ESP3 SEA Synthesis Study April 2013 Final Report ENG Rev0

ESP-Environmental Support Programme
Danida
Synthesis Study on
SEA Lessons Learned
Final version
Contract Title:
SEA synthesis study on lessons learned
Contract Number:
DC 2013/0018/KC
Assignment Period:
January April 2013
Contractor:
Integra Consulting Limited, Suite 2006

20/F 340 Queens Road Central
Hong Kong
Date of Submission: 30 April, 2013
ESP-Environmental Support Programme

Danida
Disclaimer
This report was prepared by Martin Smutny, Jiri Dusik and Michal Musil (Integra Consulting Limited) in
cooperation with Indonesian experts Adi Wiyana and Dwi Nurcahyadi.
The report does not constitute any formal legal advice. The report is without warranty of any kind,
either expressed or implied.
Unless indicated otherwise, the authors have drafted the report. The findings, interpretations and
conclusions expressed in the report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views
of Danida or governmental agencies in Indonesia.
This material has been prepared as a working document which has not been language edited.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank to Mr. Tim Hansen and Ms. Trine Bargsteen from Royal Danish Embassy
in Jakarta as well as to Ms. Ida Lestari (ESP3 Secretariat) for overall coordination and support to the
assignment, to the representatives of the key governmental agencies Ms. Tri Dewi Virgiyanti
(Bappenas), Ms. Wahyu Indraningsih, Ms. Qurie Purnamasari, and Ms. Inge Retnowati (KLH), Ms. Reny
Windyawati (MOHA), Mr. Ir. Edison Siagian (MOHA) and the international consultants Mr. Kim Harboe,
Mr. Josh Van Berkel, and Mr. Nils Bull for their kind inputs to the SEA synthesis study.
Synthesis study on SEA lessons learned, final version
Table of Contents
Disclaimer ........................................................................................................................... 2
Acknowledgement ................................................................................................................ 2
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................... iii
List of abbreviations ................................................................................................................ v
1.
Introduction .................................................................................................................. 6
1.1
Objective of SEA synthesis study ................................................................................. 6
1.2
Approach to the assignment ........................................................................................ 7
1.3
Workshop on SEA lessons learned ................................................................................ 7
2.
Main findings and conclusions .......................................................................................... 9

2.1
Link to decision-making .............................................................................................. 9
2.2
SEA process design .................................................................................................. 10
2.3
Scope of SEA........................................................................................................... 11
2.4
Baseline analysis ..................................................................................................... 12
2.5
Evaluation of impacts ............................................................................................... 13
2.6
Mitigation measures and monitoring ........................................................................... 13
2.7
SEA report .............................................................................................................. 14
2.8
Stakeholders participation ....................................................................................... 15
3.
Final Remarks and Recommendations ............................................................................. 16

3.1
General remarks on SEA in Indonesia ......................................................................... 16
3.2
Recommendation for future SEA practice .................................................................... 16
3.3
Further recommendations for ESP3 ............................................................................ 19
4.
Annex I: Overview of comments from the workshop on SEA lessons learned ....................... 22
5.
Annex II: The list of participants at the workshop on SEA lessons learned ........................... 28
6.
Annex III: Quality assurance report for SEA pilots ............................................................ 33

6.1
SEA of Medium Term Development Plan of Kubu Raya (RPJMD) ..................................... 33
6.2
SEA of Kota Serang Regional Spatial (Spatial Plan) and Long-Term Regional Development Plan
(RPJPD) ............................................................................................................................ 36
6.3
SEA of Padang Bay City Development Plan .................................................................. 40
iii
6.4
SEA of National Mid-Term Development Plan for Palm Oil Sector .................................... 44
6.5
SEA of Spatial Plan of West Sumatera Province ............................................................ 47
6.6
SEA for Lake Maninjau Management Plan .................................................................... 50
6.7
SEA for Kapuas Watershed Management ..................................................................... 53
6.8
SEA for Kota Banjarbaru Spatial Plan.......................................................................... 56
6.9
SEA for Padang New City (Post Earthquake Development Plan) ...................................... 59
6.10
SEA of Water Resources Management and Conservation on Bali ..................................... 62
6.11
SEA for Amandit River Basin Management .................................................................. 66
6.12
SEA of Aquaculture Sector ........................................................................................ 69
6.13
SEA of Coal Mining Sector ......................................................................................... 72
6.14
SEA for Provincial Spatial Plan of the North Sulawesi .................................................... 76
6.15
SEA for Spatial Plan of Central Sulawesi Province ......................................................... 81
6.16
SEA for Medium-Term Development Plan of the Central Java Province ............................ 84
6.17
SEA for Border Road Development Plan in West Kalimantan .......................................... 88
6.18
SEA for Spatial Plan of Jambi Province ........................................................................ 91
6.19
SEA for Mataram Metropolitan City Plan ...................................................................... 95
6.20
SEA for Spatial Plan of National Strategic Area (KSN) Sunda Strait................................. 98
6.21
Rapid Environmental Assessment (REA) for Proposed Diversion of the Citanduy River ..... 102
6.22
SEA for Regional Medium-Term Development Plan of Bangka Belitung Province .............. 105
6.23
SEA for Regional Medium-Term Development Plan of Hulu Sungai Utara District ............. 109
6.24
SEA Pre-Scoping for National Strategic Area Sorowako ................................................ 114
6.25
Environmental Assessment for Sei Mangkei Development Area ..................................... 117
6.26
Preliminary Environmental Analysis for KSN Prambanan .............................................. 120
6.27
SEA for Spatial Plan (RTRW) of Tasikmalaya District .................................................... 123
iv
List of abbreviations
Bappenas
The State Ministry of National Development Planning
ESPII
Indonesia-Denmark Environmental
Phase 2, Component 1
FDG
Focus Group Discussion
KLH
Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup (Ministry of Environment)
KSN
National Strategic Area
LEPM
Law on Environmental Protection and Environment no. 32/2
MoHA
Ministry of Home Affairs
MoPW
Ministry of Public Works
PPP
Policy, plan or programme
QA
Quality assurance
RPJMD
Mid-Term Development Plan
RPJPD
Long-Term Development Plan
RTRW
Spatial Plan
SEA
Strategic Environmental Assessment
ToR
Terms of Reference
Support
Programme,
1. Introduction
1.1 Objective of SEA synthesis study
Indonesia and Denmark have cooperated in the field of environment through an Environment
Support Programme since 2005. The second phase was running from 2008 to 2012 and consisted
of 3 components including a component on improving institutional capacity of public sector
institutions. This component (known as component 1) has 3 outputs:
1) Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) reform and decentralized process strengthened
(implemented by Ministry of Environment / KLH)
2) Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) in development planning and policy analysis
(implemented by Ministry of Environment (KLH), National Development Planning Agency
(Bappenas), Ministry of Home Affairs/MOHA), Ministry of Public Works (MoPW)
3) Role of Economic Instruments/EI (implemented by KLH).
The major activity under Component 1 was a support to the Strategic Environmental Assessment
(SEA), both for preparation of guidelines and input for regulations, training at different levels and
preparation of following pilot SEAs:
SEA of Medium Term Development Plan of Kubu Raya (RPJMD)
SEA of Kota Serang Regional Spatial (Spatial Plan) and Long-Term Regional Development
Plan (RPJPD)
SEA of Padang Bay City Development Plan
SEA of National Mid-Term Development Plan for Palm Oil Sector
SEA of Spatial Plan of West Sumatera Province
SEA for Lake Maninjau Management Plan
SEA for Kapuas Watershed Management
SEA for Kota Banjarbaru Spatial Plan
SEA for Padang New City (Post Earthquake Development Plan)
SEA of Water Resources Management and Conservation on Bali
SEA for Amandit River Basin Management
SEA of Aquaculture Sector
SEA of Coal Mining Sector
SEA for Provincial Spatial Plan of the North Sulawesi
SEA for Spatial Plan of Central Sulawesi Province
SEA for Medium-Term Development Plan of the Central Java Province
SEA for Border Road Development Plan in West Kalimantan
SEA for Spatial Plan of Jambi Province
SEA for Mataram Metropolitan City Plan
SEA for Spatial Plan of National Strategic Area (KSN) Sunda Strait
Rapid Environmental Assessment (REA) for Proposed Diversion of the Citanduy River
SEA for Regional Medium-Term Development Plan of Bangka Belitung Province
SEA for Regional Medium-Term Development Plan of Hulu Sungai Utara District
SEA Pre-Scoping for National Strategic Area Sorowako
Environmental Assessment for Sei Mangkei Development Area
Preliminary Environmental Analysis for KSN Prambanan
It has to be noted that above listed SEAs represent only part of SEA application in Indonesia,
since a number of SEA cases (more than 100) was supported from the national budget in 2011
and 2012. The SEA for Spatial Plan (RTRW) of Tasikmalaya District was included in the SEA
lessons learned study as the representative of such SEAs.
Preparation of the synthesis study on SEA lessons learned has been assigned by the Royal Danish
Embassy in Jakarta in order to summarize experience from practical application of SEA within
the ESP2. The respective ToR for the assignment stipulates the overall objective of the review as
to assess the procedures, relevance and quality according to national and international SEA
standards, actual and potential impacts and capturing good practice. The synthesis study is
supposed to address suitability of the
The procedures, what are the procedures and are they suitable to address the problem
and improve the situation in Indonesia
Relevance of the SEA and the result

Quality of the SEA according to national and international SEA standards
Actual and potential impacts, what is the actual and potential impact of the SEA on the
environment, democratisation, good governess in Indonesia?
Capturing good practice, are the SEA following good practice for SEA
The SEA lessons learned study shall analyse pilot SEAs prepared under the ESP2 in order to
provide recommendations for further SEA development in Indonesia as well as give specific
suggestions towards the ESP3.
The views of the key agencies involved in the SEA activities within ESP2 (i.e. KLH, Bappenas,
MOHA and MOPW) as well as national and international consultants have been integrated in the
draft study. Its preparation also involved survey among several provinces where SEA pilots had
been conducted in order to find out if and how the results and recommendations provided by
SEAs were considered in the final version of the plans and/or its approval.
1.2 Approach to the assignment

The evaluation of the SEA pilots was based mainly on the environmental reports, which were
evaluated against quality criteria covering altogether eight main quality issues:
SEA process design
Scope of SEA
Baseline analysis
Evaluation of impacts
Mitigation measures and monitoring
SEA report
Decision-making
Stakeholders participation
The matrix was prepared for each quality issue using following scale:
Fully covered F
Partially covered P
Missing M
Not applicable (information are not available or a quality aspect is not relevant for SEA
which is a subject of the review)1 NA
A short summary was prepared at the end of each matrix reflecting detailed quality criteria.
In addition, several provinces where SEA pilots were conducted were approached with a simple
questionnaire focused on of and how the SEA results have been considered in the final approval
of the plans assessed and/or during their implementation. Findings from the survey are
integrated in the final version of the SEA synthesis study together with the conclusions from the
workshop organized on April 9, 2013, in Jakarta (see chapter 1.3 below).
1.3 Workshop on SEA lessons learned

The workshop on the SEA lessons learned was held in Jakarta on April 9, 2013, as a part of the
assignment. The objective of the workshop was to present and discuss lessons learned from each
key ministry involved in ESP2 SEA activities as well as from the international consultants and the
main findings of the lessons learned synthesis study. This draft version of the SEA synthesis
study provides an overview of comments raised during the workshop and indicates how these
(together with inputs received after the workshop) are taken into account in this final version of
the report (Annex I)
E.g. if final decision hasnt been adopted yet
The list of participants can be found in Annex II, the agenda of the workshop is provided in a
table below:
Time
Agenda
Note
08.30 09.00
Registration
09.00 09.15
Opening
Royal Danish Embassy
09.15 10.15
Lessons learned KLH and Bappenas
Representatives of KLH
and Bappenas
10.15 10.45
Coffee break
10.45 11.45
Lessons learned MoHA and MoPW
Representatives of MoHA
and MoPW
11.45 12.45
International consultants perspective
International consultants
involved in ESP2 SEA
activities
12.45 13.00
Discussion
13.00 14.00
Lunch
14.00 14.45
SEA lessons learned study main conclusions

and recommendations
14.45 15.15
Concluding discussion
15.15 15.30
Closing remarks
Integra Consulting
Royal Danish Embassy

Integra Consulting
2. Main findings and conclusions

The findings and conclusions below are structured along the key aspects addressed in quality
evaluation reports for individual SEA pilots. It needs to be pointed out that not all SEA pilots
present full scale SEA altogether five of them were conducted as scoping exercise or rapid
assessment. The following sections also reflect comments and inputs raised at the lessons learned
workshop (see sub-chapter 1.3 above).
2.1 Link to decision-making

The primary objective of the SEA is to influence decision-making. This can happen either directly
when SEA provides inputs that change the proposed PPP during its elaboration or when it provides
information for formal decision-making that leads to changes in the proposed PPP during its
adoption. In recent years, it becomes increasingly acknowledged that SEA can also influence
decision-making indirectly by facilitating debates among the key stakeholders and informing their
future decisions on matters pertaining to implementations or future revisions of the proposed
PPP. In both cases, however, the primary review criterion is whether SEA process has influenced
decision-making and how. Actually, this aspect can be seen as the largest weakness of SEA
practice in Indonesia so far. In fact none of SEA reports reviewed indicated whether and how the
results of SEA were considered in the final decision (approval of the plan).2
Obviously, the role of SEA and its decision-making focus was not always clear in several cases
SEA didnt clearly address single document, but tried to cover a number of planning documents.
Very often there was no link to decision-making i.e. the SEA was not directly focusing on a
single planning and decision-making process to provide inputs to.
While these situations would not fit into conventional SEA practice in which the primary aim of
the SEA is to influence one single proposed plan, programme or policy, they may still belong
among more flexible instruments opening and influencing policy-making debates that were
recently promoted by the World Bank as part of their approach to policy-SEA or institutioncentred SEAs. The key question is whether and what did the SEAs actually influence.
The information provided by many of the reviewed SEA reports is unfortunately insufficient to
judge whether the undertaken SEAs actually brought any significant changes in decision-making
by either directly changing the proposed PPP or by expanding the policy-making horizons and
deliberations among the key stakeholders and decision-making actors. It appears that most SEAs
either did not change anything or brought only cosmetic changes in the proposed PPP e.g. by
editing normative statements in the proposed PPPs. However, as it can be summarized from the
survey among the provinces as well as discussed at the SEA lessons learned workshop, there are
several SEA cases which led to changes in the planning document (e.g. RTRW of West Sumatra
Province accepted the condition proposed by SEA to maintain minimum 30% of area to be
developed as forests and open spaces and also included following SEA recommendation the
programme on development of organic agriculture. RPJMD of Bangka Belitung Province included
programme to establish legislation programme on mining practices to control community
mining as well as appropriate budget was allocated on monitoring and evaluation of good mining
practices). In case of SEA for RPJMD of Hulu Sungai Utara District, buppati attended the final
SEA meetings and accepted all SEA recommendations.
Some other SEAs may have brought some indirect changes to respective policy-making by
expanding knowledge of decision-making actors of risks that they need to consider in future
decision-making. In some cases a lack of implementation of SEA conclusions is a result of slow
(or non) implementation of the plan itself (as e.g. the experience with RTRW of Central Sulawesi,
which integrated a number of SEA results, shows).
However, it needs to be noted that in many cases the SEA reports were finalized (due to the assignments
deadline) before the plan was finalized and thus the SEA reports could not reflect the decision-making.
As it can be concluded from discussions regarding the existing SEA practice in Indonesia at the
provincial and local levels, presentation of SEA results and recommendations by the SEA team
to the head of relevant agency, who has the responsibility and authority to accept (or reject) SEA
recommendation in the draft planning document, can be seen as an important moment when it
can be decided about (non)acceptance of SEA results. This single event can actually influence
further formal process, since the head of the planning agency then presents the plan (including
SEA results) to the governor or bupati/mayor, which has a mandate to adopt the final decision.
As found regarding the MOHA SEA pilots, the recommendations formulated by SEA for RTRW of
Jambi Province (2011) were presented at the final High Level Meeting with the Governor, and
the Governor accepted almost all the recommendations (however this was not the case for other
SEA pilots conducted by MOHA).
Whereas the ESP1 and ESP2 focused on methodologies and procedures, the ESP3 should pay
much more attention to the actual outcomes of the SEAs to further support first indications of
SEA influence on decision.
Recommendations for the ESP3:
We recommend that each and every pilot SEA supported by ESP3 should be thoroughly
evaluated by gathering information from the stakeholders concerned on the following matters:
1. How actively was the planning authority involved in SEA process?
2. What changes in the proposed PPP occurred as a result of SEA? How are these changes
being implemented in practice?
3. Why did the SEA influence decision-making or failed to do so?
4. What do the key decision-making actors and affected stakeholders think of the undertaken
SEA? What have they learnt through the SEA? What elements of the SEA do they regard
as the most and least useful? How would they improve the SEA in the future?
It is advisable that such evaluations are done by independent reviewers and internally
discussed with the teams that undertook SEAs and ESP3 advisors only. The primary objective
for these reports is to be frank and therefore it may not be advisable to debate them in open
forums. Their objective is to provide informal feedback to teams that undertook SEA and agree
on improvements in future processes.
2.2 SEA process design

When it comes to the linkages between planning process and SEA reviewed SEA pilots were
conducted in very various contexts regarding their position to the planning
Ex-post i.e. after the draft plan was prepared
Post-factum i.e. SEA was carried out for already approved and even partially implemented
plans aiming at providing inputs to the next planning cycle
Free standing i.e. not attached to any PPP, when SEA was understood rather as planning
itself
Ex-ante i.e. during preparation of the plan and providing inputs that support plan
elaboration
Despite that need for integrated approach and facilitating synergies between SEA and planning
were often invoked throughout of SEA reports (see for example the SEA for Sei Mangkei where
the issue is extensively elaborated in theory), in fact it is difficult to find a clear evidence of
working functional linkages between the two processes, even in cases where the SEA was
conducted as an ex-ante exercise (and thus having good opportunity to integrate with planning).
The importance of properly linking SEA to the planning process can be illustrated by experience
from Agam, where SEA was conducted both for RPJM as well as RTRW. While in case of the RTRW
the SEA was not part of the planning process, the SEA for RPJM was integrated in the plan
preparation and as expressed by Agam representatives at the lesson learned workshop, the
latter case was easier regarding integration of SEA results in the RPJM.
10
In some observed cases, it seems that the SEA proceeded as an ex-ante more thanks to delays
experienced by the planning process, rather than thanks to thought-out process design (see for
example SEA KSN Prambanan). In such context then SEA often did not wait for further progress
of the planning and concluded with preliminary analyses and recommendations, leaving the
opportunity to comment on and influence more advanced versions of the plan to some little
specified future SEA follow-up. On the other hand, in several cases, the SEA had been planned
well in advance (e.g. SEA for RPJMD of Bangka Belitung Province), however even this could not
guarantee that SEA process will cover entire planning and decision-making cycle.
However, progress can be seen considering the overall design and methodological approach to
SEA. SEA pilots conducted in later stages of ESP2 (2011 and 2012) usually followed logical steps
and analyses to be conducted in SEA starting from definition of the scope of assessment (i.e.
a list of strategic issues), through description of existing conditions, impacts evaluation,
formulation of mitigation measures and conclusions and recommendations, while in earlier cases
often such a logical sequence of tasks and analyses cannot be found or these SEAs addressed
only selected analyses (e.g. there is no clear impacts evaluation, baseline analysis is missing
etc.). On the other hand it can be noted that despite applying above mentioned logical steps and
analyses in later ESP2 SEAs, the SEA processes did not fully utilize opportunities for providing
inputs to the plans preparation.
The issue of linking the SEA with planning was even more complicated in SEA pilots where SEA
was not carried out directly by planning agency. It was mainly obvious in SEA pilots supported
by Bappenas besides getting insufficient information on the planning process, the problems
also related to data gathering and involving right persons from the planning agency (ministry).
Especially in early years (2008 2010) SEAs were largely carried out as a series of meetings and
focus group discussions (FDG), where SEA experts were mainly facilitating the discussions and
the entire process. Later SEA pilots include more substantial analytical inputs from the SEA
experts or we carried out almost solely by the consultants. It neither case, it is nevertheless
often not clear who is responsible for specific analyses and recommendations made.
SEA reports supported through ESP3 should clearly identify authors of the specific analyses
and recommendations put forward. The authors of the relevant analyses and conclusions
should be made accountable for their accuracy and technical soundness.
It is also important to ensure that the SEA pilots will have an opportunity to follow the planning
process until (or even after) the final decision is made. Since very often planning processes do
not run as originally planned (due to various technical as well as political reasons), it is
important to keep future SEA pilots administratively flexible and allow extensions of the
processes.
2.3 Scope of SEA

SEA pilots in general covered not only environmental topics, but also wider sustainable issues
(e.g. energy availability, transportation, social problems). The majority of SEA pilots define the
scope of assessment as a list of strategic issues/topics, which tend to be rather general (e.g.
public health). The territorial dimension of likely impacts is often missing or is limited to the area
within administrative borders of the district or province. Also, identification of vulnerable areas
or localities potentially particularly affected by the PPP implementation is often not elaborated,
instead a formal definition of likely influenced area is adopted and the territory in focus is treated
as more or less homogenous when analyzing the issues worth considering in the future phases
of SEA.
The scoping output (i.e. the selection of issues for further more detailed scrutiny) often fail to
provide clear justification (demonstrably based on analytical parts of SEA) and explicit verdicts
as to why/for what reasons it is important to further analyze and assess impacts on particular
11
issues while others can be excluded. Notable exception is the Report on REA for Proposed
Diversion of the Citanduy River, where the limited scope of assessment is clearly explained
(including territorial dimension), well justified and presented.
It seems that the list of issues to be addressed in SEA stipulated by the Law on Environmental
Protection and Management (i.e. carrying capacity and environmental absorption capacity for
development, estimation of the impact and risk on environment, performance of ecosystem
services, utilization efficiency of natural resources, levels of vulnerability and adaptive capacity
to climate change, levels of resilience and the potential for biodiversity) does not provide
sufficient guidance for the scope of SEA. The above listed issues are often missing, or just
formally mentioned in the SEA report, while the analyses are focused on differently defined topics
and issues. Several SEAs discuss the issue of carrying capacity, however without any concrete
conclusions. However, this fact alone should not be seen as a failure of the involved consultants.
The above listed aspects of the environmental quality are highly complex issues and any attempt
to address them as defined within the respective legislation is likely to result either in formalistic
approach or in time- and resources- intensive endeavor fairly exceeding typical SEA scope.
This also poses a peculiar challenge to ESP3 program since it is the main donor instrument
supporting uptake of SEA in Indonesia. Projects funded by Danida should comply with the national
legal frameworks and this is valid for SEA as well. In this regard, it can be considered that (i)
all supported SEAs would be required to explain how their analyses relate to the legal
requirements of the Law on Environmental Protection and Management, or (ii) modifications of
the SEA section of the LEPM would be initiated in order to make the legal framework better
reflecting the practical application of SEA in the county.
In case the modification of the LEPM are initiated, the amended law should ensure the flexibility
of the SEA focus and scope and rather provide provision on how to arrange the scoping stage
from the procedural point of view including consultations with relevant authorities and other
stakeholders (possibly also including general public). The amendments of the LEMP should also
introduce requirements for clear statement regarding consideration of the SEA
recommendations in decision-making to be issued by responsible decision-making
governmental authority.
If the first option mentioned above is chosen, it should be required for SEA processes that are
supported within the ESP3 to clearly define the key issues of concern that they focus on and
explain how they relate to carrying capacity and environmental absorption capacity for
development, estimation of the impact and risk on environment, performance of ecosystem
services, utilization efficiency of natural resources, levels of vulnerability and adaptive capacity
to climate change, levels of resilience and the potential for biodiversity.
This explanation can be brief and the SEA teams can later focus on the specific issues of
concern that they identified. However, it must be clear how the issues addressed by the SEA
relate to at least the most relevant concerns defined by the Law on Environmental Protection
and Management.
2.4 Baseline analysis

