent) to the
37
Kribi Power Development Company for The Kribi Gas Power Project in the Republic
of Cameroon, Report n. 53952-CM.
World Bank, 2011b. Cameroon - Kribi Gas Power Project. Report No: 53953-CM. World
Bank, Washington, DC Available at http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/
2011/10/15480825/cameroon-kribi-gas-power-project (Accessed on: 05.14.2014).
World Bank, 2011c. Cameroon - Kribi Gas Power Project. Report No.: AB6777. World
Bank, Washington, DC Available at http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/
2011/10/15459979/cameroon-cameroon-kribi-gas-power-project-cameroon-kribi-
gas-power-project (Accessed on: 05.14.2014).
World Bank, 2011d. Cumulative Impact Assessment. Nepal. Available at http://
documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2011/12/15625704/nepal-kabeli-
hydroelectric-project-environmental-assessment-vol-6-6-cumulative-impact-
assessment (Accessed on: 05.14.2014).
World Bank, 2012. Nepal - Kabeli-A Hydro Electric Project. World Bank, Washington, DC
Available at http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2012/01/15595002/nepal-
kabeli-a-hydro-electric-project-nepal-kabeli-a-hydro-electric-project (Accessed on:
05.14.2014).
World Bank, 2013. Operational Manual, Bank Procedure 4.01 Environmental
Assessment.
World Bank, 2014. Nepal - Kabeli-A Hydroelectric Project. World Bank Group, Washing-
ton DC Available at http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2014/04/
19447096/nepal-kabeli-a-hydroelectric-project (Accessed on: 05.14.2014).