The baseline analysis is very often completely missing in SEA pilots conducted in 2008 2010 or
SEA reports provide only description of situation and in several cases for only selected strategic
issues addressed in a given SEA. Obviously, elaboration of baseline analysis was driven by
availability of data or knowledge of participants attending the FDGs or meetings rather than the
effort to prepare well focused basis for evaluation of likely impacts.
However, the situation was significantly improved in 2011 2012, when an extensive baselines
studies were conducted (e.g. SEAS for KSN) or include well structured description of trends and
their drivers (e.g. SEA for PRJMD Bangka Belitung). Nevertheless, the analyses remain in most
12
cases very descriptive. The trends in time are often not identified or poorly documented, and
main drivers of environmental change and their links to the interventions prospectively proposed
by the PPP are rarely explicitly acknowledged. Zero/do nothing scenario (e.g. likely further
developments without PPP implementation) is often not established or evident from the baseline
analysis. In some case the analysis of baseline trends is not always focused on key issues of
concern identified within the SEA. Hence it may be difficult to make a link between the baseline
studies and impact assessment.
Recommendation for the ESP3:
ESP3 should encourage those undertaking SEA to prepare proper analysis of baseline trends
and focus it on each of the issues of concern.
2.5 Evaluation of impacts

The quality of impacts evaluation significantly differs among SEA pilots. It was carried out mainly
on qualitative basis as verbal description (qualitative and general), in some cases accompanied
by simple numerical evaluation, however the trend of gradual tendency to provide detailed and
better substantiated description of the likely impacts can be seen. Earlier SEA pilots are very
vague in impacts, which is usually only general or this analysis is even missing in SEA. The
approach to the impacts evaluation was improved in pilots conducted in 2011 2012, which
are more complete and use more rigorous methods and tools (e.g. spatial analyses).
Some of SEA pilots limit the evaluation of impacts on to few PPPs components and/or to few
strategic issues: e.g. SEA for RTRW of Jambi Province evaluates five development programs on
two strategic issues defined in scoping.
There is obvious link between quality of impacts evaluation and baseline analysis: a thorough
and robust analysis of baseline, if and when conducted, provided basis for more detailed and
clearer evaluation of likely impacts. However, in some cases there is a very weak link between
baseline analysis and impacts evaluation e.g. although baseline analysis elaborated in SEA for
the RPJMD in Bangka Belitung Province can be considered as well developed, the impacts are
described in a very general way and the evaluation does not consider problems and driving forces
identified in previous stage.
Recommendation for the ESP3
Since the SEA processed should ideally involve both the analytical and participatory
approaches, ESP3 should encourage all supported SEA processes to include at least the basic
analyses i.e. the basic spatial analyses showing relationships between environment and
development, or identification and at least basic description of impacts all developments
contained in the proposed PPP that may have significant impacts on environment.
2.6 Mitigation measures and monitoring

In general, the most of SEA pilots provide general suggestions on mitigation of likely impacts
which can be understood as policy guidance. Typically, the mitigation measures are not linked
to impacts identified and therefore it is difficult to determine their rationale and technical
soundness. Mitigation measures are often described through normative statements that lack
substance or can be easily interpreted in different ways. When reading SEA reports, we had
numerous questions on whether the proposed mitigation measures actually help to optimize
environmental performance of the PPP. With few exceptions (e.g. SEA/REA for Proposed
Diversion of the Citanduy River) there are also not indications of expected effectiveness or
limitations associated with proposed mitigation measures.
13
The brief description of the proposed measures and the language used in many cases indicates
that these recommendations were not discussed with the relevant decision-making actors and
stakeholders concerned and they are in fact not ready for implementation. They lack details on
who should implement them, and on how and when this should be done.
On the other hand, SEA for Sunda Strait KSN or RTRW of Jambi Provinces defined a number of
well described mitigation measures corresponding with likely impacts, and several measures go
beyond the plan oriented towards to other plans (RPJMD in case of SEA in Jambi Province)
or address administrative structures for management of likely impacts during the implementation
of the plan (establishing KSN Sunda Strait Social Welfare Panel was suggested by the SEA for
Sunda Strait KSN).
Most of SEAs didnt address monitoring there were neither indicators, nor monitoring system
described.
Recommendation for the ESP3
ESP3 should encourage all future supported SEAs to present the mitigation measures in a
simple manner (as proposed further) that helps the stakeholders review and appreciate
proposals put forward by SEA teams.
The required logic of mitigation measures presentation should be: identified impact ->
corresponding mitigation measure proposed -> recommendation for its implementation (who
should implement them and when) -> responses from the planning team. Such
recommendations should be prioritized especially if more than approx. 10 mitigation measures
or changes in the PPP are proposed.
ESP3 should also encourage further SEA pilots to propose relevant indicators (in accordance
with key issues addressed and main likely impacts identify) and optimally suggest
responsibility for monitoring during the PPP implementation.
2.7 SEA report

There are significant differences between SEA repots produced by the pilots. Reports produced
in earlier stages are focused mainly on documenting the SEA process i.e. record the discussions
and meetings and do not describe substance (i.e. baseline information, impacts, mitigations
measures), while reports from 2011 2012 usually follow logical steps of SEA and provide overall
information. However, in many cases the methodology is not described or only very generally.
Considerable lack of link between the SEAs and planning processes is illustrated by the fact that
none of the reports provide overview on if and how the recommendations were integrated in the
draft/final plan.
The SEA reports vary significantly in terms of structure and overall reader-friendliness. Certain
documentations suffer from lack of logical linkages between individual sections and from frequent
replication of whole paragraphs in different chapters of the report (e.g. SEA SEI Mangkei).
Sometimes the apparent lack of proof-reading leaves whole sections of the English version
documents unintelligible (e.g. SEA for RPJMD of Hulu Sungai Utara District).
Also, SEA reports lacked more detailed description of stakeholders participation and especially
documentation of the conclusions from the consultations and how these were considered in the
SEA.
A description of the SEA team authoring the report including contact details is not regularly
presented (with few exceptions, e.g. Rapid Environmental Assessment for Proposed Diversion of
the Citanduy River, Pacangsanak). Experience of MOHA (as found out during preparation of the
SEA synthesis study) indicates that SEA reports drafted by SEA consultants were usually of a
better quality compared to the situation when the responsibility for writing the SEA report had
been assigned to the local government SEA team.
14

SEA reports produced within the ESP3 should clearly present information generated within the
SEA process in a publicly accountable and defensible manner. In order to test whether the SEA
reports meet that objective, ESP3 secretariat is advised to always send few copies of the SEA
reports to several randomly selected stakeholders that followed the SEA process or are
interested in it. These stakeholders should be asked for feedback on the following short
questions that test whether the SEA report:
accurately presents the SEA process
covers all key issues addressed in the SEA
presents findings and recommendations in a clear and easy-to-use manner.
2.8 Stakeholders participation

Although in a number of cases the SEA was conducted almost entirely through FGDs and
meetings, the SEA pilots did not involve broader range of stakeholders (especially NGOs and
community representatives) and were limited to governmental officials. The JATAM NGO was
partially involved in SEA for RPJM Bangka Belitung (the pre-scoping consultation was conducted
and JATAM participated at the final workshop) as well as few NGOs attended the meetings
organized within SEA on Coal Mining Sector. Representatives of WWF actively participated in the
SEA for RTRW of Jambi Province (MOHA, 2011) and were directly instrumental in one of the
recommendations accepted by the Governor, i.e. to integrate the Road Map of Sumatera
Ecosystem into the provincial spatial plan.
None of SEA pilots provided a room for public consultations and SEA reports were only published
at the ESP2 website (advanced drafts or final versions) it seems that only within SEA for KSN
Sunda Strain the scoping report as well as the draft SEA report were published on the ESP2 web
site together with contact emails and opened for comments. This SEA case also enhanced the
good practice and efficiency of consultations by distributing the presentations as well as
background documents were distributed to invited participants in advance before formal
meetings.
Very often, the SEA reports fail to document details on participation, format and outputs of
activities conducted to facilitate stakeholders participation.
Obviously, a feedback to the invited stakeholders was rarely provided i.e. no information was
available if and how the comments raised were integrated in the SEA and/or the plan assessed.
Each SEA report should include annexes that present all key stakeholder consultations
organized within the SEA process. Documentation on these meetings can be brief but should
always include meeting aims, agenda, participants, and main conclusions reached at the event.
SEA Reports should be made visibly available for public comments on the websites of the
relevant planning or decision-making authorities.
15
3. Final Remarks and Recommendations

3.1 General remarks on SEA in Indonesia
Based on evaluation of SEA pilots, some positive progress of SEA system development due to
ESP programs can be seen in Indonesia. Whereas initial SEA approach relied largely on ad hoc
approach and very theoretical deliberations on possible impacts of the proposed PPPs, later SEA
pilots tend to apply a structured SEA approach that includes many of the main steps and stages.
Consequently analyses are more detailed and better focused on the key problems. Few SEAs also
demonstrated focused and rigorous stakeholder consultations.
On the other hand, it can be noted that the full potential of SEA has not been explored a visible
influence of SEA on the relevant PPPs in terms of avoiding or mitigating potential adverse impacts
on environment and public health is very rare. This fact is caused by several main factors
Lack of analytical work and substantiation of SEA results (with several exceptions
presented e.g. by SEA for Sunda Strait Spatial Plan, SEA for Pandang Bay City
Development, SEA for Lake Maninjau Management in Agam District), conclusions and
recommendations: Without proper analysis of problems, environmental and health trends
relevant to the PPP assessed, impacts evaluation has to remain only on general and
qualitative basis and thus it also leads to only generally formulated recommendations
towards PPP.
Limited stakeholders involvement and participation: Although the most of SEAs were
conducted through a series of meetings and debates, many SEA processes didnt involve
broader range of stakeholders (especially NGOs and community representatives) and were
limited only to governmental officials. In some cases the participants involved were not
the key persons fully capable to present the view of the respective agency. Also, the format
of public involvement events typically a loosely structured discussion is often not
sufficient for facilitation of serious substantial input to the SEA.
Lack of communication with the decision-makers: Even if some SEAs were presented to
the decision-makers at the end of the process (e.g. SEA for Hulu Sungai Utara), it seems
that involvement of decision-makers during the process was very low and thus there was
usually no opportunity to facilitate integration of any significant suggestions to be
integrated in the plan assessed. Actually, none of SEA pilots had a chance to follow the
planning process until its approval and thus there was no opportunity to provide inputs
directly in the decision-making.
Lack of communication with the planners: A number of SEA pilots were conducted only
after the PPP was drafted (ex-post) or even approved (post-factum), there was in many
cases simply no opportunity to communicate with planners.
There is a risk that if SEAs are performed with no effects to the PPP assessed (and thus dont
lead to improved protection of environmental resources and human health), such approach will
after certain period create a distrust among community in this tool and SEA will be seen as only
formal exercise with no real benefits (or even worse as way to legitimate strategic decisions with
likely significant adverse environmental and health impacts).
3.2 Recommendation for future SEA practice
Clearly link SEA to particular planning and decision-making process only such
arrangement allows that results and conclusions from SEA can be considered in the PPP and/or
its approval, and thus it can fulfill a primary role of SEA i.e. to provide inputs into planning
and decision-making process. Each specific SEA should at the beginning of the assessment
clearly define its position in relation to planning i.e. which planning process the assessment
follows, what type of the decision-making is at the end of the process, what will be the
procedure of the PPP implementation etc.
Communicate with planning agency SEA is supposed to provide inputs in the PPP and
its preparation. To achieve this, an intensive communication between SEA team and planning
agency teams is essential. If suggestions and conclusions from SEA are not properly
16
communicated, then these might be disregarded by planners. Mutual communication should

optimally start at the beginning of SEA and continue throughout entire process. If possible,
an informal written statement can be prepared by the planning agency in cooperation with
the SEA team stipulating mechanism and tools of communication as well as how results of
SEA are going to be considered both in the planning process as well as in the decision-making.
This statement can be attached to the SEA report, which would enable to monitor how the
commitments accepted initially are fulfilled. In reality, many of SEA pilots were conducted as
an ex-post exercise (i.e. for already drafted PPP). However, even this approach might be
beneficial under certain circumstances there still can be a chance that suggestions raised
by SEA will be integrated when making the final modification of the PPP or these will be
adopted by decision-maker. In order to increase chances for integrating SEA results in
implementation of the current PPP (or possibly in future planning) an intensive communication
with planners and decision-makers is essential since there is no formal guarantee that SEA
conclusions will be practically used once the PPP is drafted, very probably these will be used
only if seen as useful by planners and decision-makers and meeting their needs. If SEA is
implemented in an ex-ante way (i.e. in parallel with planning process) it is important to
properly analyse steps and stages of the planning process at the beginning of SEA. This should
be optimally done together by SEA and planning teams. The experience from MOHA SEA pilots
shows that involving members of the planning team into the SEA team is beneficial in terms
of increased understanding of the planning process and the content of the plan as well as
providing a room for integrating SEA recommendations in the plan.
Present SEA results to the key decision-makers: As it can be concluded from discussions
regarding the existing SEA practice in Indonesia at the provincial and local levels, presentation
of SEA results and recommendations by the SEA team to the head of relevant agency, who
has the responsibility and authority to accept (or reject) SEA recommendations in the draft
planning document, can be seen as an important moment when it can be decided about
(non)acceptance of SEA results. This single event can actually influence further formal
process, since the head of the planning agency then presents the plan (including SEA results)
to the Governor or Bupati/Mayor, which has a mandate to adopt the final decision. Therefore
it can be recommended to organize high profile meeting when the SEA report is drafted and
present the key SEA recommendations and suggestions towards the plan to the head of
planning agency and/or to Governor or Bupati/Mayor to achieve his endorsement of SEA
results.
Find appropriate balance between analytical work and consultations SEA shouldnt
be perceived as only consultations process (as widely applied in Indonesia). Even if
stakeholders consultation and participation present an important and inseparable part of the
SEA process, SEA also has to include certain analytical work, which is supposed to be
performed by SEA team and thus providing a background for discussions with stakeholders.
Without knowledge of the baseline trends likely future trends cannot be estimated which in
turn does not allow proper impacts analysis such approach leads to only very formal and
normative conclusions and mitigation measures. As it was mentioned at the lessons learned
workshop, the quick appraisal approach widely applied at the local level from the national
budget can be seen as insufficient (as e.g. experience of West Sumatera Province from
supporting three districts/cities to undertaking SEA indicates).
Substantiate all findings and conclusions Impacts evaluation as well as all suggestions
made by SEA have to be substantiated by appropriate data and information, supported by
examples, references, illustrated by graphic aids (maps, graphs) etc. which need to be
described in the SEA report. Otherwise the planning agency and other stakeholders might be
reluctant to consider evaluation and suggestions provided by SEA, since they might not
understand on what base these have been made.
Open SEA process (in certain steps) for public scrutiny a number of SEAs conducted
so far in Indonesia invited for consultations mainly governmental agencies ministries,
departments within provincial government, municipal governments etc. This is a very
important target group and it needs to be involved indeed (as well as non-governmental
sector). However, there should be opportunities within the SEA process when all interested
stakeholders can express their view on the PPP and relevant likely impacts. Generally, it can
be recommended to open the SEA process for public, NGOs and all other interested
17
stakeholders in two stages: (i) in scoping, when defining issues to be addressed by SEA, main
environmental and health problems to be solved etc., and (ii) when draft SEA report is ready.
Provide feedback to stakeholders involved and document consultations SEA should

(optimally in the SEA report) summarize all comments and conclusions from the consultation
process and indicate which have been integrated (and how) in the SEA and / or the PPP
assessed and which have been refused (and why). This overview serves as a source of
verification that SEA dealt with comments and suggestions made by stakeholders involved. If
feedback on stakeholders inputs is not provided it can lead to loss of confidence in specific
SEA case and in longer-term perspective it might result in low credibility of SEA as such.
Pay attention to well defined ToR for SEA There is a broad variety of PPPs, which differs
in many aspects: level of planning, territory covered, stages and analysis usually performed
within preparation of the PPP, focus and substance of PPP, stakeholders involved etc. As
already previously mentioned, each SEA to be efficient should carefully take into account
a context which it is to be conducted in. Ensuring this requires planning of SEA process before
it starts. It can be done by the planning agency assigning the SEA; it can be done also by the
SEA team once established. The conclusions can be summarized in a form of the ToR, which
usually serves to define details of a specific SEA process to be conducted its time-schedule,
budget, expertise needed, stages and links to the planning process, analysis to be performed,
key stakeholders to be involved etc.
Informal consultations: Besides the workshops and focused group discussions it is highly
recommended to conduct additional meetings with selected stakeholders and partners (as it
was done with JATAM within SEA for RPJMD Bangka Belitung). These meetings can serve for
various purposes e.g. in the pre-scoping and scoping stage might help to receive data and
information to be used in baseline analysis (e.g. from KLH regarding biodiversity or water
quality, universities, Ministry of Forestry data on forestry etc.), later in the process usually it
is necessary to discuss in detail impacts evaluation and mitigation measures with relevant
institutions and NGOs etc.
Enhancing internal logic of the assessment: Work with results from scoping and baseline
analysis when evaluating the impacts this is actually the main task of the impacts evaluation
i.e. to estimate how the trends (and specific problems, concerns and drivers) can be affected
by the PPP implementation. Unfortunately none of SEAs provided this information.
Deal with monitoring: It can be recommended suggesting the key indicators (1 2) for
each strategic environmental issue, which would follow the main impacts identified these
could be used (i) directly during the PPP implementation, and/or (ii) as a basis for
determination of relevant indicators at the project level. Introducing at least simple monitoring
schemes would provide a basis for future SEAs and enabling better analysis of likely evolution
of the environment.
SEA reports: Following issues may be considered in next SEA reports:

o It would be useful to have more detailed information on the relevant stakeholders
identification and selection e.g. what criteria were used, whether certain stakeholders were
excluded from the participation etc.
o To add to the table summarizing main comments received during consultation a column
briefly indicating how these comments have been considered in the SEA and/or the PPP.
o It can be recommended to mention also key conclusions from SEA and main
recommendations towards the PPP in the executive summary (since it is supposed to be
the main and in some cases only part of the document, which will be read by the top
decision-makers).
o Providing information on the composition of the expert team who carried out SEA and
drafted the report i.e. team leader as well as all experts involved in the assessment (often
the SEA reports only indicate the governmental agency and/or consulting company).
o Clearly indicate which version of the planning document is considered in the SEA report
and all evaluation (i.e. if SEA covered the final version or worked with the draft etc.).
18
Internal SEA management: It can be recommended having more clear management

structure with well arrange chain of command for each SEA process with defined SEA core
team i.e. leading expert (responsible for overall coordination, communication with
governmental authorities, integrating inputs from other experts in the reports, drafting
reports etc.) ad several (3 6) key experts selected along the strategic issues to be addressed
in a given SEA. This core team would be conducting all analytical works which would be then
consulted within wider environmental working group and the planning team.
Clearly defined role of KLH: In order to avoid overlaps in SEA activities, it would be optimal
to clearly define responsibilities of each key ministry involved in SEA activities so far (i.e. KLH,
MOHA, Bappenas and MOPW). Considering the current operation of entire SEA system in
Indonesia as well as its possible further evolution, following role can be suggested for KLH:
o Managing and updating the legal framework
o Providing methodological support and advices (this should be demand-driven and focused
especially on sectoral ministries and non-governmental sector)
o Conducting quality assurance reviews for the most important SEAs (if requested by
planning agency, community or NGOs) and provide an expert opinion on quality of
particular SEA
o Operating SEA information system (see below) i.e. ensuring technical management of
necessary IT system as well as maintaining the database and coordinating inputs into it
o Becoming a national focal point for communication with international SEA community (e.g.
IAIA)
3.3 Further recommendations for ESP3

In addition to recommendations provided in chapter 2, following points can be mentioned to be
considered in the ESP3 design:
Focusing support only to SEA pilots: The overall SEA system can be considered as
established in Indonesia there is a legal framework, key ministries have developed the
methodological documents, and a number of local governments already have experience with
SEA. Therefore the main focus should generally be aimed at enhancing the SEA practice.
Indonesian SEA system can be seen in a transition period from initial stage with only SEA
cases conducted within various donors activities to functioning scheme where SEA is
considered as a standard tool. Considering this, it can be recommended that also ESP3 SEA
activities should solely support practical application of SEA, which shall be in line with
international good practice.
Careful selection of SEA pilots to be supported: As concluded in chapter 2, a number of

SEA pilots within ESP2 were conducted in a context, which did not enable to influence planning
and decision-making (as this should be seen the main role of SEA). It is also important to
clearly assign responsibility of conducting SEA directly to the planning agency (e.g. sectoral
ministries developing national policies should be coordinating SEA). Therefore a special
attention needs to be given to selection of right cases. Following criteria should be considered:
o Stage of planning enabling conducting SEA in parallel with planning: The SEA needs
to be planned well in advance before the actual planning process starts to properly
integrate SEA into planning.
o Commitment of the planning agency to work with SEA inputs: Only those
governmental agencies (ministries, provinces, districts) which will demonstrate its
readiness to work with SEA inputs shall be supported by ESP3. It can be done in a
form of a written agreement between Danida and respective governmental agency
stipulating mechanism and tools of communication as well as how results of SEA are
going to be considered both in the planning process as well as in the decision-making.
The commitment should also include indication of providing additional funding from
the local budget to support involvement of the local experts.
o Willingness of the planning agency to open the SEA pilot to wider stakeholders:
Proper consultations with all relevant stakeholders are essential part of SEA.
Experience from ESP2 shows that in the many cases the consultations were limited
19
to only governmental officials, and wider public was not involved. Therefore before
providing the support from ESP3, the scope of consultations shall be agreed.
The above mentioned general points can be turned into more detailed evaluation questions,
which however still need to be focused on planning process and openness of planning agency
for integrating of SEA results and consultations. Should there be a need for more detailed
information on the key environmental and social problems in the respective area or sector
and the appropriate SEA approach, the ESP3 might consider supporting initial brief analysis
(pre-scoping) which then would provide a basis for selecting cases for full SEA application.
To our knowledge, the ESP3 support to SEA should be demand driven and thus the
governmental agencies should therefore be asked to address the points above in their
application (including also a description of the planning process). The selection can be done
in two steps:
o Step 1 would be pre-selection based only on applications,
o Step 2 would require a meeting with representatives of respective governmental
agency (optimally high profile officials) in order to discuss and agreed on the optimal
arrangement of the SEA process.
When selecting the SEA pilots for RPJPD/RPJMD at the provincials/districts/municipalities
level, the ESP3 should carry out consultations with the MOHAs Directorate General of
Regional Development to obtain the Regent/Mayor General Election Schedule. Since the
RPJMD has to be completed in three months and legalized in six months respectively after the
governor/regent/mayor is inaugurated. This information will help to identify which local
governments are in the position to conduct SEA in parallel with planning process. Similarly,
there should be communication with MOPW regarding the RTRWs.
Promoting basic principles of SEA good practice: Obviously, there is still a room for
further improvement of coordination among the national authorities involved in SEA i.e. KLH,
MOHA, Bappenas and MOPW as well as national and international consultants regarding
approaches to SEA. Although it can be understandable given a fact that SEA practice is still
evolving in Indonesia, on the other hand such situation might potentially lead to confusion
especially at the district and municipal levels what is role of SEA, which approach should be
followed etc. Therefore is can be recommended that SEA pilots supported within ESP3 would
be strongly encouraged to follow basic principles of SEA good practice as they are described
in section 3.2 above.
Integrating any capacity building activities in SEA pilots: Obviously, as experience of

provinces providing support to districts and municipalities in conducting SEAs at the local level
indicate (e.g. from West Sumatera, South-East Sulawesi), there is a huge demand for further
training on practical SEA application. Therefore this should not be organized as stand-alone
activity, but only as a part of SEA pilots. It means that observers (i.e. trainees) should be
invited to the workshops to be normally conducted within the SEA process to see the practice.
After workshop, the training session can be carried out, explaining wider context and proving
necessary theoretical background as well as illustrating other possible approaches on real case
examples. Such training events should invite both technical experts as well as - in case of
SEAs of RTRW representatives of BKPRD (Regional Coordinating Board for Spatial Plan) and
BKPRN (National Coordinating Board for Spatial Plan) since these represent important actors
in the approving process. For SEAs of RPJPD/RPJMD the representatives of the local legislative
board as the approving body should be invited.
Improve sub-contracting: SEA-related tasks within the ESP3 should be sub-contracted only
to experts who can demonstrate clear analytical and writing skills as well as good
understanding of the planning processes and decision-making mechanisms. It is highly
recommended that candidates interested in EPS3 assignments on SEA pilots are required to
submit examples of their previous analytical work as part of their application process. Should
the tenders be opened for SEA pilots, it can be considered to invite proposals which would
include both international and national experts as one team. This should lead to more efficient
cooperation between both counterparts compared to ESP2 approach, when the national
experts were responsible for conducting SEA, while international consultants were assigned
to only provide inputs (which may be or may be not accepted). Suggested scheme for ESP3
20
would mean same level of responsibility for the final result and should also be easier in terms
of management and coordination from Danidas side. In addition, duration of sub-contracts
should enable sufficient timeline for SEA process to follow the planning and decision-making
process until the approval of the PPP. Thus, the SEA teams and experts would be able to
provide assistance to planners and decision-makers to integrate SEA recommendations into
final drafts of PPPs as well as into the final decision. Such arrangement might require multiyear sub-contracts.
21
4. Annex I: Overview of comments from the workshop on SEA

lessons learned
PARTICIPANT
Ibu Meta (Bappeda
of Agam)
COMMENT/INPUT
CONSIDERATION IN LESSONS LEARNED STUDY
She gave appreciation to Bangda and ESP 2 facilitation in SEA

for the Lake Maninjau. Based on their experience doing this
SEA, they undertook SEA for RTRW and RPJM on their own
(budget & human resources). SEA for RTRW was not part of
the planning process of RTRW (ex-ante). It was difficult to
integrate SEA results into RTRW. SEA for RPJM was part of
the planning process. It was easier to integrate SEA results
into RPJM. Suggestion: there should be a regulation requiring
that SEA should be undertaken in a specific planning process.
Information on Bappedas experience was added in

section 2.2
Ibu Siti Aisyah

(Bappeda of West
Sumatra)
a.
Pak Irhasy Ahmady

(WALHI)
a.
b.
b.
c.
Ibu Titin Masfetrin

(Bapedalda of Kota
Padang)
a.
b.
The first point is the same as that of Agam (see No. 1)

presented differently.
Provincial government of West Sumatra has assisted
three districts/cities undertake SEA but their preference
has been quick appraisal which is insufficient.
He does not see KLHs strong role in making SEA work.
He questions why non-government stakeholders are
not given significant role in significant role in the SEA
process.
What could SEA contribute to MP3EI that has already
been approved?
The fact that international and national consultants
have different approaches to SEA application made
confusion among local SEA team members.
Suggestion: make agreement first before coming to
local government.
Local governments should given sufficient knowledge
and skills to do SEA. Tour of duty among officials takes
place frequently. Sometimes, officials move to a new
position more than once in a year. Suggestion: Bangda
should undertake SEA socialization sessions for local
government on an annual and continuous basis.
Paragraph on quick appraisal was added in section

3.2
Point regarding the role of KLH was added to section

3.2.
The importance of non-governmental stakeholders is
mentioned both in sections 2.8 and 3.2.
SEA for MP3EI was not supported in ESP2, therefore
this case was not analysed.
Point regarding better coordination regarding SEA
approach was added in section 3.3.
The importance of integrating capacity building
activities in SEA pilots supported in ESP3 is
mentioned in section 3.3
22
c.
Ibu Meta (Bappeda

of Agam)
Bappeda of SouthEast of Sulawesi
SEA recommendations often are not considered as

priority by decision makers in the process of annual
budgeting and programming. Suggestion: Bangda
should prepare regulation requiring local government to
report on the implementation of SEA recommendations.
KLH recently release a regulation on construction of final
garbage/waste disposal destination (TPA). The planning of
both RTRW and TPA is always contracted out to a third party
consulting firm. Consulting firms do not have SEA capacity.
They need to be given sufficient knowledge and skills in SEA.
Also there should clear formal guidance/regulation on how to
do SEA. But formal regulation is often neglected, not
enforced.
He shared his experience in undertaking SEA of Kedari Bay,
as follows:
MOHA
Kendari Bay is cross-sectoral and cross-territorial

There have been ample data collected by different
studies
Bappeda did not have sufficient human resources

(capacity)
But a number of local university lecturers already

learned SEA in two-day SEA sessions by Pak Chay
not enough
Bapped therefore invited Pak Chay and one other

person to be a resource persons
Lesson: through facilitated SEA process, participants

could learn a lot. As an example, they found out that
sedimentation was actually caused by infrastructure
development activities rather than by practices in the
wider upland catchment areas
SEA must not be solely standing exercise must be linked to
the PPP
Dissemination and facilitation of knowledge must be done in
layers, not individually for each of hundreds of districts and
provinces they must learn horizontally from each other.
The importance of integrating capacity building

activities in SEA pilots supported in ESP3 and thus
linking the training to SEA practice is mentioned in
section 3.3
Experience of the province was added in section 3.3 as

well as the importance of integrating capacity building
activities in SEA pilots supported in ESP3 was stressed
out in section 3.3.
Proper linking SEA to

mentioned in section 2.2
the
planning
process
is
The importance of linking training with real SEA

application in SEA pilots supported in ESP3 was
stressed out in section 3.3.
23
META
Spatial plans prepared by third parties
Importance of linking mitigation measures to impacts

identified is mentioned in section 2.6
It is good to invite local parliaments they are more receptive

and willing to cooperate, than local governments.
Need for guidelines for consultants
Mitigation measures should not be normative, must be
specific
Ibu Wahyu
Indraningsih (KLH)
In response to issues raised by participants:
Arie Djoekardi
(national SEA
consultant; planner)
a.
b.
She expects that the study will produce a synthesis

classified per issue. This will be used for reinforcing
policies and strategies of SEA application, in particular
the draft PP on SEA that should be enacted by the end
of this year.
The process of developing mutual
understanding/agreement on SEA should continue.
There has been SEA guidance for RTRW and RPJM.
There have not been enough guidance on SEA for other
PPPs (sectoral).
Documentation is important but not yet sufficient. To
know whether a plan has been developed through an
SEA process or not is largely a matter of
documentation.
Monitoring not enough has been done
Communicating SEA to other stakeholders in an
effective manner is an important factor
There is need for a mechanism to ensure integration of
SEA recommendations into plans.
SEA should be positioned as part of the process of
formulating of public policy, do not be caught in
discussing the detailed processes of SEA.
SEA must use language understandable to the
planners, the aim should not be to make people to
learn understand SEA but for SEA consultants to learn
processes of spatial planning and formulate
suggestions in the language of planners and to find a
place where SAE can fit within the planning process!
The findings of the lessons learned study are

structured along the key quality aspects (chapter 2).
The lessons learned study addressed both aspects

linking SEA to the planning and decision-making
processes as well as analyses to be undertaken
since both these aspects are equally important.
Communication between planning and SEA processes
(i.e. between planning and SEA teams) is stressed
out by the study as one of the key factors of efficient
SEA resulting in integrating SEA results in the plan.
24
c.
Ibu Inge (KLH)
Pak Edison
(Bangda)
Pak Chay Asdak

(national
consultant)
Agree with the notion to focus on capacity building. But

national consultants should be a priority in capacity
building under ESP 3, so that they do not cause
confusion among local governments.
d. Regarding recommendation to ESP3 "SEA-related tasks
within the ESP3 should be sub-contracted only to
experts who can demonstrate clear analytical and
writing skills", I suggest to be added with the following
words "and good understanding about the associated
regulation and the process, procedure, mechanism and
institutionalization of formulating and stipulating the
PPP in question"
a. Do not focus on the technicalities of SEA but please see
SEA as a tool that could be used in the formulation of
public policies. SEA is to improve accountability. It is a
process for mutual learning and learning together, to
improve wisdom together.
b. Responsibility to undertake SEA should be the initiators
of PPPs themselves.
c. SEA promotes accountability
Next year there will be some 168 local government preparing
RPJM. What can ESP 3 do to assist them and us?
a.
b.
c.
d.
It was mentioned that there has not been a mechanism

for integrating SEA recommendations into plans. What
is your recommendation?
Beside RTRW and RPJM/P, who will provide regarding
SEAs for other PPPs? Such PPP as MP3EI?
Constraint to capacity development is that participants
to SEA processes change
National consultants please note Pak Aries input
(that national consultants should receive priority in
capacity development)
The most significant lack of SEA understanding and

skills for SEA practical application can be found at the
local level, therefore the lessons learned study
suggests integrating training in SEA pilots.
Suggested text was modified and added to the point
in section 3.3
Not specific suggestion.

stressed out in section 3.3. We consider this approach
as the most efficient way of capacity building.
Proper linking SEA to the planning process as well as
well-substantiated proposals (by analyses, literature
etc.) significantly increase the chance that SEA
recommendations will be accepted by planners and
integrated in the plan. Both these aspects are stress
out in the lessons learned study.
Ensuring that SEA is conducted is primarily
responsibility of the governmental agency preparing
the plan.
Changes of governmental staff positions is indeed a
problem for long-term capacity building, however the
most probably possibilities how to affect this issue go
beyond ESP3 mandate.
25
Pak Kabul Sarwoto

(national
consultant)
The critical point in SEA is decision making by governor and

bupati/mayor. No matter how good the SEA is, if the results
are not adopted it is useless. Suggestion: MOHA should enact
a regulation requiring governor an bupati/mayor to accept
SEA results
Comments and inputs raised at the workshop (as well

as those received in written form are summarized in
this table).
The importance of governor/bupati adoption of SEA
results is reflected in section 2.1. and new point was
added in section 3.2. However, the decision on
(non)accepting the SEA results should still be the right
(and responsibility) of governor or bupati.
Link to Decision Making: We recommend that the integration

of the SEA result into the PPP be strengthened in ESP-3 by
strengthening the capacity of the institutions reviewing the
PPP before being legalized, i.e.:
The Draft RTRW/D (Regional Spatial Plan) is to be

reviewed by Badan Koordinasi Penataan Ruang
Daerah BKPRD ( Regional Coordinating Board for
Spatial Plan) and Badan Koordinasi Penataan Ruang
Nasional BKPRN ( National Coordinating Board for
Spatial Plan). So, the capacity of those institutions
need to be strengthened to make sure that the real
SEA has been integrated into the Spatial Plan, not just
a SEA for administrative requirement purposes.
This need is due to the heavy political consideration
by
a
considerable
number
of
Heads
of
Kabupaten/Kota to prioritize economic consideration
more than the environmental consideration.
Also the Provincial and Ministry of Home Affairs
reviewers on the RPJP/D and RPJM/D (Regional Longterm and Medium-term Development Plans) need to
be strengthened in their capacity to understand
whether a well prepared SEA has been incorporated
in the development plans, before passing the
Development Plan for being legalized. These
reviewers need to know the well prepared SEA, not
just the existence of a SEA as administrative
requirement fulfillment.
The requirement for Public Access to the SEA process
results should be legalized in the Government
Regulation, so that the public can also control how far
the SEA results have been integrated into the PPP. In
the public consultation on the draft PPP, it should also

stressed out in section 3.3. Involvement of BKPRD
and BKPRN members added in section 3.3.
The importance of involving public in SEA processes

is mentioned both in sections 2.8 and 3.2.
26
be explained which SEA recommendations have been

incorporated in the PPP.
Further Recommendations for ESP-3 Careful selection of
SEA pilots to be supported: The report has been providing this
requirement, I just would like to add more detail information
to make sure that the stage of planning will enable to conduct
SEA in parallel with planning. ESP-3 should consult the
Directorate General of Regional Development (Ditjen.
Bangda) of MoHA, to obtain the Regent/Mayor General
Election Schedule. After the Regent/Mayor is inaugurated the
draft RPJM/D (Regional Mid-term Development Plan) has to
be completed in 3 months and legalized in 6 months. Ditjen.
Bangda will also be able to inform which RTRW/D (Regional
Spatial Plans) are going to be prepared/reviewed/revised. The
information from Ditjen. Bangda will be valuable in knowing
which local governments are in the position to conduct SEA in
parallel with process.
The point regarding communication with MOHA and

considering the schedule of elections was added in
section 3.3.
Ibu Tri Dewi

Virgiyanti
(Bappenas)
With regard to lack of analytical work, stakeholder

participation, etc., in the case of SEA in Bappenas under ESP
2, Bappenas is not the proponent of PPP. The sectoral
ministries are. Bappenas is introducing SEA and developing
capacity in both Bappenas and sectoral ministries. Under ESP
3, the proponent will do the SEA. Bappenas will take the lead
role in doing SEA for RPJMN, while relevant sectoral ministries
will take the lead in doing SEA for sectoral plans that need
SEA.
The point added in section 2.2 as well as sentence

added in section 3.3.
Ibu Eva Rantung

(BLHD of Central
Sulawesi)
Their Spatial plan allegedly integrated SEA recommendations

but is not approved three years in limbo...
Information added in section 2.1.
27
5. Annex II: The list of participants at the

workshop on SEA lessons learned
No
NAMA
INSTITUSI
Dr. Kabul Sarwoto
YIPD
Nizhar Marizi
Secretariat of Working Connectivity Team for MP3EI
Imelda Sinaga
Secretariat of Working Connectivity Team for MP3EI
Chay Asdak, Ph.D
Expert on Drafting of Implementing Rules for KLHSMP3EI/University of Padjadjaran Bandung
Atih Rohaeti Dariah
Expert on Drafting of Implementing Rules for KLHSMP3EI
Arie D. Djoekardi
Ex-KLH (Consultant)
Rudy P. Tambunan
Research Center of Applied Geography, UI
Irhasy Ahmady
WALHI
Ilah Ladamay
BAPPEDA Sulawesi Tenggara
10
Dani
Mitraplan Consultant
11
Riki Handriana
BAPPEDA Banten
28
12
M. Khairun Anwar, S.Sos, M.Si
BLH Kabupaten Kubu Raya
13
Titin Masfetrin
KLHS Kota Padang (Pasca Gempa)
14
Yuneli Meta, S.Pt, MT, M.Sc
BAPPEDA Agam District
15
Meilinda, ST, M.Si
Environmental Management Agency
16
Ir. Siti Aisyah, M.Si
Environmental Management Agency
17
Fahmi Djauhari
SEA of RPJMD from Hulu Sungai Utara, South

Kalimantan
18
Sri Jamriatul Khairoh
SEA of RPJMD from Hulu Sungai Utara, South

Kalimantan
19
Ir. H. Adi Yani, MH
BAPPEDA of West Kalimantan
20
Bustami
Secretary of BLH Kubu Raya District
21
M. Apriji
BLH Banjarbaru
22
Amruddin Ado
Bangda, MoHA
23
Peter Oksen
ESP 3
24
Devina F. Anasruron
Danish Embassy
29
25
Louise Grenier
ESP 3
26
Farida S
Sucofindo
27
Ratni
Bappeda Central Sulawesi
28
Mappatoba Andi
Bappeda Central Sulawesi
29
Tri Dewi Virgiyanti
Bappenas
30
Tim Mac Hansen
Danish Embassy
31
Hesti D. Nawangsidi
ITB
32
Adi Wiyana
Consultant to MoHA
33
Dwi Nurcahyadi
SEA Consultant to MoHA
34
Trine Bargsteen
Danish Embassy
35
Bobbi Schijf
Netherlands Commission for Environmental

Assessment
36
Inge Retnowati
MoE
37
Josh Van Berkel
DHI
30
38
Kim Harboe
Independent
39
Edison Siagian
MoHA
40
Reny Windyawati
MoPW
41
Anastasia Widya K
MoPW
42
Wahyu Indraningsih
MoE
43
Eva
BLHD of Central Sulawesi
44
Ina Susiana
BAPPEDA Banten
45
Irfan Kurniawan
BAPPEDA Banten
46
Hayati Sari Hsb
Sucofindo
47
Monica Kappiantari
ESP 3
48
Ida Lestari
ESP 3
49
Martin Smutny
Consultant, Integra Consulting
50
Michal Musil
Consultant, Integra Consulting
31
32
6. Annex III: Quality assurance report for

SEA pilots
6.1
SEA of Medium Term Development Plan of Kubu Raya (RPJMD)
Name of pilot
Responsible authority
Year of implementation
National consultants involved
International
consultants
involved
Language
of
SEA
report
reviewed
SEA in Medium Term Development Plan of Kubu Raya

(RPJMD)
MOHA
2009
Yes
No
Bahasa Indonesia
Quality issue 1: SEA process design

Detailed quality criteria
Evaluation
Was the subject of the SEA clearly defined?
F
Was the SEA carried out as an integral part of the planning process (at least partially)?
F
In case SEA was (partially) integrated in the planning process, is there any evidence
F
of sufficient communication between planning and SEA team?
Were recommendations suggested by SEA discussed with planners?
P
Is it clear who conducted SEA (external experts, officials, special working group etc.)?
P
Verbal summary:
The SEA provided inputs into the elaboration of the RPJMD because it was carried out as a basis for
comments by the MOHA Bangda (Directorate General of Regional Development) to local team
preparing RPJMD for Kubu Raya district. It is however not clear who was represented on the national
and local SEA teams and how they differed from the usual teams that would be preparing RPJMD or
commenting on it on the side of Bangda.
Quality issue 2: Scope of SEA

Evaluation
Were the key issues clearly defined?
M
Did SEA cover all relevant issues? If not, what are the most important missing issues?
M
Were following aspects addressed in SEA:
carrying capacity and environmental absorption capacity for development,
M
estimation of the impact and risk on environment,
performance of ecosystem services
utilization efficiency of natural resources
levels of vulnerability and adaptive capacity to climate change
levels of resilience and the potential for biodiversity
Was the territorial scope of SEA defined?
M
If so, does it go beyond area covered by the PPP?
M
Verbal summary:
The issues that SEA focused on at not defined or explained. Reading the translated text it appears
that the assessment lack any focus on critical environmental issues.
Quality issue 3: Baseline analysis
Was the existing state in the key issues described?
Evaluation
M
33
Were the past trends for the key issues analyzed (optimally also including main
drivers)?
Was the likely future evolution of the key issues without the plans implementation
described
Did the analyses highlight main concerns regarding the key issues?
Verbal summary:
The SEA does not include any baseline analyses neither the current status nor the trends.
M
M
M
Quality issue 4: Evaluation of impacts

Evaluation
Were conflicts between objectives for the key issues and PPPs objectives analysed?
P
Was the full range of impacts to all key issues evaluated? If not, what significant
M
impacts were overlooked?
Were the impacts characterized and described?
M
Were secondary/indirect and cumulative impacts considered?
M
Were impacts quantified where possible?
M
Was impacts evaluation sufficiently substantiated by calculations, examples,
M
references to international and national literature etc.?
Were all alternatives suggested by the PPP assessed?
P
Verbal summary:
The SEA assessed a basic consistency of the proposed plan with higher level plans. It unfortunately
did not really include any further analyses - the remaining part of the analytical component of the
SEA (if it can be called that way) is basically a free flow of ad hoc comments and observations that
are not focusing on environment issues and are not substantiated by references or data sources.
Quality issue 5: Mitigation measures and monitoring
Evaluation
Were measures to prevent, reduce and/or offset any significant adverse effects
M
suggested by SEA for all main impacts identified?
Can mitigation measures suggested by SEA efficiently manage likely adverse impacts?
M
If not, what residual impacts can be expected?
Is there any monitoring scheme proposed?
M
Is it based on the main impacts identified?
M
Verbal summary:
The SEA did not proposed any clear measures that need to be taken in order to reduce the identified
risks. It only included few normative statements on four proposed follow-up measures these are
however not described in term of realistically achievable actions that should be taken in reality.
Quality issue 6: SEA report
Is the SEA report readers-friendly?
Does the SEA report describe the SEA process and all its stages and analyses as well as
the overall methodology/approach used?
Were the conclusions and recommendations towards the PPP given by SEA made
explicit?
Does the SEA report clearly state which recommendations and suggestions given by
SEA have been integrated in the plan (i.e. if there were any changes of the plan resulting
from SEA)?
Does the SEA report indentify sources of information, including expert judgement and
matters of opinion?
Does the SEA report contain a non-technical summary?
Evaluation
P
P
M
M
M
M
34
Verbal summary:
The SEA report summarizes the process but not the key recommendations. It is actually impossible to
see what recommendations were made if any and trace any linkages between the identified
impacts, recommendations and changes in the plan.
Quality issue 7: Decision-making
Evaluation
Have the conclusions and recommendations given by SEA been considered in the PPPs
approval?
Verbal summary:
The SEA concluded that the proposed final RPJMD Kubu Raya district is sufficient to be submitted to
Parliament Kubu Raya district
Quality issue 8: Stakeholders participation

Evaluation
Were the stakeholders to be involved in SEA clearly identified?
M
Did all relevant stakeholders have an opportunity to provide comments and inputs
M
during the SEA process? If not, which key stakeholders were not invited?
Were any SEA information / documents made publicly accessible during the SEA
M
process? If so, which means were used?
Verbal summary:
It appears that the SEA was conducted through closed consultation process between the various
experts and officials. It did not feature any open consultations.
35
6.2
SEA of Kota Serang Regional Spatial (Spatial Plan) and LongTerm Regional Development Plan (RPJPD)
Name of pilot
International
consultants
involved
Language
of
SEA
report
reviewed
SEA of Kota Serang Regional Spatial (Spatial Plan) and

Long-Term Regional Development Plan (RPJPD)
MOHA
2008
YES
NO
Bahasa Indonesia (with additional information obtained
through review conducted by Jiri Dusik in 2009)

Evaluation
F
P
F
P
F
Verbal summary:
SEA was undertaken in parallel with the development of spatial plan. The process of developing
spatial plan and long-term development plan started approximately 3 (three) months before the
start of the SEA process. This situation caused some difficulties for the different teams to coordinate
and work together. In addition, local government staffs general wanted to see the immediate real
contribution of SEA for improving the quality of the spatial and long-term development plans.
There were set-up into two teams: Center (Bangda-MoHA) SEA team and Local SEA team. The SEA
MoHA team consist of three experts (expert in regional and urban plan, expert in public policy, and
expert in GIS for spatial planning). While the local SEA team consist of various background local
staff from various related local institution (SKPD) and it was lead by the Head of Local Development
Planning Board (Bappeda). The local SEA team was set-up under the Bupati/Major instruction.

Evaluation
F
F
P
P
P
P
P
P
F
N

Verbal summary:
SEA has a very well defined territorial focus on different areas of concern in Kota Serang. Key issues
identified during SEA were:
(a) flood and waterlogging,
(b) Decrease in surface water quality or water bodies
(c) a decline in the quality of ambient air
36
(d) an increase in the conversion of agricultural land, and (e) the prevention of the urban sprawl
(e) protection of wetlands (wet land),
(f) protection of local cultural heritage and uniqueness of Serang
Interestingly, the issues mentioned in the official SEA report differ from those described by the
author of the SEA in his review of the case for the ESP2 who stated the following focus:
(a) water resource sustainability,
(b) sustainability of production and cultivation area ecosystems,
(c) ecosystem of conservation areas being converted for other uses,
(d) balance of development among sub-districts and between rural and urban areas,
Obviously, the focus of the SEA was not perfectly fine-tuned and agreed with everyone. But this can
be caused by some reporting problem.
Evaluation
P
P
drivers)?
P
described
P
Verbal summary:
The baseline analyses was conducted through the following activities:
Identify the 2008 land-use and use it as baseline data for developing initial environmental profile.
Collect data and information on the environmental status.
Identify the appropriateness of the spatial planning policy, plan, and program initiatives with the
regional development funding strategy/approach.
Undertake SWOT analysis of Kota Serang in the field of regional spatial planning.
The approach chosen has capacity to provide useful data and makes sense.
Evaluation
P
P
P
P
M
P
P
Verbal summary:
The impact assessment was undertaken through the following steps:
Identify the vision and mission developed by the Local Government.
Assess the potential implications of policy, plan, and program initiatives contained in the Spatial
Plan of the Province of Banten on environmental sustainability in Kota Serang.
Assess the potential implications of PPP initiatives contained in the Spatial Plan on environmental
sustainability - in particular in connection with the major environmental issues being faced (see
scoping).
Assess the implication of policy, plan, and program initiatives contained in the Spatial Plan of Kota
Serang, in connection with the institutional capacity in the fields of environmental management
and spatial planning, in order to ensure inplementation of compulsory government affairs in
37
meeting the minimal standard of services in the fields of spatial planning and environment
formulated in the Spatial Plan and SEA.
The SEA also proposed to consider scenario for construction and development of urban centers, and
scenario of implications of the development of the Capital City or Administrative Center of the Province
of Banten.
All in all, this entire approach can be considered as a honest though little incomplete attempt to
assess impact of the proposed land-use options and should be appreciated.
Evaluation
F
P
P
P
Verbal summary:
The SEA suggested a number of institutional initiatives to address cumulative impacts of ongoing
developments:
Regulate the patterns of environmental characteristics on the basis of various variables, including
density of buildings, coefficience of building base, coefficience of building floor, coefficience of
green areas, and coeffience of building height.
Enact technical stipulations on waste water treatment, including domestic waste, building waste,
and industrial waste.
Determine the uses of rivers and public canals and the standards of waste water that is allowed
to be disposed of to public canals or rivers.
Develop storm water management plan for the central part of the city, considering the problem of
drainage.
Provide land according to environmental planning standards, and develop and maintain green
open spaces in the central part of the city.
Formulate policies and strategy on the application of the 3-R concept (reduce-reuse-recycle) in
both settlement and trade services centers as implied in Law Number 18 Year 2008 concerning
the Management of Garbage.
While these proposals sound rather normative and would need more description and even if it is not
clear how there were integrated into the plan, they represent better-than-average attempt to address
the complex set of environmental-development-institutional issues than those presented in other
SEAs.
explicit?
from SEA)?
matters of opinion?
Verbal summary:
The SEA report is concise and well written.
Evaluation
F
F
F
F
F
F
38

approval?
Verbal summary:
Cannot say - this information is missing in the SEA Report.
Evaluation
?

Evaluation
F
F
M
Verbal summary:
The SEA facilitated a number of dialogues with relevant stakeholder in Kota Serang through:.
Meetings Local Government Apparatuses of Kota Serang
Workshop organized by a Spatial Planning Team
Workshop at the Auditorium of the Secretariat of Kota Serang
Seminar for broader audience (stakeholder group)
FGD with non-government stakeholders

It also facilitate dialogue between institutions to identify Kota Serangs strategy to cooperate with
neigboring local governments in the field of spatial planning and environment.
While it is impossible to determine whether all key stakeholder groups were invited to participate, the
above approach to stakeholder engagement represents a very solid (and definitely much better than
usually prevailing) attempt to solicited inputs from bodies outside the SEA team. This should be
recognised and appreciated.
39
6.3
Name of pilot
International
consultants
involved
Language
of
SEA
report
reviewed

Ministry of Home Affairs
2009
No
Yes
English

Evaluation
F
P
F
P
P
Verbal summary:
The SEA focuses on the proposal for development of Padangs coastal area as an integrated tourism
area. These proposals are contained in the Long-Term Development Plan, Medium Term
Development Plan and and Regional Landscape Plan.
SEA aimed to provide an early assessment on the implications of this proposed development before
drawing up an AMDAL. SEA was not conceived as the basis for approval or rejecting a project nor a
part of the project permitting process. It aimed to provide a study which would be used by various
groups such as the City Government, businesses and the relevant stakeholders for adjustment of the
proposed plans before it is submitted for funding through public-private-partnership.
The SEA as conducted by international consultant with the assistance of the SEA Team established
by the City Mayor. The SEA team consisted of 15 people from the City and Provincial
Administrations. It is however not clear who has formulated the final recommendations and report
that was submitted to Mayor for formal consideration.

Evaluation
F
F
P
F
F
M
P
P
F
F

Verbal summary:
Compared to other cases addressed in this review, this SEA is very well scoped. It largely focuses on
key environmental risks and impacts associated with the proposed developments (worsening
flooding, changes in coastal hydrology and sediment transport, impacts on water quality) and
impacts on key ecosystem services (impacts on fishermen). The selected issues are presented using
40
clearly language and visual aids not under terms required by the LEMP but rather as separate
issue that are easy to understand.
The SEA addresses not only the impacts in the study area but also in the wide area of the Padang
city and surroundings (e.g. mining of rock required for the proposed reclamation, impacts of flood
barrier on the upstream area, etc.).
Evaluation
F
P
drivers)?
P
described
P
Verbal summary:
The SEA noted that There is a lot of information of the proposed development in coastal city in
Padang but was very scattered. It made an initial attempt to consolidate this information and gave
recommendations for further consolidation during detailed planning of the development.
In order to get a clear view of the evolving changes in coast line in Padang and the pattern of
coastal space use in the study area, the assessment team made efforts to obtain old maps available
within the Government of Padang City and from other sources. Maps and information received in
various formats were concerted, georeferenced and integrated into GIS base map. The results of the
map study were then compared with aerial photographs and costal hydrology and wave study. Also,
residents who have lived near the coast for a long time were interviewed to solicit their memory of
coastal abrasion. Other supporting data also included old photographs taken in Padang over the past
100 years.
The baseline studies also included overview of the proposed development policies for the study area
and ad hoc conclusions were made on key arising issues of concern (such as land ownerships,
socio-economic trends, etc.)
Evaluation
M
F
F
P
M
M
P
Verbal summary:
The SEA provides three types of information:
Matrix providing an overview of impacts of the proposed developments its pre-construction,

construction and post-construction (operation) phase on the key elements of the environment
Basic description of key impacts identified
Detailed overview of perceptions of the local community on the proposed developments.

The information generated can be regarded as sufficient for the type of assessment that this
particular SEA aimed to provide. The SEA did not assess the plan alternatives but it did provide
many suggestions that would drive development of alternative design of the proposed plan, if well
considered.
41

Evaluation
F
P
P
P
Verbal summary:
SEA suggests both technical mitigation measures for the key identified impacts as well as management
responses for detailed planning and optimizing the proposed plan. Some of the technical mitigation
measures outline only general recommendations but this may be understandable given the limited
time available for the study.
Interesting, the SEA also proposes to continue as a dynamic process (an open clip file) which could
integrate results of any further studies that are needed for sound planning of proposed developments
e.g. hydrological modelling or coastal studies. It also warns about the limited discussion on the
proposed developments between the Executive and Legislative of body of Padang City (Commission C
of Regional Legislative Council) and recommends to restart the dialogue on the proposed
developments which has been halted so far. It also suggests intensifying dialog with the relevant
stakeholders that include local community and local business in the study area.
Evaluation
F
F
F
explicit?
M
from SEA)?
F
matters of opinion?
F
Verbal summary:
The SEA report is well written and can be easily read by the decision-makers, technical specialist or
outside reader. It clearly presents the key elements of the assessment process, the line of thought
of the assessment team and conclusions derived. It mentions the sources of information.

Evaluation
NA
approval?
Verbal summary:
The SEA report clearly presents the key issues for consideration by the local major and key relevant
stakeholders. Information on whether and how the outcomes of this SEA influenced the planning
process is however not available.

Evaluation
42

P
F
M
Verbal summary:
The Study Team conducted interviews with several respondents, among others port officials,
restaurants near the beach, fishermen in the coastal area and lecturers at Padang universities.
The SEA also deployed five-member Surveyor Team for surveying opinions of the local community
regarding their perceptions concerning the planned project both at the construction and postconstruction stages, and their expectations and concerns of the planned project. This information
was collected through questionnaires. Another means of public participation was focus group to
outline possible impacts and mitigation measures.
All input obtained was clearly summarized in the SEA report and considered in the assessment
process.
43
6.4
SEA of National Mid-Term Development Plan for Palm Oil

Sector
Name of pilot
International
consultants
involved
Language
of
SEA
report
reviewed
SEA of National Mid-Term

Development Plan for Palm Oil Sector
Bappenas
2010
Yes
Only partly distance advising and support
English

Evaluation
P
P
F
P
P
Verbal summary:
The objectives of this SEA for palm oil development were:
1. To identify and to build agreement on key issues of sustainable palm oil development and identify
strategic PPPs on palm oil development.
2. To analyze the correlation of strategic PPPs with the selected key issues defined by
the stakeholders.
3. To identify the inter-linked between strategic PPPs of palm oil development and the PPP of other
line ministries/sectors on selected key issues.
4. To provide alternatives recommendation for the improvement of PPPs on sustainable palm oil
development.
The proposed overall approach was fully in line with the Policy-SEA approach promoted by the WB as
part of their work on institution-centered SEA. It was a good intention, which however never fully
materialized because of rather weak implementation.

Evaluation
P
M
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
F

Verbal summary:
The SEA focused on issues identified through extensive stakeholder consultations. The issues
covered environmental but also social, economic and other strategic concerns related to palm oil
44
development in the whole country. The SEA issues were however not very clearly and systematically
framed, nor was the territorial focus (key areas of concern) defined.
Overall, the analytical focus of the SEA was not well defined.
drivers)?
described
Verbal summary:
The documentation provided in the SEA does not deal with baseline trends at all.
Evaluation
M
M
M
M

Evaluation
P
P
M
M
M
M
P
Verbal summary:
The SEA analysed broad conflicts between the relevant plans and key issues identified. This
determination was done through workshops and focus groups. These consultations identified
problems and generated proposals for improvements in form of alternatives or reformulation of the
proposals contained in the various PPPs addressed. Recommendations provided in the SEA Report
largely relied on expert judgements. The SEA report does not describes or substantiates expected
impacts and conclusions of the SEA team cannot be easily verified by outsiders who were not
involved in this process.
Evaluation
P
M
M
M
Verbal summary:
The proposed mitigation measures are described using normative statements without any
explanation or substantiation. Often, one can actually doubt whether they would lead to any
environmental improvements actually, some of proposal appear to effectively weaken existing
provisions for environmental or social measures that were already contained in existing
programmes. No monitoring programme was proposed to ensure that the idemntified concerns are
followed up and proposed mitigation measures implemented.
45

Evaluation
P
P
P
explicit?
M
from SEA)?
M
matters of opinion?
P
Verbal summary:
The SEA report is well written but does not include detailed information of impacts and proposals
generated and any data which would allow verification of the outcomes of the SEA. The executive
summary very well summarizes the philosophy of the SEA and the process used without actually
presenting key outcomes of the SEA. It seems as if this report intentionally avoided any text which
would raise attention to sensitive impacts or more fundamental proposals.
Evaluation
approval?
Verbal summary:
Information generated by the SEA was provided to Bappenas and officials from other sectors that
participated during the various workshops. The SEA Report identifies three Ministry that got
recommendations, namely: Ministry of Forestry (2 PPPs), Ministry of Commerce and (2 PPPs) and
Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources (1 PPP)
The SEA report does not mention how were the outcomes of the SEA considered and does not
provide any guidance for the consideration of its conclusions in decision-making.
Evaluation
F
P
M
Verbal summary:
The SEA process involved different public authorities and interested businesses and NGOs. The
following stakeholders took part in some of the workshops organized within the SEA: Bappenas,
Ministry of
Agriculture, Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Trade and Industry, Ministry of Energy and
Mining, Ministry of forestry, Ministry of Public Work, National Land Agency, BPPT, Ministry of
Research and Technology, Ministry of Finance. Apart from government institutions, the stakeholders
are also coming from non-government agencies such as palm oil association (GAPKI/Association of
Indonesian Palm oil Businessmen), association of palm oil farmers/laborers (APKASINDO/Association
of Indonesian palm oil Farmers), Indonesian Commission of Palm Oil, Indonesian Palm Oil
Community, environmental experts, and Indonesian WWF, Sawit Watch, and Indonesian Green
Peace.
SEA Report does not provide enough information to judge whether or not were these stakeholders
provided with sufficient information and time-frames that would allow them prepare for
consultations and providing targeted comments. Information on SEA was not make public available
and wider public was not given opportunity to provide comment during the process.
46
6.5
SEA of Spatial Plan of West Sumatera Province
Name of pilot
International
consultants
involved
Language
of
SEA
report
reviewed
SEA for Spatial Plan of West Sumatera Province

MOHA and Bappeda and BLHD of West Sumatera Province
2010
Suryo Adi Wibowo
Michael Pearson
Bahasa Indonesia

Evaluation
M
M
M
M
M/P
Verbal summary:
The subject of the SEA was the provincial spatial plan (RTRW). However, since the draft of RTRW
was almost completed at the time of initiating the SEA process, there was a mutual agreement
between MOHA and provincial government from the beginning that SEA recommendation are going
to be integrated into the upcoming provincial mid-term development plan (RPJMD). The SEA was
conducted by Bappeda in close collaboration with BLHD with technical facilitation by both national
and international consultants.
The SEA report does not provide further information on the SEA process desing, as it can be
concluded from information gained during preparation of the SEA synthesis study, the SEA process
started by establishment of the SEA team consisting mainly by the officials from the local
government, organizing the initial seminar as well as the training session, which was provided to the
SEA team members. The initial stage was followed by the scoping meetings, identification of the
programmes to be addressed in the SEA, assessment and formulation of mitigation
measures/alternatives and recommendation.

Evaluation
M
M
M
M
M
Verbal summary:
The SEA report does not provide sufficient information on the key issues and related information,
although is seems that an agreement was reached among all invited stakeholders on altogether
three key strategic issues forestry resources, water resources, and disasters. Although not fully
clear from the SEA report, it can be assumed that the administrative boundaries of the province
present the geographical scope of assessment.
47

Evaluation
M
M
drivers)?
M
described
M
Verbal summary:
The SEA elaborated substantial baseline information and trend analyses with regard to forestry and
water resources, while similar information on disasters is missing. The trend analysis was developed
by modelling the percentage of forest cover into the water table condition. The drivers influencing
the existing trends were not identified.
Evaluation
P
P
P
P
M
M
Verbal summary:
The approach to impacts evaluation is not fully clear from the SEA report. It seems that the SEA
analysed impacts of the selected programmes from the draft spatial plan on three key issues.

Evaluation
P
P
M
M
Verbal summary:
The SEA report provides mitigation measures as part of the recommendations. Obviously,
recommendations are focused on reducing or preventing likely impacts, however it is not fully clear
which mitigation is proposed for reducing which specific impact. As an example, monitoring of
fertilizers and pesticides use is proposed as measure or rebuilding the old town etc. The report does
not provide any monitoring plan.
explicit?
Evaluation
P
M
P
48
M
from SEA)?
M
matters of opinion?
M
Verbal summary:
The SEA report includes chapters on impact evaluation, mitigation measures, and recommendations.
There are no sections describing background of SEA arrangement, SEA methodology, scoping, and
baseline data analysis. The report also does not provide a non-technical executive summary.

Evaluation
M
approval?
Verbal summary:
Although not mentioned in the SEA report, based on the information gained during preparation of
the SEA synthesis study it seems that due to SEA design, the recommendations were not integrated
in the RTRW (since SEA was conducted too late in planning process).

Evaluation
M
M
M
Verbal summary:
The SEA report does not provide sufficient information on stakeholders participation, however in
accordance with information gained during preparation of the SEA synthesis study it can be
concluded that stakeholders involved in the process included mainly governmental officials as well as
representatives of university. Obviously, NGOs were not invited in the SEA.
49
6.6
SEA for Lake Maninjau Management Plan
Name of pilot
International
involved
Language
of
reviewed
consultants
SEA
report
SEA for Lake Maninjau Management Plan (Kota Agam)

Planning Agency (Bappeda)
2009
Rudy P. Tambunan, Triarko Nurlambang, Adi Wiyana, Dwi
Nurcahyadi
N/A
Bahasa Indonesia

Evaluation
F
F
M
F
P
Verbal summary:
This report states that the subject of the SEA is the Lake Maninjau Management Plan. This plan will
be part of Detail Spatial Plan of Lake Maninjau (RDTR Kawasan Danau Maninjau). Although the
report does not provide clear information how the process involves the planners, from information
gained during elaboration of the lesson learned study it seems there was a good team work among
the SEA team and the planners. Actually, the planners became key members of the SEA team. The
head of the SEA team was Head of Bappeda itself he was responsible for the management of the
SEA team. The report does not provide information regarding the composition of the SEA team and
evidence of communication between SEA team and the planer. In 2009 the SEA was conducted
mainly by national consultant with collaboration with the SEA team. The SEA process in Agam was
not full SEA process. Due the earthquake on September 30th 2009 the SEA process was postponed
between October-mid of December. At that time the SEA process was in the pre-assessment stage.
The last SEA activity in the end of the pilot was stakeholders meeting to discuss the indigenous
people perspective in Lake Maninjau Management for assessment purpose.

Evaluation
F
F
P
efficientt utilization of natural resources
F
F
Verbal summary:
The report in chapter 4.3 provides 9 key issues that cover water quality degradation from aquaculture
activities, economic and environmental conflicts among stakeholders, degradation of upstream area,
annual upwelling phenomenon, water power plant activities and public health. The report mentions
carrying capacity in the SEA process but actually SEA did not address the carrying capacity. The report
provides estimation of the impact on environment in qualitative. The maps in the report provide the
geographical scope covering Maninjau Lake and its surrounding area.
Evaluation
50

P
P
drivers)?
Was the likely future evolution of the key issues without the plans
M
implementation described
M
Verbal summary:
The report does not describe specific chapter of baseline analysis. However there is a profile which
included the current position of water quality, aquaculture activities, land use/land cover of
surrounding area, and social and economic pattern. Since the earthquake happened, the report
provides some post-disaster baseline such the landslides, damages and victims. There is no main
drivers and likely future evolution are provided on the SEA process.
Evaluation
Were conflicts between objectives for the key issues and PPPs objectives
M
analysed?
M
M
M
M
M
M
Verbal summary:
The SEA did not evaluate the impacts. However there is content analysis from different PPP related
to Lake Maninjau Management such National Lakes Management Plan, Provincials RTRW, Kab. Agams
RTRW/RPJPD/RPJMD and Kab. Agam regulation specific related to Lake Maninjau.

Evaluation
M
Can mitigation measures suggested by SEA efficiently manage likely adverse
M
impacts? If not, what residual impacts can be expected?
M
M
Verbal summary:
The report in Chapter 7 provides mitigation measures based on the content analysis result. However
the mitigation measures is formulated in general and normative such To provides detail baseline of
Maninjau Lake and revision of RPJPD, to formulate the zoning regulation surrounding Maninjau lake,
and to mainstreaming the sustainable development on the implementation of Bupati regulation on
Maninjau Lake Management.

Does the SEA report describe the SEA process and all its stages and analyses as
well as the overall methodology/approach used?
explicit?
Does the SEA report clearly state which recommendations and suggestions given
by SEA have been integrated in the plan (i.e. if there were any changes of the
plan resulting from SEA)?
Evaluation
P
P
P
M
51
Does the SEA report indentify sources of information, including expert judgement
M
and matters of opinion?
M
Verbal summary:
The report has a logical structure from the background to the recommendation, but there is unusual
structure to provide baseline data before the strategic issues. This makes the baseline data full of
information which could not have relationship with the key issues. The final chapter, which is
dedicated to the conclusions and recommendations, clearly states the recommendations which
linked with the mitigation measures.
Have the conclusions and recommendations given by SEA been considered in the
PPPs approval?
Verbal summary:
The report does not provide information regarding the decision making.
Evaluation
M

Evaluation
M
M
M
Verbal summary:
The report does not provide information regarding the stakeholders participation. However, from our
knowledge, the stakeholders involved in the FGDs/workshops consist of government officials, NGO
activists, university experts and indigenous people.
52
6.7
Name of pilot
International
consultants
involved
Language
of
SEA
report
reviewed

MOHA and Provincial Environmental Management Agency
(BLHD) of West Kalimantan
2009
Rudy P. Tambunan
N/A
Bahasa Indonesia

Evaluation
P
M
M
M
M
Verbal summary:
The SEA report mentions Kapuas Watershed as the subject of SEA; in fact the objective of the SEA
was to support the development of RTRW and RPJMD. However it is not clear from the report how
SEA process was linked to the planning process it seems that the SEA was not linked to any
specific plan (and thus to any planning process) and the aim of the assessment was to analyze
existing problems within the watershed and provide inputs to the preparation of the provincial plans.
The SEA team, which included planners from Bappeda and the provincial agency of the Ministry of
Public Works, was coordinated by the national consultant providing methodological guidance.

Evaluation
F
F
M
efficient utilization of natural resources
F
M
Verbal summary:
The SEA report (its chapter 3) clearly defines 17 key issues covering environmental (sedimentation,
floods, bush/forest fires, deforestation), social (land conflicts, low level of law enforcement) and
economic aspects (loss of agriculture land, illegal logging and mining). The report does not
specifically state which of the six aspects from the LEPM are addressed in the SEA process. The
geographical scope of the SEA is the West Kalimantan Province administrative boundaries as it can
be concluded from the maps provided in the SEA report.
Evaluation
P
53
P
drivers)?
M
described
P
Verbal summary:
The SEA report mentions certain information on the baseline as a part of mitigation measures in
chapter 6. The report provides description of each issue and the main drivers influencing the
situation such as land clearing, which was identified as a driver for sedimentation and bush/forest
fires, while overlaps of land use permit was determined as a driver for social conflicts, and the land
conversions is driver for the loss of agriculture land. The report provides maps, which are related to
certain issues (e.g. land use change and land use conflicts), but there is no descriptive interpretation
of the maps. Past trend analysis was undertaken only for forest cover change.
Evaluation
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Verbal summary:
The part on impacts evaluation (chapter 4) of the SEA report in its introduction claims that the SEA
shall address implication of several PPPs (National RPJP, RPJM and RTRW, RTRW of Kalimantan
Island, Provincial RPJP and RPJM, Provincial sectoral strategic plans); however the chapter mostly
describes the PPP themselves with no clear analysis of impacts. The maps provided in this chapter
illustrate mainly recent status of the issues, not the evaluation, and thus would be more relevant as
a part of the baseline.
Evaluation
F
P
M
M
Verbal summary:
Chapter 6 of the report provides mitigation measures. However, as described above, this chapter
also identifies driver force for each key issue e.g. land clearing is the main driver for
sedimentation key issue in the plantation sector; mining location close to river is the main driver
for sedimentation key issue in mining sector etc.. The mitigation measures are in fact suggested to
mitigate main drivers thus it can be concluded that SEA addressed mainly existing status and
problems and did not deal with the likely impacts of the plans (i.e. National RPJP, RPJM and RTRW,
RTRW of Kalimantan Island, Provincial RPJP and RPJM, Provincial sectoral strategic plans). Due to
this fact it is difficult to find a clear link between mitigation measures and relevant PPPs i.e. it is not
clear into which plans and how it is supposed the mitigation measures will be integrated and
implemented.
Evaluation
54

P
P
P
explicit?
M
from SEA)?
M
matters of opinion?
M
Verbal summary:
The report is rather difficult to understand, since some of the information is misplaced (e.g.
information on main drivers is included in the part on mitigation measures) as well as pictures/tables
are of low resolution. However the report clearly describes the SEA process as well as it provides
suggestions on how to improve the existing regulation on plantation, forestry, mining, industry, and
transportation sector based on the mitigation measures which are described in the respective
chapter. The report does not contain a non-technical summary and source of information.
approval?
Verbal summary:
Evaluation
M

Evaluation
P
P
M
Verbal summary:
Chapter 1 of the SEA report provides information regarding the stakeholders mapping and
involvement in the workshops and FGDs organized within the SEA process. The information gained
during the preparation of the SEA synthesis study indicates that stakeholders invited to the events
(organized for scoping, assessment and mitigation/recommendation stages of SEA process) included
mainly governmental officials, as well as representatives of NGOs, universities, private sector, and
informal community leaders).
55
6.8
Name of pilot
International
consultants
involved
Language
of
SEA
report
reviewed

MOHA and Provincial Planning Agency (Bappeda)
2010
Triarko Nurlambang
N/A
Bahasa Indonesia

Evaluation
P
P
M
P
P
Verbal summary:
The SEA report does not provide clear information regarding the SEA process design. The subject of
SEA is actually spatial planning for the Municipality of Banjarbaru with special attention on moving of
the administrative center of the Province of South Kalimantan from Banjarmasin to Banjarbaru but it
is not clearly defined in the report. It can be concluded that the SEA process was fully integrated in
the planning process, since the SEA started during the early preparation of the spatial plan,
involving planners as members of the SEA team. The team was assisted by a local SEA experts
(coordinating the process at the local level and writing the SEA report) and a national consultant
(providing the methodological guidance).

Evaluation
P
P
Were the following aspects addressed in SEA:
M
P
M
Verbal summary:
The report provides two major groups of issues, namely physical issues covering: water quality,
slum area, pollution and waste production increase; and socio-economic and governance issues
covering: social envy between indegenous population and new settlers, land use conflict, land use
change, and population growth. No r public health issues arementioned. The report does not provide
information if (and how) the aspects stipulated by the Law on Environmental Protection and
Management were addressed in the SEA The territorial scope of the SEA is assumed to be the
administrative boundaries of Banjarbaru, however it is not clearly mentioned in the SEA report. The
likely impacts going beyond the administrative borders obviously were not considered in the
assessment.
56

Evaluation
P
M
drivers)?
M
described
-P
Verbal summary:
The SEA report stipulates it provides information regarding baseline analysis, in fact only general
profile of the Municipality of Banjarbaru without linkage to the issues defined in the scoping is
provided. Interestingly, due to the methodological approach, the baseline analysis is obviously
considered as the impact evaluation itself, therefore certain baseline information is described in the
assessment chapter (see next section on quality issue 4). The baseline information is mainly
qualitative (only estimation of the population increase until 2020 is quantitative), for each issue the
location is generally defined (e.g. entire City of Banjarbaru), the causes of the problem (e.g.
increase of population), and directly the impacts (implications) of the issue are described and
mitigation suggested.
Evaluation
M
M
P
M
M
M
M
Verbal summary:
The SEA did not evaluate likely impacts of programmes (included in the spatial plan) on the key
issues defined in the scoping. The report describes baseline analysis, which is obviously considered
as impact assessment. The SEA considered the issues and main implications of current
unsatisfactory status (e.g. for water quality degradation and demand on water, the SEA identified
land clearing and loss of water catchment area as the main forces which are expected to have an
impact on low water supply, water pollution, increasing run-off and floods). It can be concluded that
SEA was mainly focused on existing problems and their likely evolution rather than evaluating
impacts of the spatial plan.
Evaluation
P
N/A
M
M
Verbal summary:
The SEA defined mitigation measures on the basis of the baseline analysis (see above), which are
mainly formulated in general terms as development priorities and objectives to be considered in
further planning. The SEA report does not provide sufficient information how the mitigation
measures are linked to the specific impacts and/or issues. The monitoring is not addressed at all.
57

Evaluation
M
P
M
explicit?
M
from SEA)?
M
matters of opinion?
M
Verbal summary:
The SEA report provides one diagram which describes the process of the SEA from screening to the
recommendation. There is no sufficient and clear information regarding the overall methodology and
SEA process coordination.

approval?
Verbal summary:
The report does not provide this information.
Evaluation
M

Evaluation
M
M
M
Verbal summary:
The report does not provide information regarding stakeholders participation. Obviously, the SEA
process involved mainly governmental officials. University experts were invited to the SEA
processes, however the way they participated and what was their contribution are not well
documented.
58
6.9
SEA for Padang New City (Post Earthquake Development Plan)
Name of pilot
International
consultants
involved
Language
of
SEA
report
reviewed
SEA for Padang New City (Post Earthquake Development

Plan)
(BLHD)
2010
Rudy P. Tambunan
N/A
Bahasa Indonesia

Evaluation
F
F
M
M
M
Verbal summary:
This report states that the subject of the SEA is Kota Padang Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Plan.
This plan consists of RTRW, RPJPD and RPJMD evaluation in the framework of mainstreaming
disaster risk reduction in building of Padang New City. The SEA team was part of Kota Padang
Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Board. This board was established in order to formulate and
implement the new plans (RTRW, RPJPD, RPJMD and the rehabilitation and reconstruction plan). The
SEA report does not provide information regarding the composition of the SEA team and evidence of
communication between SEA team and the planer.

Evaluation
F
F
P
F
M
Verbal summary:
The SEA report defines (in chapter 3) 14 key issues that cover social, cultural, health, disaster risk,
waste and ruins after disaster, and decreased economic activities. The report mentions carrying
capacity in the SEA process but actually SEA did not address this aspect. The maps in the report
provide the geographical scope of the assessment, which it is limited to Kota Padang itself.
Evaluation
P
59
P
drivers)?
M
described
M
Verbal summary:
The SEA report contains specific chapter on baseline analysis. For some key issues defined in the
scoping the report provides description of current state such as disaster risk (flood, liquefaction,
tsunami) and population aspects , while for some other issues such information is missing (namely
key issues of public health, environment degradation and transportation system). Main drivers and
likely future evolution are provided on population issue only (high migration rate from hinterland),
while it was not elaborated for other issues.
Evaluation
M
M
M
M
M
M
P
Verbal summary:
The SEA did not evaluate the impacts. There is only description of the plans without any evaluation
measures. However there are altogether 16 alternatives provided actually it is only a list of
alternatives without further explanation such as references, calculation or examples Some of
suggested alternatives are (1) relocate the kindergarten and elementary schools from RED Zone of
tsunami; (2) Privatisation of waste management; (3) relocate the settlements from high risk zone of
earthquake (fault line). These alternatives are proposed in order to address the key issues such as
geological disaster and environmental degradation and public health. It can be concluded that the SEA
addressed existing status and proposed measures aimed at improving current problems rather than
mitigate likely impacts to be possibly caused by implementation of the plans. Obviously the SEA was
considered as a planning tool, which raised proposals on how to solve post-disaster development
rather than approach analysis plans and proposing their modifications.
Evaluation
M
M
M
M
Verbal summary:
The SEA report provides a list of 21 mitigation measures without clear information how these
measures were developed. Since the impacts evaluation is missing (see above) it is not clear how
the measures are linked to the likely impacts of a specific strategic document (i.e. RTRW, RPJPD,
RPJMD and the rehabilitation and reconstruction plan). Measures are mostly formulated in general
and normative terms e.g. to undertake monitoring on building construction plan in high risk zone.
Evaluation
60

P
P
P
explicit?
M
from SEA)?
M
matters of opinion?
M
Verbal summary:
The report has a logical structure from the background to the recommendation; however baseline
data are described before the strategic issues are defined. This led to the sitatuion, when the
baseline analysis is in many case focused on the data and information which do not have any link to
the key issues determined later. The final chapter of the SEA report, which is dedicated to the
conclusions and recommendations, proposes well defined recommendations (such as assigning
disaster-prone areas as a minimum activity and limited use zone, making mutual agreement on
responsibilities of the central, provincial, and district/municipality governments in developing Padang
New City), however the linkage of the recommendations to the specific strategic document is not
clearly described. The report provides list of a references.
approval?
Verbal summary:
Evaluation
M

Evaluation
M
M
M
Verbal summary:
The SEA report does not provide information regarding the stakeholders participation. Only the list of
activities is included in charter 1 obviously the FGD/workshop(s) were organized within the SEA
process with stakeholder, however it is not clear who was invited, who really participated etc. Based
on information gained during preparation of the SEA synthesis study, the stakeholders include
government officials, NGO activists and university experts.
61
6.10 SEA of Water Resources Management and Conservation on Bali

Name of pilot
International consultants involved
Language of SEA report reviewed
SEA of Water Resources Management and Conservation on Bali

MOHA
2010
Ketut Sudiarta and I Wayan Artana
--English

Evaluation
P
M
M
M
M
Verbal summary:
The SEA process had been planned before the SEA was launched; the conclusions from discussions
between MOHA and provincial government in Bali had been employed in the ToR. Thus, preparation
of the ToR obviously served as a platform for discussions on purposes and aims of SEA.
The ToR stipulates detailed aims for SEA as well as target and outputs. It clearly claims that one of
the targets is to formulate recommendations for improvement of PPP and related decision-making
which would integrate sustainable development principle. However, as further obvious from the ToR
and the SEA report, the SEA was designed with primary focus on development of priorities and
objectives of water resources management and conservation rather than on evaluating a particular
strategic document. Thus the SEA process wasnt attached to any specific planning process.
Due to a specific desing described above, there was no planning team working on preparation of
particular strategic document. However, provincial planning agency (Bappeda) was involved in the
SEA process and had an opportunity to discuss findings and conclusions with the SEA team.
Representatives of Bappeda actively participated in all workshop organized within SEA process.
Evaluation
F
P
M

F
M
Verbal summary:
The SEA was primarily focused on water resources management and conservation, however not in
terms of evaluating likely effects on this issue resulting from the PPPs on this, but rather on
definition of priorities and objectives to be followed in the field of water resources. For this purpose,
the SEA determined priority strategic issues (addressing physical-chemical characteristic,
biodiversity, social and cultural issues as well as economic issues) for each strategic issue relevant
62
causes were identified and sub-objectives and development priorities defined. Considering the main
focus of SEA for Bali it can be concluded that also other issues effecting water resources should have
been included e.g. agriculture development. SEA report explains that a set of priority strategic
issues was developed through consultations with relevant stakeholders (in form of a series of
workshops), however it doesnt provide a clear indication if all originally suggested issues were
accepted and what was the mechanism for selection of the issues to the final list.
The SEA was focused on the entire territory of Bali island. However, this territorial scope was
naturally derived from the administrative and geographic borders (since SEA was conducted for the
Bali province, which covers entire island) and not based on preliminary evaluation of likely impacts
(since SEA was not focused on impacts evaluation).
Evaluation
F
M
drivers)?
M
P
Verbal summary:
The SEA report provides a profile of Bali Province (Chapter III), which besides basic information
about the islands administration presents also facts on its topography, morphology, geological
structure, soil types, climate (including data on rainfalls and air temperature), hydrology and water
resources potential (with detailed overview of rivers, lakes, ponds, reservoirs and springs) and forest
areas. However, considering the main focus of SEA, more detailed information of water quality,
sources of water pollution, water consumption as well as regarding the health status and diversity of
forests should have been provided. The SEA did not describe the main aspects of the public health
(e.g. status of water-borne diseases etc.) and population growth, which can be considered as
important for Bali.
Even if the trends are not described, for each priority strategic issue the relevant causes are
described (e.g. salt water intrusion is caused by excessive exploitation of groundwater) in the SEA
report. However, causes described are not supported by data and information (e.g. destruction of
forests is mentioned as one of the causes of surface water discharge decline, but SEA report doesnt
provide any details on forest degradation, deforestation etc.) and thus a validity of statements
cannot be verified.
Evaluation
P
analysed?
M
P
P
M
M
NA
Verbal summary:
The SEA did not clearly evaluate the objectives (obviously due to absence of a single PPP to be
addressed by SEA). However, it seems that within discussion on the linkages between the priority
strategic issues and provincial PPPs also potential conflicts and synergies between PPPs objectives
were addressed, although the conclusions are not clearly described in the SEA report.
There are impacts briefly described for each priority strategic issue in the SEA report, however it
actually addresses how the priority strategic issue effects the situation i.e. it doesnt provide
63
information on how the strategic issue might be affected by proposed or expected development
(which is reflect in section causes).
SEA didnt cover a full range of likely impacts; due to its limitation to water resources related
implications, therefore e.g. likely impacts to public health, potential effects of climate change remain
unanswered.
It is also obvious that impacts described for each priority strategic issues could have been
broadened up, since development priorities (which logically should reflect impacts identified) cover
much wider range of issues and problems than presented in impacts description (e.g. neither
impacts nor causes defined for decline of the surface water quality. mention pollution from
agriculture, however several development priorities are focused on reducing the water pollution
from agriculture).
Even if not clearly stated in the SEA report, assessment obviously partially considered secondary
and indirect implications (e.g. regarding public awareness, law enforcement).
Evaluation
P
NA
P
NA
Verbal summary:
Since the SEA wasnt focused on impacts evaluation, there are no clearly defined mitigation
measures in the SEA report. However, development priorities proposed for each priority strategic
issue (and then clustered) can be understood as a certain form of mitigation, since development
priorities aimed at improving current situation. The nature of suggested mitigation measures is
rather general and is formulated as objectives (e.g. increase green open space or increasing use
of organic fertilizers and pesticides), which is in line with the overall approach to this SEA.
For each strategic priority issue there are indicators and their evaluation described in the SEA report
(Chapter IX). Their linkages to baseline trends cannot be evaluated, since baseline information was
not analyzed in the SEA. The SEA report doesnt clearly assign responsibility for monitoring and for
related activities (in response to monitoring results), however it is assumed that it should be a role
of the authorities listed in Table 25 (Chapter VIII) for each cluster of development priorities.
Evaluation
P
P
P
explicit?
NA
P
M
Verbal summary:
The English version of the SEA report is easily readable in terms of the language; however the
structure and internal logic of the document could be enhanced (its e.g. not fully clear what methods
were used for final selection of priority strategic issues, why only three priority strategic issues are
analyzed in Table 24 etc.). Actually, the SEA report is structured along the workshops organized
within SEA process, however mixed with other parts (e.g. after Chapter III Brief profile of Bali
Province follows chapter IV dedicated to review of the workshop I Scoping) with no clear links
between chapters (e.g. how information from situation description (Chapter III) were used in further
64
steps, workshops and discussions) it is not always clear what is the main purpose of a certain step of
SEA (what are the main outputs from discussions on linkages between priority strategic issues and
provincial PPPs).
The SEA resulted in a list of recommendations (Chapter X of the SEA report), which are formulated
in a form of objectives or development priorities (which is in accordance with overall approach to
SEA for Bali). It is, however, not clear from the report, how proposed recommendations are
supposed to be used in further development, in PPPs, in relevant decision-making processes.
Chapter III Brief profile of Bali Province mentions sources of information, however further chapters
do not do so the most of the findings, conclusions is obviously based on the discussions among
stakeholders and it is not fully clear from the SEA report what were the experts inputs (e.g. from
the SEA team or from other experts involved).
Evaluation
NA
PPPs approval?
Verbal summary:
As described earlier, the SEA was not attached to any planning process. There was a general
informal statement given by representatives of Bappeda, that results of SEA will be used in
preparation of future provincial plans as well as it will be promoted to be considered in planning
processes at the district level within the province. However, there is no information available how
exactly this statement has been followed.
Evaluation
?
?
M
Verbal summary
The approach to SEA for Bali was solely based on consultations and conclusions from discussions
present the main inputs for the assessment (and in fact present the assessment itself). The SEA
report present in Chapter II methods and tools used in the SEA process, however it is not clearly
indicated how comments and opinions raised by stakeholders were used (if all of them or how the
selection / clustering was made etc.). The SEA report doesnt provide any information on
stakeholders involved which stakeholders participated, how they were identified etc.
65
6.11 SEA for Amandit River Basin Management

Name of pilot
SEA for Amandit River Basin Management

MOHA and Provincial Planning Agency (Bappeda)
2011
Rudy P. Tambunan
N/A
Bahasa Indonesia

Evaluation
P
P
M
M
F
Verbal summary:
The report does not clearly mention the subject of the SEA. In the screening part (chapter 1.1), it
mentions RPJMD as the subject of the SEA but further in chapter 1.3, it mentions natural resource
balance as a subject to SEA for inputs to RPJMD development, while in the same chapter it also
claims that the government will develop Amandit River Basin Management Plan. Thus, it can be
concluded that the SEA was focused generally on the sustainable management of the Amandit River
Basin and was supposed to provide inputs to the in the development of the upcoming RPJMD (and
evaluating likely impacts of existing RPJMD).
The SEA report mentions that the SEA was conducted by the SEA team established by local
government and led by the provincial planning agency. The additional information gained during the
preparation of SEA synthesis study shows that the Bappeda staff represented the majority of the
team conducting the SEA, and thus communication between planning agency (team) and SEA team
can be assumed.
Evaluation
F
F
P

F
M
Verbal summary:
The SEA report clearly defines the key issues and addresses estimation of the impacts and risk on
the environment. The report provides maps of Hulu Sungai Selatan without surrounding area. The
report does not explicitly stipulate the geographical scope of the assessment, but it repeatedly
mentions that the Amandit River Basin is a sub-system of a wider ecological system covering upper
areas even reaching the upstream Province of Central Kalimantan thus it can be concluded that
the SEA focused on the entire river basin.
66

Evaluation
M
M
drivers)?
P
P
Verbal summary:
The report does not provide baseline analysis specifically, however, the main concerns regarding the
issues such as river quality degradation, mining activities in upstream parts and agricultural soil
degradation are provided in chapter 6 as a basis for impact evaluation and mitigation.

Evaluation
P
analysed?
P
P
M
M
M
Verbal summary:
The SEA report in its assessment part (chapter 6) presents matrixes that analyse and describe key
issues including main driving force(s), the estimation of the trends for next five to twenty years,
which can be understood as a baseline analysis. This section is followed by matrixes that analyse the
impacts of programmes included in the RPJM using only symbols + and - without further
description of the nature and character of the likely impacts. Obviously, the assessment was carried
out mainly on qualitative basis with no specific substantiation by calculations, examples and
literature.
Evaluation
P
P
M
M
Verbal summary:
The SEA provided two types of mitigation measures: the first type is represented by measures
formulated in order to address the trends of the key issues (i.e. the most probably describing the
likely future evolution without consideration of the RPJM), while the second group of mitigation
measures is supposed to address the impacts of the programmes included in the RPJMD on the key
issues (these are however presented only in the appendix and not described in the main body of the
SEA report). The report does not provide any information regarding monitoring scheme.
67

Evaluation
P
P
F
explicit?
M
M
M
Verbal summary:
The report has logical structure starting from introduction, scoping into the recommendation stage,
however it does not clearly describe the SEA process. The report provides clear recommendations
e.g. to develop specific programmes for river restoration, good mining practice management and
comprehensive waste management. However, the recommendations do not have clear relationship
with the mitigation measures that are contained in chapter six and appendix. The report does not
have information regarding the integration of SEA recommendations into the plan.
PPPs approval?
Verbal summary:
The report does not provide any information.
Evaluation
M

Evaluation
P
P
M
Verbal summary:
The report does not provide sufficient information regarding the stakeholder participation, however it
mentions in its chapter 5 that the representatives of NGO and indigenous people participated at the
scoping workshop. The report does not provide information regarding public information
accessibility.
68
6.12 SEA of Aquaculture Sector

Name of pilot
SEA on Aquaculture Sector

Bappenas and the Ministry of Marine and Fishery Affairs
2011
Sucofindo
Nils Bull
English

Evaluation
F
M
P
F
F
Verbal summary:
The SEA was focused on the Strategic Plan of the Directorate General of Aquaculture Fisheries of
Ministry of Marine and Fisheries (which represents a part of the National Aquaculture Plan 2010
2014). Although conducted as an ex-post exercise, the SEA process involved communication with
the planning agency (i.e. respective directorate) through a series of workshops and FDGs, where
SEA outputs were presented and discussed. The SEA team consisted of The national experts advised
by the international SEA expert.

Evaluation
P
P
P

P
NA
Verbal summary:
The SEA defined altogether 13 economic, social, environmental and institutional issues. Although
Food safety and security toward the product of the fishpond is analysed within baseline analysis, it
is not mentioned among key issues above. The SEA report does not explicitly link the key issues to
the aspects of the LEPM, nor does it define the territorial scope of assessment. However it indicates
areas with the most intensive aquaculture production.
drivers)?
Evaluation
P
M
M
P
69
Verbal summary:
The baseline analysis was developed for a number of issues; however the large part is dedicated to
the aquaculture production itself and related issues (e.g. fish consumption, investments in fishery
sector, expert etc.). Besides it only mentioned water quality, mangroves and spatial aspect, however
again it is mainly related to production rather than environmental problems and concerns (e.g.
regarding water quality it describes mainly importance of water quality for aquaculture and does not
elaborate details on water pollution from aquaculture production). The future trend is estimate only
for aquaculture production.
Although not as a part of baseline analysis (in chapter on impacts), the SEA report mentions overall
trend for water quality (p. 94) If the growth and waste disposal of the entire industrial sub sectors
is not to be controlled then the rate of water pollution will become higher and described also other
drivers of water pollution (agriculture), however it is not clear how this fact was considered when
evaluating impacts of aquaculture development.
Evaluation
M
analysed?
P
M
P
P
P
NA
Verbal summary:
The SEA analyzes links between the aquaculture production and several other sectors. It describes
also environmental consequences of aquaculture production mentioning ecosystem/ habitat
degradation (focusing on mangroves) and water pollution, and provides an overview of ecological
characteristics of areas for aquaculture production and their land supporting capability.
It quantifies likely waste production (1.747.500 tons) resulting from shrimp production improvement
programme (with target 201% increase), other likely impacts are described only qualitatively and in
a very general way.
Evaluation
P
M
M
M
Verbal summary:
The SEA proposed several very general mitigation measures, which are not linked to impacts
identified (which in fact would be very difficult considering general description of likely impacts) and
formulated rather as policy guidance or objectives (e.g. adequate water quality needs to be
ensured). Establishment of specific body (team or committee) to accelerate increase of shrimp
production is proposed by SEA this body should include representatives of the Directorate General
of Aquaculture CTF, Shrimp Club Indonesia, Kiara, WWF, feed companies etc.
Chapter on mitigation measures describes two alternatives how to achieve planned target for shrimp
production and mentions related consequences regarding water pollution.
There is neither monitoring scheme nor indicators proposed in the SEA report.
Evaluation
P
F
70
P
explicit?
M
P
F
Verbal summary:
The SEA report provides full description of the SEA method and approach used including thorough
theoretical background. Although it defines a number of recommendations, it is not explicitly linked
to the document assessed. The SEA report does not indicate whether recommendations were
integrated in the plan.
Evaluation
PPPs approval?
Verbal summary:
It is not clear from the SEA report if (and how) the conclusions have been integrated in the PPP.
Evaluation
P
F
M
Verbal summary:
The SEA report mentions that relevant stakeholders were identified at the initial stages of SEA
process and provides that stakeholders identified are mainly from the ministries/institutions other
than the one that is responsible for the planning, non-governmental parties like business
association, relevant commission and community, environmental expert, research
institution/university, as well as organizations/NGOs which are having competency in fishery sector
development (especially in Aquaculture) being assessed however their list is not attached.
As it follows from the SEA report, the stakeholders were involved throughout the entire SEA process
participating at the workshops and meetings participants were mainly from other ministries,
however representatives from NGOs were invited and participated in some of the SEA meetings.
71
6.13 SEA of Coal Mining Sector

Name of pilot
SEA of Coal Mining Sector

Bappenas
2011
Yes the team was coordinated by Dr. Chay Asdak
Nils Bull
English

Evaluation
P
P
P
P
F
Verbal summary:
SEA represents assessment of a policy type of the document it aims to cover entire coal mining
sector, however further in the assessment it is focused only on its part (represented by four activities
listed in the Strategic Plan of the DG of Mineral and Coal). The SEA report initially provides that the
SEA was carried out for mining sector. However as further described, it seems that the assessment
was focused only on four activities (see p. 37) i.e.:
Management support activity and technical implementation from Ditjen Minerba

Formulating policy for mining management and effort
Assisting and facilitate mineral and coal mining business actor
Technical environmental protection activity and supporting effort for mineral and coal.
Moreover, it is states in the SEA report (p. 39), that there is only one activity that potentially
damage the environment and sustainable development: policy making activity, policy implementation
program and evaluation in mineral and coal mining (activity no. 2).
The SEA report doesnt clearly provide information on process design and communication among
teams, however obviously there was communication between SEA team (Bappenas) and the planning
agency (MOEMR). The SEA report mentions that the SEA process had been planned with full
involvement of the MOEMR (p. 35).
The SEA report mentions several times cooperation and communication between Bappenas and
MOEMR, however it is not fully clear if (and how) the SEA process was linked to the planning process.
Evaluation
F
P
M

P
NA
72
Verbal summary:
The SEA was focused on several strategic issues (table 4.6, p. 48):
1.
Change of paradigm about mine, from foreign exchange to main resource
2.
High social conflicts
3.
Post mining supervision and enforcement
4.
Licensing process problems
5.
Area overlapping
6.
Limited human resources in mining sector, especially in the district
7.
Unsynchronized policy and coordination between central and district government and inter
ministry.
However, the executive summary provides slightly different set of issues (p. viii). Moreover, tables
4.1 4.4 (pp. 37 39) provide more detailed overview of potential impacts (environmental and
social), obstacles and challenges (as a result of FDG). It is not fully clear how these issues were
translated in the strategic issues listed above. Considering likely generic impacts of the coal mining,
it can be recommended including theme of public health and livelihood as a separate issue in order
to clearly illustrate likely impacts of the mining to the human population (including migration and
resettlement due to opening new mines).
Generally, the report claims relevant provisions of the LEPM as well as it provides that
implementation of SEA is important to be carried out in energy and mineral resources sector in
order to achieve responsible management (p. 2), however obviously SEA did not explicitly focus on
aspects defined by the LEPM.
The territorial dimension of the SEA is not clearly formulated in the SEA report. As provided by the
SEA report the SEA was carried out for mining sector and thus the most probably the assessment
covered the entire country. For strategic issue Area overlapping is addressed only Sumatera and
South Kalimantan as the areas with the largest coal reserves and mining activities.
Evaluation
M
M
drivers)?
M
M
Verbal summary:
The SEA report includes chapter on baseline analysis, however it is solely focused on the coal mining
sector itself and does not address the strategic issues identified.

analysed?
Evaluation
M
P
P
P
P
P
NA
73
Verbal summary:
The SEA describes likely impacts of the coal mining in four aspects impacts on economy, impacts
on community and social issues, impacts on environmental issues, and impacts on institutional issues.
The impacts on the strategic issues Limited human resources in mining sector, especially in the
district and Unsynchronized policy and coordination between central and district government and
inter ministry are not addressed.
The evaluation is described in a general way and doesnt specify which impacts might be arising from
which PPPs objectives i.e. it doesnt identify specific conflicts. It seems that impacts evaluation
didnt deal with PPPs objectives, but rather addressed general likely effects on coal mining.
As mentioned above, the impacts evaluation was done in a very general way and it seems that
certain likely impacts have not been addressed. E.g. regarding likely environmental impacts the SEA
report (p. 52) only mentions that there are potential effects on water, soil, air, landscape, flora and
fauna etc., however no further details are provided. Similarly, likely social effects are listed only briefly
its provided that .social conflict has many different forms, but the report doesnt specific which
social problems can be expected, in which areas etc. The report doesnt mention e.g. impacts related
to migration or resettlement due to coal mining activities.
The sub-chapter on likely economic impacts (4.2.1) is mainly focused on positive impacts but it
doesnt mention likely negative impacts on local economy if other sectors can influenced by mining
(e.g. the loss of agriculture land, loss of forests etc.). It also doesnt address other likely secondary
economic impacts e.g. related to costs for transport infrastructure to be repaired after damages
caused by the coal transport (it is briefly mentioned in the sub-chapter 4.2.4). The evaluation doesnt
answer the question how to replace financial resources coming from the coal export if as planned
the coal will be used mainly to secure domestic energy demand.
The most detailed evaluation was carried out for the issue of Land overlapping in Sumatera
(4.2.4.1), which is based on the GIS analysis. However, it seems that more specific conclusions on
the likely impacts could have been summarized (some models show that up to approx. 40% of the
conservation areas can be affected by coal mining, and 43% of the protected forests respectively).
The assessment was carried out mainly on a qualitative basis. The only quantification was done for
Area overlapping (quantification of protected forests and conservation areas to be potentially
affected by mining activities in Sumatra island).
Evaluation
P
P
M
M
Verbal summary:
The SEA report defines mitigation measures in sub-chapter 4.2.5, as well as recommendations
provided in chapter 5 can be considered as mitigation measures; suggested mitigation measures are
formulated in a general way and can be understood mainly as policy recommendations, rather than
specific measure reflecting specific likely impacts.
Thus it is difficult to find out which specific impacts can be mitigated by suggested measure subchapter 4.2.5 e.g. only mentions that by implementing good mining practice mining companies
will automatically minimize the impact to the environment.
There are neither indicators nor monitoring system suggested by the SEA. The SEA Report only
mentions (chapter 5, p. 70) that Activities to build and implementation of monitoring and evaluation
system of mining activities and after completion of mining activities in accordance with the applicable
provisions.
Evaluation
F
F
74
P
explicit?
M
P
F
Verbal summary:
The SEA report has a logical structure i.e. starting from introduction and background information,
followed by SEA methodology, through baseline analysis on coal, impacts evaluation, mitigation and
recommendations. It uses figures, tables and maps especially in baseline analysis on coal and GIS
analysis on Sumatra island (for the strategic issue Areas overlapping). However it could have been
used more extensively for impact analysis and evaluation.
The SEA provides a number of recommendations and conclusions (Chapter 5), which are not clearly
linked to impacts identified and are formulated in a form of general statements i.e. the report doesnt
conclude what are the main impacts, whether these impacts can be fully mitigated etc.
Recommendations are focused on strengthening of the institutional cooperation and stakeholders
involvement in planning. The SEA also suggested specific inputs to be integrated in the PPP as well
as recommendations for better SEA practice. It is not clear from the SEA report if (and how) the
conclusions have been integrated in the PPP.
Evaluation
M
PPPs approval?
Verbal summary:
It is not clear from the SEA report if (and how) the conclusions have been integrated in the PPP.

Evaluation
P
P
M
Verbal summary:
Obviously, the stakeholder mapping was carried out at the initial stages of SEA process, however the
SEA report does not provide further details on its results. As it follows from the SEA report, the
stakeholders (including representatives of the planning agency i.e. MOEMR) were involved
throughout the entire SEA process including the scoping stage.
Several meetings were organized during the SEA process, which (at least in one case) invited
representative of NGOs (e.g. Jatam).
75
6.14 SEA for Provincial Spatial Plan of the North Sulawesi

Name of pilot
International
consultants
involved
Language
of
SEA
report
reviewed
SEA for the Provincial Spatial Plan of the North Sulawesi

MOHA
2011
English

Evaluation
P
M
?
?
Verbal summary:
The SEA was clearly focused on evaluation of the provincial spatial plan. The SEA report doesnt
provide information on how the SEA process was designed. It however mentions that SEA is a selfassessment (p. 2), which could indicate that the SEA was carried out as a part of the RSP
preparation.
The objectives of the assessment are defied in the SEA report as follows:
Assessing the potential impacts of policies, plans and programmes contained in the Provincial
Spatial Plan design on the environmental conditions
Formulating the options for mitigating of impacts and / or alternative PPP, and
Integrating the sustainable development principles into the formulation of the RSP PPP of the
North Sulawesi Province

Verbal summary:
The SEA RSP was focused on altogether 10 strategic issues:
Management of Coastal, Sea and Small Island Areas
Management of River Basin Area (RBA)
Function Change and Land Conversion
Border Area
Disaster Risk Management
Land, Sea and Air Transportation
Biodiversity
Environmental Damage and Pollution
Evaluation
F
F
P
F
M
76
Energy Availability
Social, Cultural and Nature Issues
The SEA wasnt solely focused on the environmental issues and addressed also wider sustainability
themes e.g. social and culture, energy availability etc. It is also very good that the SEA report
provides short description for each strategic issue explaining its importance and relevance to the SEA.
As explained in the SEA report, a set of 10 strategic issues was developed through discussion and the
original list of 35 issues was generalized and grouped into above mentioned 10 strategic issues.
Further in the SEA process, likely impacts on these 10 strategic issues were evaluated. However, the
logical link should go from general issues to more specific ones (and not vice versa).
The SEA was focused on the area of the North Sulawesi Province, which is defined in the SEA report.
Evaluation
P
P
drivers)?
P
described
P
Verbal summary:
The SEA report provides a brief overview of each strategic issue its scope and detail vary issue by
issue. However, it can be concluded that the description of current status could be more detailed
considering the nature of RSP (i.e. specifying concrete development proposal) it would enable more
detailed analysis of the likely impacts. E.g. for the issue Management of coastal, marine and small
islands areas it could have been described which territories are the most endangered by coastal
development, which small islands etc. Similarly, for the Land, sea and air transportation the
information on areas and territories with significant lack of transport infrastructure could have been
provided, a part dedicated to Social, cultural and nature issues could have mentioned whether
there have been any tensions between different ethnic groups etc.
For some strategic issues the SEA report provides description of past trends (e.g. fishery production,
water pollution, population growth), while for other strategic issues such information are missing
(issues of border areas, land, sea and air transportation, biodiversity, environmental damage
and pollution, energy availability etc.).
Main drivers are mentioned only for few strategic issues by the SEA report (e.g. high population growth
and rapid development activities in coastal areas, environmental problems regarding illegal logging,
irresponsible human activities etc.), while for majority of strategic issues it is not addressed.
However, even if drivers are described, this description is not supported by data and information
(e.g. rapid development activities and high population growth are mentioned as drivers of the
coastal degradation, but the SEA report doesnt provide any details on it e.g. which parts of the
coastline are degraded, damaged etc.) and thus a validity of statements cannot be verified.
Likely future trends are estimated only for the population growth and regarding renewable energy
sources.
Evaluation
M
P
P
P
P
P
77

M
Verbal summary:
The SEA evaluates likely impacts of 17 development programmes (selected from altogether 47
development programmes) on 10 strategic issues defined in the scoping stage. The SEA report refers
to the matrix of interactions (e.g. p. 51), however it is not attached to the report. It seems from the
SEA report that SEA was focused only on selected development programmes and didnt address policy
level of the spatial plan.
The SEA addressed likely impacts on the strategic issues. Due to rather general formulation of the
strategic issues, it is not fully clear if all relevant issues were addressed (e.g. the climate change
might be relevant, however it is not mentioned in the SEA report as a specific issue.).
As mentioned above, the impacts evaluation was focused on 17 development programmes and
carried out in a form of a verbal description of impacts in many aspects the SEA describes detailed
impacts and specifies territories to be likely affected (e.g. It will results inaffecting rice
production in North Minahasa Kapubaten p- 52), while other likely impacts are described only in
a very general way (e.g. negative impact in the form of reduced agricultural wetlands with
reduced agriculture production of rice p. 54). For many development activities, the SEA identified
obviously very serious potential impacts (but the SEA report doesnt categorize impacts as
significant, non-significant etc.), however it seems that some impacts have been possibly
overlooked e.g. the SEA report claims (p. 67) that On the contrary, transportation development
program has a positive impacts on the environment, while certain negative impacts related to the
transport infrastructure were identified in previous assessments (chapter 4 of the SEA report) e.g.
in case of the toll read development program, urban railway network, etc., as well as Major
infrastructure network development plan is evaluated as having likely adverse effects (p. 70).
Similarly, evaluation of the mining activities (pp. 59 60) doesnt specifically mention likely impacts
to the public health, which considering potential environmental effects can be significant.
The evaluation mentions and distinguishes secondary as well as tertiary impacts. The SEA report
provides the overview of programs having likely impacts to each strategic issue, however with no
summary on how implementation of the spatial plan will affect a given strategic issue.
It also seems that lists of sources of impacts provided for each strategic issues are not complete
e.g. Development of Kuwil and Sawangan Dams is not included in the list for Biodiversity
strategic issue (p. 68), while certain and probably significant impacts on are identified within
evaluation (p. 58).
The assessment was carried out mainly on a qualitative basis; however several impacts were
quantified (e. g. evaluation of the Kuwil and Sawangan dams).
Evaluation
F
P
M
M
Verbal summary:
The SEA defines a number of mitigation measures (chapters 4 and 5); suggested mitigation measures
are formulated in a general way and can be understood mainly as spatial development policies,
rather than specific measure reflecting specific likely impacts.
Thus it is difficult to find out which specific impacts can be mitigated by suggested measure (e.g. as
mentioned in the evaluation, development of Kuwil and Sawangan Dams can adversely affect eel
population, however mitigation measures suggested for biodiversity strategic issue dont seem to
reflect this impact).
On the other hand, the SEA proposes several very strong statements e.g. it is suggested to
postpone mining activities, if there is no technology enabling to avoid likely negative impacts.
78
There are neither indicators nor monitoring system suggested by the SEA RSP. The SEA Report only
mentions (chapter 6.2) that To evaluate and monitor the implementation of North Sulawesi Province
SEA, the activities of North Sulawesi Province SEA team should be sustainable and set up the work
plan for the running years.

Evaluation
F
F
P
explicit?
M
from SEA)?
P
matters of opinion?
F
Verbal summary:
The SEA report has a logical structure i.e. starting from introduction and background information
(including SEA procedure and methods used), through scoping, description of the RSP, impacts
evaluation, and recommendations. The last part of the report is dedicated to conclusions. The English
version is understandable and well presented, as well as it uses maps and charts especially in scoping
(Chapter 2) and baseline analysis (2.2.3) as well as for impacts evaluation (Chapter 3) however,
the maps are used only to present location of the development proposals and not for illustrating the
likely impacts.
The SEA report lists following SEA methods:
Stakeholders mapping
Scoping
Analysis of baseline data
Data collection
Document review
Review of PPP impacts
Involvement of stakeholders
Decision-making
It can be noted that data collection should be placed before analysis of baseline data, since logically
first it is necessary to collect data which can be further analyzed.
The SEA provides a number of recommendations (Chapter 5) and conclusions (Chapter 6), which are
formulated in a form of general statements, which can be understood mainly as spatial
development policies. It is not clear from the report, which recommendations were integrated in
the plan. The SEA report only concludes that North Sulawesi spatial plan has considered
environmental and sustainable development aspects in its PPP (sub-chapter 6.1, p. 77). This
statement seems to be contradicting with a number of significant impacts identified in previous steps
of the assessment.
The SEA report provides the list of references; however the source of information is not always
indicated directly in the text.
approval?
Evaluation
M
79
Verbal summary:
The explanation of the decision-making (sub-chapter 1.4.8) is not fully clear from the SEA report,
since it talks about decision-making on the SEA RSP results., while doesnt mention how SEA RSP
results were considered in decision-making related to the RSP itself (i.e. approval or adoption of the
spatial plan). Further, the SEA report lists the steps of the SEA RSP (parts Abstract p. iii, and
Summary p. viii) and places preparation of final report only after decision-making. It is not
fully clear if final report means final SEA report if so, it should be finalized before the decisionmaking (i.e. approval of the spatial plan), because the SEA report should be a background document
for the decision.
Evaluation
P
P
M
Verbal summary:
The SEA report doesnt provide details regarding stakeholders consultations; it only mentions that
scoping exercise was carried out through group interaction and describes that the stakeholder
mapping was carried out (sub-chapter 1.4.1). Obviously, the SEA report was not open for wide
public, the consultations were limited only to invited stakeholders.
80
6.15 SEA for Spatial Plan of Central Sulawesi Province

Name of pilot
SEA for Spatial Plan (RTRW) of Central Sulawesi Province

(BLHD)
2011
Ketut Sudiarta and I Wayan Artana
N/A
Bahasa Indonesia

Evaluation
F
P
M
M
M
Verbal summary:
The SEA report does not provide sufficient information regarding the SEA team. Nor does it clearly
explain in the communication between SEA team and the planners. However, it is mentioned that
Bappeda was involved as one of the stakeholder. Based on additional information gained during the
preparation of SEA synthesis study, it seems that a number of planners were members of the SEA
team and in fact represented the core group working on analyses. They were assisted by two
national consultants and two local consultants, which were responsible for methodological leadership
and overall supervision of the SEA process as well as for preparation of the SEA report.
Evaluation
F
P
P

F
M
Verbal summary:
The report provides sufficient information regarding the key issues of the SEA including
environmental issues (deforestation, pollution and coastal and sea degradation), economic issues
(high rate of poverty, low of capital investment and food security), and social and culture issues (low
of law enforcement, human development index and disaster and risk awareness). However, in the
process of short-listing the issues, health issues were scope-out (without clear indication how the
selection process was done). The report does not explicitly describe six SEA aspects as stipulate by
the LEPM within the scoping part; however these are mentioned in the impact assessment charter.
There is no information in the SEA Report on the territorial scope of SEA, but it can be assumed the
SEA was focused on the administrative boundaries of the province.
81

Evaluation
M
M
drivers)?
P
F
Verbal summary:
The report does not mention the baseline analysis specifically. It provides provincial profile and
description of issues. However this description covers the main concerns regarding the key issues,
geographical scope of issues, and future likely impact such as deforestation issue (covering ten
districts and one municipality) which is forced by high rate of population growth, migration, high
demand of agriculture land etc. and will have impacts to micro-climate change, sedimentation, loss
of biodiversity etc.
Evaluation
M
analysed?
M
P
P
M
M
M
Verbal summary:
The SEA report provides evaluation of impacts of the programmes included in the spatial plan the
SEA team assessed the primary, secondary and tertiary impacts. The assessment results are
presented in narrative form. However, the links between spatial plans programmes and the key
issues identified in the scoping are not explicitly mentioned. For instance, the issue of development
of the Trans Sulawesi Road was predicted to have likely primary impact on deforestation, secondary
impact on loss of biodiversity and tertiary impact on behaviour change of the indigenous people.
The SEA defined several mitigations based on the predicted impacts of programmes. There is no
sufficient information in the SEA report, how the impact evaluation process was conducted (whether
by the entire team, or by the individual experts), as well as there is no substantiation provided.
Evaluation
P
P
M
M
Verbal summary:
The report documents mitigation measures as a part of the assessment. Mitigation measures
suggested appears to be an effort to address the likely impacts identified on the assessment stage,
but it is not clear which of the mitigation measures are linked to which specific likely impacts. The
report does not provide information regarding the monitoring.
82

Evaluation
P
F
P
explicit?
M
M
F
Verbal summary:
In general, the SEA report documents the SEA processes and its results, but the presentation is
lacking the flow of logics, making it difficult to know which mitigation measures and
recommendations are to address which impacts. The SEA report consists of Background, SEA
process and Recommendations. The part on SEA process described the SEA training, scoping
(including baseline), assessment (including mitigation/alternatives) and recommendations. . The
report does not provide information regarding the sources of information to develop the SEA.
PPPs approval?
Verbal summary:
The SEA report does not provide information regarding the decision making.
Evaluation
M

Evaluation
F
M
Were any SEA information/documents made publicly accessible during the SEA
M
Verbal summary:
The SEA report briefly mentions stakeholders participation (stipulating that it constituted an
important part of SEA), but not details are provided on the way of their involvement and
dissemination of the information during the process and SEA results. Based on additional information
gained during the preparation of SEA synthesis study, it seems that mainly governmental officials
participated in the SEA process, however several university experts and local NGO was invited to
participate as well.
83
6.16 SEA for Medium-Term Development Plan of the Central Java

Province
Name of pilot
SEA of the Medium-Term Development Plan of the Central Java

Province
MOHA
2011
English

Evaluation
F
M
M
P
F
Verbal summary:
The SEA was conducted for the RPJMD; however it was applied for already existing plan. Thus
there was no planning process the SEA could be linked to. Therefore the SEA design well
considered this fact and SEA was aimed mainly at providing inputs in future planning in the
Central Java province. Even if the RPJMD was the primary target of the assessment, the SEA
took into account also related programmes stipulated within the RTRW (provincial spatial plan).
This approach was consulted with the provincial government and led to agreement that the
present SEA implementation is focused on the assessment of the programs to be implemented
in fiscal year 2013 (Provincial Work Plan (RKPD) RKPD 2013) and RPJMD 2013-2018. The
results of assessment of these programs are expected to be made as reference to the
preparation of RKPD 2013 and RJPMD 2013-2018. Assessment at the policy level is later
expected to be made when implementing the SEA in the preparation of RJPMD 2013-2018.
Evaluation
F
F
P

P
M
Verbal summary:
As already mentioned above, the SEA was focused on altogether 16 strategic issues in three following
groups:
Environmental degradation and pollution
1. Land conversion (protected area, cultivation zone, agricultural land into non-agricultural land)
2. Natural disaster (flood, landslide, volcanic eruption)
84
3.
4.
5.
6.
Environmental pollution (soil, water, B3, river, air, waste)

Abrasion, coastal accretion, sea water intrusion and Climate change
Food security vulnerability
Environmental degradation due to mining
Infrastructure (competitiveness)
7. Inter-regional disparity
8. Agricultural facilities and infrastructures availability
9. Insufficient road infrastructure
10. Investment
11. Production competitiveness
12. IKM and UKM
Social disparity
13. High number of population growth and unequal population distribution
14. Low quality of public basic need services
15. High number of PMKS
16. Unachieved gender equality and justice
Considering this scope, it can be concluded that the SEA covered the most of the aspects defined by
the Law on Environmnetal Protection and Management, and in fact went beyond it by addressing
e.g. the issues of gender equality, population distribution, road infrastructure etc.
The SEA was focused on the area of the entire province and did not considered likely transboundary
impacts.
Evaluation
F
P
drivers)?
M
P
Verbal summary:
The SEA report provides first a brief overview for each strategic issue explaining its importance as
well as mentioning existing problems in the province. Further, in following part (3.5.1) the baseline
trends are described. For a majority of strategic issues the SEA report provides description of past
trends.
For some trends, the SEA identified drivers of trends (e.g. for natural disasters the SEA report
provides that flood disaster..is normally caused by forests and protected areas degradation on its
upper side as well as the conversion of storm water catchment area to developed land, or for land
conversion it is mentioned that land conversion may occur due to policy leading to the conversion
and it can also be caused by low farmer exchange rate), while for other issues drivers are missing
(e.g. it is not explained why areas of forests or mangroves are decreasing, or why investments into
province has been lowered). It also seems that further drivers might be relevant for certain issues
e.g. industrial pollution or pollution from transport could have been probably mentioned within the
environmental pollution issue.
analysed?
Evaluation
M
P
P
85

P
M
M
M
Verbal summary:
The SEA evaluated likely impacts of selected PPPs components (RPJMD and RTRW) on 16 strategic
issues. The evaluation was conducted in a form of a verbal description of impacts. For many
development activities, the SEA identified obviously very serious potential impacts (but the SEA report
doesnt categorize impacts as significant, non-significant etc.), however it seems that for certain
issues some likely effects have been overlooked e.g. health impacts might be caused by air transport
development, development planning of strategic and fast-growing areas might result in impacts (both
positive and negative) on social issues etc. Even if the SEA didnt clearly distinguish between direct
and secondary impacts, considering the description provided for the strategic issues that secondary
impacts were taken into account in evaluation.
The SEA report mentions (p. IV-13) that impact evaluation is a result of analysis and agreement of
all involved stakeholders with no further details provided.
Evaluation
F
P
M
M
Verbal summary:
The SEA provides a number of recommendations (formulated on a basis of previous impacts
evaluation) and conclusions as mentioned above, the recommendations are focused on the PPP
implementation (and these are formulated separately for year 2013 and for the period 2013 2018,
see table VI.1). The recommendations are formulated in rather general way and in some cases it is
not fully clear how these can be implemented (e.g. public awareness of environmental preservation
is recommended for social disparity issue should it be increased or considered in implementation or
should any specific activities be implemented?). A number of measures are linked to the impacts
identified.
The SEA sugested alternative regarding re-allocation of the activities / programmes having likely
impacts on the agriculture land to non-productive agricultre land in order to avoid effects to food
secutiry. Moreover, a number of recommendations formulated by SEA (chapter VI) can be understood
as alternative way of the PPP implementation (e.g. more strict issuance of new building permits,
increasing a number of water reservoirs etc.).
The SEA also assigns responsibility for implementing recommendations (see Table VI.1 in the SEA
report).
There are neither indicators nor monitoring system suggested by the SEA.
explicit?
Evaluation
F
F
P
M
86

F
Verbal summary:
The internal logic of the SEA report is very good, it is structured along the steps and analyses
conducted within the SEA i.e. starting from introduction and background information (including legal
basis, SEA procedure and methods used), through description of the PPPs, scoping and baseline
analysis, impacts evaluation, and recommendations. The last part of the report is dedicated to
conclusions; its English version is understandable and well presented.
The report also provides Summary at the beginning of the document, and it uses maps and charts
especially in Chapter III (scoping and baseline analysis). The SEA report provides description (within
introductory chapter) of all methods and approaches used for the SEA, however it is not always clear
how certain method was used within evaluation (e.g. it is mentioned that GIS was used see p. I.5,
but results of the GIS analysis are not explicitly mentioned in the SEA report).
PPPs approval?
Verbal summary:
There is no information in the SEA report regarding decision-making.
Evaluation
M

Evaluation
F
F
M
Verbal summary:
The stakeholder mapping was carried out during the initial stages of SEA through a group work aimed
at identification of stakeholders (covering all target groups) having significant influence in the
preparation of the RPJMD or which can likely be significantly affected by the implementation of the
RPJMD. The stakeholders involvement during the SEA process was based on the results of the
stakeholders mapping. As explained in the SEA report, the SEA process was conducted in a
participatory manner involving governmental agencies, NGOs, universities or academicians,
businesses as well as representatives of the communities.
However, there is no list providing more specific information about involved stakeholders (name of
institutions, opinions raised etc.) within the SEA report. Obviously, the SEA report was not open for
wide public, and consultations were limited to only invited stakeholders.
87
6.17 SEA for Border Road Development Plan in West Kalimantan

Name of pilot
SEA for Border Road Development Plan in West Kalimantan

MOHA and Environmental Management Agency (BLHD) of West
Kalimantan Province
2011
Rudy P. Tambunan
N/A
Bahasa Indonesia

Evaluation
F
P
M
M
P
Verbal summary:
The SEA report states that the subject of the SEA was border road development plan as a part of the
National Strategic Development Area (KSN). The report mentions that the SEA result will be
integrated into provincials spatial plan and as input for SEA of RTRW in five Kabupaten/Kotas
located in the border area. The report does not provide information on the composition of the SEA
team, however it mentions certain limitation regarding the SEA team, such as: (1) capacity of team
members, (2) most team members were busy because of other commitments, (3) lack of data and
information regarding issues and planning document.
Evaluation
F
F
P

P
M
Verbal summary:
The key issues are clearly stated in the SEA report, they are clustered into environmental, sociocultural, economic, and governance topics. The report claims that ecosystem services and impact on
environment were considered in the SEA process (chapter 1 of the SEA report), however there is no
clear methodology described on how to address both issues. The geographical scope of the SEA is
limited to 5 Kabupaten/Kota along the Indonesia-Malaysia border in West Kalimantan. Considering
location of the SEA (i.e. border area), it can be concluded that transboundary impacts should have
been taken into account when determining the scope of likely impacts, since it is very probable that
impacts resulting from the proposed development can be limited only to the Indonesian territory.
88

Evaluation
P
M
drivers)?
M
M
Verbal summary:
The SEA report does not contain specific chapter on the baseline analysis. The information provided
only covers description of some of the issues such forest cover change, social change, defence and
security, and economic tension mostly in qualitative terms, without any numbers, graphs, maps or
references included. Some of the issues such as environmental degradation and governance were
not described at all. The report does not provide other baseline aspects such trend analysis and
identification of the main drivers. The data described in the SEA report include conditions and
problems of forest ecosystems in the border areas, social change pattern in the border areas,
education and health management, defence and security facilities and benchmark demarcation,
regional economic review, wellbeing of the boundary officers.
Evaluation
M
analysed?
M
M
M
M
M
M
Verbal summary:
Although chapter 3 of the SEA report mentions that the SEA shall evaluate the plan on the border
area, there is no evaluation of impacts provided. There is only description of the PPPs (draft spatial
plan of KSN, RTRW and RPJPD of West Kalimantan) themselves. The SEA report however proposes
alternative roads with maps included in the chapter on recommendation chapter. The alternatives
are proposed in order to address the key issues such deforestation, environmental pollution and
degradation, loss of indigenous cultures, etc. information on how these alternatives were
developed are not provided in the SEA report.
Evaluation
P/M
P/M
M
M
Verbal summary:
The chapter 4 of the SEA report described mitigation measures. Obviously, proposed measures are
aimed at improving the current status and existing problems regarding the key issues, rather than
linked to any specific impacts likely to be caused by the plans. For instance, one of the measures
suggests that (for the key issue of deforestation) to limit areas to be deforested up to 30 meters
from the road. Another measure focused on the land conversion issue proposes to maximise the role
of BLHD in environment monitoring and evaluation. Most of the mitigation measures are formulated
in general and normative terms.
89
The SEA report does not provide any information on monitoring.

Evaluation
P
P
P
explicit?
M
M
F
Verbal summary:
In general, the SEA report is user friendly, however due to methodological approach it sometime
misses internal consistency e.g. suggestion on alternative roads to avoid the national park is only
listed among recommendation, while it is not included in the evaluation of impact and mitigation. The
report provides certain description of methodology; however the overall approach is not introduced.
The report provides conclusion and recommendations, however it is not clear which recommendations
are integrated into the plan. A non-technical summary in both Bahasa Indonesia and English is
provided at the beginning of the report.
PPPs approval?
Verbal summary:
The report does not provide any information on the decision making.
Evaluation
M

Evaluation
F
P
M
Verbal summary:
The SEA report provides the results of stakeholder mapping in accordance with the results the
governmental officials, representatives of the NGOs, universities, private sector, as well as informal
community leaders were invited in the SEA. The report does not clearly describe their involvement in
the process, although a number of FGDs and workshops during the SEA process were obviously
undertaken.
90
6.18 SEA for Spatial Plan of Jambi Province

Name of pilot
SEA for Jambi Province Spatial Plan (RTRW)

MOHA and Provincial Planning Agency (Bappeda) of Jambi
Province
2011
Dwi Nurcahyadi
Kim Harboe
Bahasa Indonesia

Evaluation
F
P
P
P
F
Verbal summary:
The SEA report clearly defines the subject of the SEA i.e. the Provincial Spatial Plan. The report
provides partial information on how SEA process was designed the SEA was conducted at the final
stages of the planning process. Although the report does not provide clear information how the
process involves the planners, based on the information gained during the preparation of the SEA
synthesis study it can be concluded that there was a good team work among the SEA team and the
planners. Actually, three planners represented the key members of the SEA team and the head of
the Spatial Planning Division of Bappeda was the secretary of the SEA team responsible for the daily
management of the SEA team. Bappeda as the planning agency as well as coordinating the SEA
process had high expectation regarding the SEA and its deliverables. The strong commitment of the
provincial government and readiness to apply SEA were actually the main reasons for selecting
Jambi Province as one of the pilot sites by MoHA.
Evaluation
P
P

P
P
Verbal summary:
The SEA focuses on two key issues (i) infrastructure, and (ii) land and forest degradation, which
were shortlisted from altogether seventeen issues identified during the scoping workshop. The
biodiversity which constitutes an important objective is considered as a part of the land and forest
degradation issue, supported with sufficient baseline information. The report mentions the focus
area was only Jambi Province without considering surrounding area, which can be considered as
91
insufficiently defined territorial scope, since impacts going beyond borders of the province can be
expected.
Evaluation
P
P
drivers)?
P
P
Verbal summary:
The SEA report provides a brief overview of the strategic issues. The scope and depth of the
description vary significantly issue by issue, obviously depending on data availability thus it can be
concluded that the focus of the analytical work was driven by data availability rather than by actual
SEA needs. Description for some of the issues provides past and future trends while the other issues
are not supplemented with such trend and there is no reasoning provided. Several main drivers
influencing trends were identified (e.g. high coal mining activities and related transport as drivers for
the damage of road infrastructure and overlapping land use permits as the driver for the land and
forest degradation).
Evaluation
F
analysed?
P
P
P
P
P
Verbal summary:
The SEA evaluates five development programs included in the spatial plan on two strategic issues
defined in scoping stage. The five programmes were screened from altogether eight programmes
suggested by the spatial plan as programmes that have potential negative impact on the key issues.
However, the SEA report does not provide sufficient description of the screening process and
substantiation of this selection.
The evaluation mentions secondary and cumulative impacts. The SEA did use spatial analyses to
evaluate impacts of certain programs such as the proposed of Sumatera Toll Road (where impacts to
the conservation area can be predicted). The SEA report provides information about Road Map of
Sumatera Ecosystem that is considered as an alternative for inclusion into the spatial plan of Jambi
Province. The SEA carried out a thorough assessment of the Road Map of Sumatera Ecosystem
concluding that proposed programmes in provincial and national spatial plans such toll road,
plantation and mining will endanger the conservation area.
Evaluation
P
P
M
92

M
Verbal summary:
The SEA clearly defines a number of mitigation measures. Using matrixes, the mitigation measures
are formulated on the basis of impact evaluation but some of the impact evaluations such as
secondary and cumulative impacts have no mitigation measures. Some of the mitigation measures
were not related directly to spatial plan but could be related to other plans such as RPJMD (e.g.
monitoring and evaluation of good mining practices and good plantation management to reduce the
impact of plantation development programmes). The SEA report does not provide information on
monitoring.
Evaluation
F
F
F
explicit?
M
P
F
Verbal summary:
The report has a logical structure covering all SEA steps from beginning to the end of SEA process.
However some part of the SEA process such as programmes screening to determine the
programmes that have impact on key issues and stakeholders involvements are not provided in the
report, thus methodological approach is not clear to external readers. The last part of the report is
dedicated to the decision making process by the Governor of Jambi. The decisions made by the
Governor are:
to integrate the Road Map of Sumatera Ecosystem into the provincial spatial plan
to optimize and strengthen the transportation infrastructure programmes with mitigation
measures
to integrate the mitigation measures suggested by SEA into the plantation and mining
development programmes
to delete the development of industrial forest programme in the conservation area from the
proposed RTRW
Although the SEA report how the decision above is (will be) integrated into the plan, it can be
considered as an important achievement.
The SEA report provides a list of references and stakeholders consensus on the recommendations as
well as the non technical summary is provided in the beginning of the report.
Evaluation
M
PPPs approval?
Verbal summary:
The report does not provide information about SEA considerations in plans approval, however it can
be supposed that the decision by the Governor (see above) shall be integrated in the plan and
considered in its implementation.
Evaluation
F
93
F
M
Verbal summary:
The report provides the stakeholders identified in the preparation stage and there is a statement in
each chapter regarding the involvement of stakeholders. The stakeholders were invited in three
stages i.e. scoping, assessment and mitigation/recommendation formulation stage. The stakeholders
involved were from national, provincial and district government, local and national NGOs, local
universities and indigenous people. In addtion, in its appendix 1 the report provides stakeholder
consensus in the mitigation and recommendation stage with signatures included.
94
6.19 SEA for Mataram Metropolitan City Plan

Name of pilot
SEA for Provincial Strategic Development Area (Plan for

Mataram Metropolitan City)
MOHA and Provincial Development Planning Agency (Bappeda)
2011
I Wayan Arthana and Ketut Sudiarta
N/A
Bahasa Indonesia

Evaluation
F
M
M
M
M
Verbal summary:
The SEA report clearly defines the subject of the SEA, which is the Spatial plan of Provincial
Strategic Development Area (KSP) i.e. Mataram Metropolitan City. Although not mentioned in the
report, based on the additional information gained during preparation of the SEA synthesis study it
can be concluded that the SEA process was integrated only in the later stages of the planning, since
the assessment started when the draft plan was already developed. The SEA team, consisting
mainly from the local governmental officials, was chaired by Bappeda and assisted by two national
consultants providing methodological support during the entire SEA process. Wider group invited to
participate in SEA included also representatives of the local university and NGOs.
Evaluation
F
F
P

P
M
Verbal summary:
The report defines nine key issues, which were derived from altogether 26 sub-issues and clustered
in environmental, economic and socio-cultural fields. The issues include climate change, biodiversity,
food security, poverty and illegal logging; however there is no clear link to the six aspects stipulated
by the LEPW to be addressed in SEA. Maps are provided for several issues (land use change, food
security, poverty, and illegal logging distribution) to show the geographical scope, which was
obviously limited to Kota Mataram itself.
95

Evaluation
P
P
drivers)?
M
described
M
Verbal summary:
The SEA report does not explicitly mention baseline analysis information. However there is a section
providing on facts and analyses for the issues which to certain extent can be considered as a
baseline. This part provides existing state and past trend for some issues as well as describes
several main drivers. However, estimation of future trends was not elaborated.

Evaluation
F
analysed?
F
F
F
P
P
M
Verbal summary:
The impacts evaluation was conducted in a form of matrixes addressing conflicts between issues and
altogether 14 programmes screened from draft of the KSP spatial plan. Primary, secondary and
tertiary impacts were analyzed, and evaluation of several impacts is supported by maps (e.g. impact
of developing central, north and south area on land use changes and roads programmes on land use
change). No alternatives were evaluated.
Evaluation
P
P
M
M
Verbal summary:
The SEA report suggests mitigation measures following likely impact of 14 programmes on the key
issues. The mitigation measures are formulated in a matrix based on the all impact of each
programme. Most of the measures were developed in general way e.g. to conduct monitoring or to
add more stringent requirement on land use permits.
explicit?
Evaluation
F
M
P
96
M
M
F
Verbal summary:
The SEA report has a logical structure and follows SEA analyses from the initial stages to the
recommendations. The report does not provide description of the SEA process as well as the
methodology/approach to SEA is missing.

PPPs approval?
Verbal summary:
The report does not provide any information regarding the decision making.
Evaluation
M

Evaluation
F
F
M
Verbal summary:
Each chapter of the report claims that stakeholders participated at the workshop organized in a
given stage of SEA. Thus it can be concluded that stakeholders were invited to participate in all
major steps/phases of SEA. The stakeholders included governmental officials and representative of
WWF. Local universities did not participate since two local SEA consultants (members of the core
SEA team) were considered as representatives of the local universities. The report does not mention
any information regarding the accessibility or distribution of the SEA document to public.
97
6.20 SEA for Spatial Plan of National Strategic Area (KSN) Sunda
Strait
Name of pilot
SEA for Spatial Plan of National Strategic Area (KSN) Sunda

Strait
MOPW
2011
Yes
DHI
English

Evaluation
F
P
P
P
F
Verbal summary:
The SEA evaluated the Sunda Strait Spatial Plan, however the SEA considered also provincial spatial
plans in Lampung and Banten provinces and actually there were several impacts identified (and
mitigation measures suggested) in relation of provincial spatial plans.
The SEA process was planned more or less at the beginning of the planning process; The SEA report
describes in general terms linkages between the SEA and planning process (providing the SEA was
conducted through integrated approach and thus providing inputs during the KSN preparation).
As obvious, the planning process had been taken into account when the SEA process has been
designed, however due to practical reasons the SEA process was delayed. The SEA report provides
(p. 25) that the SEA process is integrated with the spatial planning process as well as it describes
general linkages between the planning and SEA process (chapter 4.2) and claims that This KSN
Sunda Strait SEA was an integrated process, and was therefore conducted in parallel to the KSN
Sunda Strait spatial plan development.
The SEA was conducted mainly by the DHI team consisting both from the international as well as
national experts.
Evaluation
F
F
F

F
F
98
Verbal summary:
The SEA report (chapter 6 and further sections in chapters 8, 9 and 10) provides full overview of the
strategic environmental issues, which are addressed in detail in the SEA analyses, as well as it
explains how the issues were defined and identified. The the scoping process used the spatial
analyses and maps were prepared illustraiting current polluting activities and environmenal issues
and their spatial relation to future land-use and infrastructure.
As provided by the SEA report, aspects stipulated by the LEPM were considered when defining the
strategic environmental issues as well as obviously these issues (among others) were taken into
account within impacts assessment.
Administratively, the scope of SEA is given by the KSN Sunda Strait Spatial Plan. However, in order
to define the territorial scope of likely impacts (and thus the real scope of SEA), the SEA report
provides (chapter 6.2) maps to illustrate the overlay of the current baseline status with the future
land used and infrastructure as proposed by the spatial plan.
Although not explicitly mentioned in the SEA report, likely impacts beyond the administrative
boundaries of Banten and Lumpung provinces were obviously also considered in scoping (e.g.
possible interruption of important global oceanic thermal exchange processes).
Evaluation
F
P
drivers)?
P
F
Verbal summary:
The chapter 5 of the SEA report provides description of baseline conditions, which was a basis for
identification of the strategic environmental issues. The description of the baseline conditions
(chapter 5) is mainly focused on existing status, however for several issues past trends are provided
(e.g. for mangroves, industrial growth or tourism development). Further description of some trends
is provided in the assessment chapters (9 11) and in appendixes D, E and F.
The factors influencing the development have been identified for several issues (e.g. reasons for
mangrove degradation, changes of paddy fields, flooding) in the chapter 5; other drivers are
described within evaluation (chapters 9 11, and appendixes D, E and F).
For several issues the future likely development was described (e.g. for water systems see
appendix F, p. F-18 or wastewater treatment p. 90), however for a number of issues the future
trends without the KSN Sunda Strait Spatial Plan implementation are not provided.
analysed?
Evaluation
M
F
F
F
F
F
NA
99
Verbal summary:
The SEA addressed all likely impacts resulting from the KSN Sunda Strait implementation on the
strategic environmental issues defined in the scoping. The assessment considered also secondary or
indirect impacts (where relevant) likely impacts resulting from the KSN Sunda Strait Spatial Plan
implementation as well as the SEA report provides an overview of cumulative evaluation i.e. table
12.1 summarizes how each of the strategic environmental issues can be influenced by the KSN
Sunda Strait Spatial Plan.
For a number of strategic issues the likely impacts were quantified (e.g. regarding the industrial
pollution). The evaluation of impacts is based on thorough studies including a number of national
and international references, case studies, calculations etc.
The KSN Sunda Strait Spatial Plan was prepared as mono-alterative it means that no alternatives
were proposed by the spatial plan.
Evaluation
F
F
F
P
Verbal summary:
The SEA report provides (chapter 13) a number of recommendations linked to likely impacts
identified. Part of recommendations is focused directly on KSN Sunda Strait Spatial Plan, and a
number of recommendations go beyond the plan (e.g. conducting additional studies) as well as
beyond the MOPW administrative responsibility (e.g. establishing KSN Sunda Strait Social Welfare
Panel).
The SEA report describes(chapter 14) general monitoring scheme as well as monitoring indicators
which are formulated mainly as activities needs to ensure the monitoring scheme operates.
However, there are no indicators directly focused on the strategic environmental issues allowing
monitoring the real effect of the KSN Sunda Strait Spatial Plan during its implementation.
The SEA suggested establishing a governmental sub-committee within the implementation and
monitoring scheme proposed, which would be responsible for coordinating the monitoring scheme.
The SEA also proposes that the Indonesian Auditor General should be involved in monitoring of the
SEA indicators.
Evaluation
F
F
F
explicit?
M
F
F
Verbal summary:
The internal logic of the SEA report is very good, it is structured along the steps and analyses
conducted within the SEA and results in recommendations and conclusions. There is a number of
appendices attached to the main body of the report, which provide detailed studies, overview of
consultations etc., as well as the non-technical summary is provided as a separate document.
100
All statements in the SEA report are quite well substantiated by the references to literature or expert
opinion.
There is no clear documentation on which SEA suggestions made throughout the process have been
integrated in the KSN draft (although generally, SEA report claims that integration of SEA input at
different stages of KSN development directly into the KSN process, p. 202). As resulted from the
discussion with the MOPWs Sub-Directorate of Regulations and SEA team representatives in 2012
it seems that no changes of the KSN have been made due to SEA. There was a chance that some
SEA recommendations will be considered in the Presidential Decree on KSN Sunda Strait, and
current situation needs to checked.
Evaluation
M
PPPs approval?
Verbal summary:
The SEA report does not provide any information regarding the decision-making due to the fact that
the SEA process was terminated before the approval process.

Evaluation
F
F
F
Verbal summary:
As described in the SEA report (p. 26) the stakeholders mapping was conducted by MOPW and DHI
prior the consultations to identify stakeholders that will be involved in the SEA process. The results
are provided in its appendix A (the key stakeholders included governmental officials, academia,
professional associations, and NGOs).
As obvious from the list of invitees (Appendix A, tables A.1 and A.2), all the most relevant
stakeholders groups were represented at the consultations in Banten and Lampung provinces
(provincial governments, NGOs, universities etc.). As discussed with the MOPW, also all members of
the National Coordination Body for the Spatial Planning (BKPRN) were involved in the planning
process, and some of them were also invited in the SEA process to the scoping discussion
(workshop) as well as to the final consultations.
As described in Figure 4.1 of the SEA report consultation and meetings with spatial planners,
including MOPW, DANIDA and KSN Sunda Strait spatial planners were undertaken throughout the
process, with meetings and discussions held at every major step of the SEA process. Besides
meetings described in the SEA report, a number of working meetings between SEA experts and
planning team was organized during the SEA (including scoping stage) in order to present SEA
findings and get a feedback from planners. As mentioned in the SEA report (p. 70) the public and
stakeholder consultation workshops were focused among others on the preliminary findings of the
strategic environmental issues. The SEA report also provides (p. 53) that workshops were held to
identify environmental areas of concern for the SEA which means that the scope of SEA was
consulted with stakeholders as well. However, conclusions from these events are not included in the
SEA report.
Although not explicitly described in the SEA report, the presentations as well as background
documents were distributed to invited participants before formal meetings. Moreover, the scoping
report as well as the draft SEA report were published on the ESP2 web site together with contact
emails and opened for comments.
101
6.21 Rapid Environmental Assessment (REA) for Proposed Diversion

of the Citanduy River
Name of pilot
Rapid Environmental Assessment for Proposed Diversion of the

Citanduy River
IMPW
2012
DHI
English

Evaluation
F
?
?
?
F
Verbal summary:
Not an SEA, but a report on Rapid Environmental Assessment (REA) of particular strategic action diversion of the Citanduy River - considered under the Spatial plan preparation process (The
planning process as such is due to this unresolved issue is stagnation). The core of the report
consists of technical analysis of the proposed action and evaluation of its environmental
consequences. The process designed as a key input to the planning process (without information on
actual level of cooperation/integration between the REA outputs and planning). The clear and
convincing recommendations for the planning are formulated but no details on facilitation of their
application within the planning process are provided. The authorship of the REA is fully
acknowledged including the names of participating institutions and expert team composition.
Evaluation
F
F
P

F
F
Verbal summary:
Not SEA but REA report the scope of the report reflects the narrowly defined subject of the
assessment. In this context the key issues are precisely defined and territorial scope. Within the
defined scope of assessment the above listed aspects are addressed in reasonable manner, but to a
less extent that would be appropriate in case of a regular full-fledged SEA.
102

Evaluation
F
F
drivers)?
F
F
Verbal summary:
Within the narrowed-down scope of the assessment, all key issues were soundly addressed within
the baseline analysis, including description of key trends and identification if main drivers. The
zero/do-nothing alternative scenario was established as a reference point for evaluation of the
proposed action.

Evaluation
P/NA
analysed?
F/NA
F
F
F
F
F
Verbal summary:
Within the narrowed-down scope of the assessment only one specific strategic concern related to the
Spatial Plan was evaluated. The REA assess all relevant key issues, employing technical analysis
producing quantified estimations of impact magnitude, where possible.

Evaluation
P/NA
P
M/NA
M/NA
Verbal summary:
Within the narrowed-down scope of the assessment the REA has produced proposal for mitigation
measures to be considered in broader planning context. It makes clear that proposed technical
solutions will not be satisfactory for addressing the identified environmental impacts, unless more
complex solution is implemented, including policies to address problems of erosion and land use
beyond of the territory directly affected by the assessed intervention (diversion of the Citanduy
River).
Evaluation
F
103
F
F
explicit?
NA
F
F
Verbal summary:
The report is well structured and intelligible. Conclusions and implications for the planning process
were explicitly stated; employed analytical methods are clearly explained. The report does not
contain information about the reflection of the assessment outputs by the planning process. The
sources of information are in most cases provided and uncertainties regularly acknowledged.
PPPs approval?
Verbal summary:
The REA only provides partial input to the overall planning process that is still ongoing.
Evaluation
NA

Evaluation
M/NA
M/NA
M
Verbal summary:
The REA was carried out as a predominantly technical exercise, intended to inform planning process
on one specific strategic concern decision on including the project of diversion of the Citanduy
River into the broader context of Spatial plan preparation. Thus the stakeholders involvement is
anticipated on later stages of planning process that will also be assisted by a full SEA, better suited
for facilitating stakeholders consultations.
104
6.22 SEA for Regional Medium-Term Development Plan of Bangka

Belitung Province
Name of pilot
SEA for Regional Medium-Term Development Plan of Bangka

Belitung Province (RPJMD)
MOHA
2012
Dwi Nurcahyadi and Rudy P. Tambunan
Martin Smutn
English (with several annexes in Bahasa Indonesia)

Evaluation
F
F
P
F
F
Verbal summary:
The SEA was clearly focused on the RPJMD. The SEA process had been well planned the Bangka
Belitung Province was selected based on the discussion between MOHA and the district government,
which resulted in a commitment and high interest expressed by the district government. The
selection also took into account the optimal timing of the RPJMD preparation. Thus, the SEA could be
conducted almost fully in parallel with the planning process. The design of the SEA approach allowed
providing inputs in the RPJMD formulation as it is mentioned in the SEA report that integration of
recommendations in the RPJMD was one of the SEA objectives and this opportunity was partially
used (e.g. defining issues in the scoping stage to be directly addressed by the RPJMD). The SEA
process was in interaction with the RPJMD preparation process actually, a number of the SEA team
members were also involved in the RPJMD formulation and conclusions and results were also
presented to the high-level provincial officials.
The SEA was conducted by the team led by high governmental official and consisted of the officials
from relevant department as well as several local experts were members of the team, which was
supported by the national and international experts providing the methodological support and
summarizing inputs in the report.
Evaluation
F
F
M

F
NA
105
Verbal summary:
The SEA Babel has a well defined scope i.e. several sustainability themes elaborated in more specific
strategic issues the list covers all relevant aspects. Considering that the tin mining presents the
key economic activity in the province, the emphasis is correctly given to tin-mining related issues.
From initial list of the key issues, the SEA team selected those issues which should be considered
directly in the RPMD this step was done in order to provide early suggestions for the RPJMD
formulation. It can be however recommended to address issue no. 14 The low quality of public
health directly in SEA i.e. enhancing the health quality can be part of RPJMD, but likely impacts on
public health resulting from other RPJMDs priorities and measures were analysed within SEA itself.
Similarly, the issue no. 18 The low law enforcement on environment could have been included in
SEA under Good governance theme and thus SEA should have suggested ways how to better
enforce environmental legislation.
From territorial point of view, the SEA addressed the entire province since the province consists of
two islands, transboundary effects were correctly not considered as relevant.
Evaluation
F
F
drivers)?
F
F
Verbal summary:
The SEA elaborated the baseline analysis for each strategic issues identified in the scoping stage to
be addressed in the assessment. The baseline analysis is very well developed and provides a
number of information and data on past trends and current situation. It also identifies drivers
influencing trends and based on the likely scenarios of future development are estimated.

Evaluation
M
analysed?
P
P
P
M
M
NA
Verbal summary:
The SEA evaluated likely impacts of six RPJMD programmes providing only verbal description of the
likely impacts. Further specification of the likely impacts is completely missing (i.e. it is not evaluated
if likely impacts are direct or indirect, long-term or short term etc.).
The scope of impacts evaluation is too narrow i.e. only six RPJMD programmes were considered and
it is not structure along the key strategic issues. There is no link between scoping stage and evaluation.
While scoping stages identified a number of problems, drivers etc., these are not reflected in the
impacts assessment. The evaluation should conclude how the RPJMD can affect likely future evaluation
(compare to the status without RPJMD implementation as described in scoping).
Analysis of the RPJMDs vision and missions linkages to other documents was also conducted within
the SEA however even the effort was obviously paid on this exercise, the conclusions are rather
formal.
There were no alternatives suggested by the RPJMD.
106

Evaluation
P
P
M
M
Verbal summary:
SEA suggested mitigation directly focused on the RPJMD as well as for the local and national
government. Such approach is correct, since obviously certain problems (especially tin-mining related)
require cooperation and involvement of all governmental levels (e.g. developing the legal framework).
However, considering the details provided in the baseline analyses (and unfortunately not addressed
in the impacts evaluation) the mitigation measures should have been formulated more specifically.
For instance, SEA suggest that development of strategic and fast-growing coastal areas should not
use or open protected coastal areas in the region that is geographically vulnerable to abrasion,
however optimally the SEA should indicate which are these areas (at least the most vulnerable) to
provide a specific guidance for further development.
There are neither indicators nor monitoring scheme suggested by SEA.
Evaluation
P
F
F
explicit?
M
F
F
Verbal summary:
The SEA report is well structured along the SEA stages. It explains the SEA procedure and approach
and describes the linkages between SEA and the planning process. Information are well substantiated
and the report also provides references and sources of data and information used in the SEA (directly
at the text as well as there is a list of references at the end). The SEA report very correctly mentions
limitation.
It is very good that the SEA report includes both Executive summary it can be however
recommended to mention explicitly in the executive summary what the key recommendations and
suggestions towards the RPJMD are provided by SEA (since the executive summary is supposed to be
the main and in some cases only part of the document, which will be read by the top decisionmakers).
The SEA report well defines recommendations and mitigation measures, however does not indicate if
and how these were integrated in the RPJMD. It is not clear how far the SEA considered the latest
version of the RPJMD, since the SEA report mentions Studies of influence was conducted to get an
overview on the estimated effect of the implementation of the programs in the initial draft of RPJMD
which had been identified in the scoping stage.
PPPs approval?
Evaluation
M
107
Verbal summary:
Although the SEA was carried out during the RPJMD preparation, the final stage of the planning was
still in process after the SEA had been terminated. However, suggestions and recommendations
given by SEA were discussed with the provincial authority at the final workshop and there is an
informal agreement that these would be considered in further RPJMD finalization.

Evaluation
F
P
M
Verbal summary:
The identification of relevant stakeholders was done at the beginning of SEA process during the prescoping stage. The SEA process invited not only governmental agencies, but also NGOs including
informal meeting with JATAM in order to discuss tin-mining related problems in early stages of SEA as
well as JATAM presence at the final workshop. The workshops were organized at the scoping stage
and when the draft SEA report was prepared, however no documents (e.g. scoping report or the draft
SEA report) were publicly disclosed and made open for written comments.
SEA report (chapter 1.4) points out that Although the identification of stakeholders has been planned
well, but in fact the presence of stakeholders in the workshop of scoping and focus group discussion
(FGD) is not like what expected. The question is why it was happening perhaps the fact that there
was no opportunity to see the background documents prior the workshop or low advertisement of the
event among certain target groups.
The SEA also very correctly suggests stakeholders involvement during the RPJMD implementation (see
p. 60 of the SEA report: Thus, the development of RPJMD 2013-2017 need to be disseminated to the
stakeholders at the provincial level, so they will actively participate in the implementation phase.
Stakeholders (comprising local government, communities and businesses) need to work
collaboratively in implementing the priority programs of medium-term development. From this
participatory process it is expected that the developmental programs can be more effective, so that
welfare can be achieved.).
The complete SEA Report was published (after the SEA was completed) at the ESP2 web site.
108
6.23 SEA for Regional Medium-Term Development Plan of Hulu

Sungai Utara District
Name of pilot
SEA for Regional Medium-Term Development Plan of Hulu

Sungai Utara District (RPJMD)
MOHA
2012
Triarko Nurlambang
Martin Smutn
English (with several annexes in Bahasa Indonesia)

Evaluation
F
P
P
F
F
Verbal summary:
The SEA pilot was well planned the Hulu Sungai Utara was selected based on the discussion between
MOHA and the district government, which resulted in a commitment and high interest expressed by
the district government.
The SEA was conducted in very early stages of the RPJMD preparation and in fact even before the
formal procedure started (due to procedural matters regarding the inauguration of new regent). This
fact was well considered in the approach chosen and the agreement (although not formalized) between
MOHA and the district government that the SEA results will be used in finalizing the draft RPJMD.
However, it also means that the SEA was not conducted fully as an integral part of the RPJMD
formulation on the other hand it provided an excellent opportunity to influence the high strategic
level of the RPJMD (vision or objectives) as well as provide early inputs for further RPJMD formulation.
The SEA process was in interaction with the RPJMD preparation process actually, a number of the
SEA team members were (and further will be) also involved in the RPJMD formulation. Thus, there is
a high chance that the conclusions and recommendations given by SEA will be further considered (the
discussions and conclusions regarding further utilization of the SEA results in the RPJMD formulation
are well described in the SEA report, chapter IV). The SEA team also included several local experts
and was supported by the national consultant providing the methodological support.
Evaluation
F
P
M

P
M
109
Verbal summary:
The strategic issues are clearly defined; however the selection of the issues should have been more
oriented towards environmental, social (and possibly economic) problems in the district. For instance,
the issue 6 incomplete implementation of the district strategic plan is not quite relevant to the RPJMD
the SEA is supposed to evaluate likely effects of the RPJMD and the question is how the RPJMD can
affect the situation regarding the spatial planning (since the spatial planning is a separate planning
system)? Some potentially important issues seem to be missing e.g. the description of the area
(chapter 2) mentions water pollution from mining activities, however it has not been included in the
strategic issues.
In line with previous comments given by the Consultant it can be recommended to broaden-up the
scope of SEA HSU (optimally, it should have addressed at least all issues identified in the pre-scoping)
to cover all aspects of the sustainable development. Considering that issues e.g.:
Water resources (management, pollution, supply and very specifically likely

water pollution from mining activities out of HSU borders)
Energy supply
Human health
Waste management
Biodiversity and ecosystems
are highly relevant for Indonesia as such, it is improbable that HSU would not be facing problems and
challenges regarding these issues. At least it should be addressed in scoping and baseline analysis to
find out specific concerns for the district and RPJMD in order to have a solid basis for decision on which
are the key issues to be considered in the SEA (and optimally in the RPJMD).
The SEA was focused on the area of the district, impacts likely going beyond its administrative borders
were not addressed.
Evaluation
P
P
drivers)?
P
P
Verbal summary:
The SEA elaborated its analytical part within the scoping stage the description of the environment
in the district as well as social and economic conditions is provided. The baseline analysis mentions
important information and data (e.g. scope of floods and vulnerability of the residential areas, health
facilities and agriculture regarding the flood occurrence) including maps and GIS generated
illustrations, for several issue also trends are described (e.g. for the land-use, see p. 9, or population,
see p. 16) with identification of certain drivers e.g. the dominant land cover is swamp forest or
regarding the fishery the probability of caught fish seems like trend that keeps decreasing from year
to year. It much possibly happens because of the ecosystem changing, illegal fishing (however the
frequency keeps decreasing), and the stipulation of reservation that has not been optimal yet.
Whereas fish farming looks like increasing trend because of many swamp pool making, either from
the government support or their own effort.). (see p. 34). The baseline analysis also provides several
very strong statements e.g. Lack of coordination across sectors, particularly with the Environment
sector, which so far are still considered as "parasites" in the process of regional development, because
of the many provisions that should be applied in the implementation of a program of activities, is
considered impractical. (see p. 35), which the most probably well reflects the situation in the district.
However for several issues the trends are not provided if the data are not available to do so (which
might be the case), it should be mentioned in the SEA report. For example, the SEA report mentions
The understanding of this geo-hydrology situation will be helpful to know the risk potential of water
pollution in lake and rivers in the HSU district as the effect of charcoal mine activity around it this
can be considered as a very important issue and the overlay maps is provided. However, optimally
this statement (and based on the map) should be substantiated by more information (i.e. how large
are potential mines, which rivers exactly could be affected etc. and what can be concluded regarding
potential risks of water pollution in the district?).
110
Obviously there has been misunderstanding of purpose of and approach to baseline analysis, since in
many case the parts of the baseline tables which are supposed to described drivers doesnt provide
this information.
For only few issues the likely future trends are estimated (e.g. If planning is not carried out, what
will likely to happen in the future is that Amuntai City will no longer be able to serve any activities of
its population. When this happens, the Amuntai City will be abandoned by its citizens., see p. 37, is
well described possible scenario of future development).
Some important issues were not addressed in the analytical part at all e.g. the availability of water
and waste management are among the key strategic issue, however there are no information and
data regarding situation in the district for these issues in baseline analysis. Thus, it cannot be verified
if these issues are relevant and key for the district. It is not fully on what basis certain issues were
eliminated (i.e. how the short list of the issues was identified from the long list). The relevant
objectives for the key issues were not formulated (it could have been done in the pre-scoping stage).
Evaluation
P
analysed?
P
P
M
M
M
NA
Verbal summary:
The SEA evaluated likely impacts of the RPJMD programmes and components on the key strategy
issues using evaluation tables. The impacts evaluation only indicates if the impacts is positive or
negative (using symbol ++,+,-, --) and provides verbal description, however further specification of
the likely impacts is completely missing (i.e. it is not evaluated if likely impacts are direct or indirect,
long-term or short term etc.).
It also seems that the scope of evaluation is too narrow i.e. only a few RPJMD components were
addressed and the most probably there are other parts (programmes etc.) of the PRJM which can have
likely impacts. For example, programme Construction or development of new irrigation areas polders
can for sure have impacts on agriculture (issues no 2), but it is not considered there. Evaluation
doesnt address likely impacts going beyond the borders of the district.
There is missing link between scoping stage and evaluation. The evaluation should conclude how the
RPJMD can affect likely future evaluation (compare to the status without RPJMD implementation as
supposedly described in scoping).
No explanation is provided why HSU spatial plan is mentioned in the evaluation tables (following
personal communication the information from the spatial plan were used to get more precise idea on
likely development as only generally stipulated in the RPJMD however, this is not clear from the
SEA report).
There were no alternatives proposed by the RPJMD.
Evaluation
P
P
M
M
111
Verbal summary:
SEA proposed a number of mitigation measures, some of them directly focused on the RPJMD are well
formulated e.g. for the palm oil plantations development (see p. 47) Do not add new oil palm
plantation land, also summary provided is very good, however for some other impacts identified the
mitigation is missing or seems to be irrelevant.
It would be useful to formulate some suggestions more clear e.g. SEA suggests that the programme
XY should be formulated as follows .. or SEA suggests to add measure on .. and in more detail.
If formulated in this way, this way then it should be easier to discuss it with the RPJMD team / district
authorities what changes of the RPJMD are needed
There are neither indicators nor monitoring scheme suggested by SEA.
Evaluation
P
F
F
explicit?
M
P
F
Verbal summary:
The SEA report is well structured along the SEA stages. It explains the SEA procedure and approach
and describes the linkages between SEA and the planning process highlighting the fact that the SEA
was done during very early stages of the RPJMD formulation. It also provides references and sources
of data and information used in the SEA. The SEA report very correctly mentions limitation (p. 3).
The recommendations and suggestions are clearly formulated, however no indication is provided if
and how these were integrated in the RPJMD.
It is very good that the SEA report includes both Summary as well as Executive summary it can
be however recommended to mention explicitly in the executive summary what the key
recommendations and suggestions towards the RPJMD are provided by SEA (since the executive
summary is supposed to be the main and in some cases only part of the document, which will be
read by the top decision-makers).
Evaluation
NA
PPPs approval?
Verbal summary:
As already described above, the SEA was conducted in early stages of the RPJMD preparation.
However, suggestions and recommendations given by SEA were discussed with the district authority
and an informal agreement was made that these will be considered in further RPJMD preparation.
Actually, chapter IV of the SEA report is dedicated to information on how the SEA results should be
considered in further RPJMD preparation.
Evaluation
F
F
M
112
Verbal summary:
The identification of relevant stakeholders was done at the beginning of SEA process during the prescoping stage. Inviting not only governmental agencies, but also NGOs (Walhi and Yadis are mentioned
in the SEA report, see p. 25) can be evaluated as a very positive approach.
The workshops were organized at the scoping stage and when the draft SEA report was prepared,
however no documents (e.g. scoping report or the draft SEA report) were publicly disclosed and made
open for written comments. The SEA report doesnt provide details on conclusions from the
consultations. The complete SEA Report was published (after the SEA was completed) at the ESP2
web site.
113
6.24 SEA Pre-Scoping for National Strategic Area Sorowako

Name of pilot
SEA Pre-Scoping for KSN SOROWAKO

MOPW
2012
SUCOFINDO
DHI
English

Evaluation
F
?
P
M
P
Verbal summary:
Not a full SEA. The SEA report acknowledges that the Spatial plan draft was not available (not even
planning objectives) for the evaluation, the SEA thus focused on baseline analysis and pre-scoping in
order to provide preliminary input to the planning process. The report indicates interaction between
the SEA consultants and planners (workshops, consultative meetings), however actual level of
integration is not clear. The SEA pre-scoping report does not produce explicit recommendations for
the planning, although some indications of desirable interventions to address some of the problems
identified in the baseline analysis are made in the analytical parts of the text. The authorship of the
SEA analysis is acknowledged only on the level of naming participating institutions (companies) and
the author of the report (no details on SEA team or planning team composition are provided).
Evaluation
F
P
P

F
M
Verbal summary:
The report only refers to SEA pre-scoping phase. Issues of key concern were elaborated in
reasonable detail within the baseline conditions description part of the report. The actual way of
addressing the identified issues within the SEA is yet to be seen in the further stages of the SEA
process. The report acknowledges need for analysing above listed aspects (carrying capacity,
estimation of impacts, etc.) and provides support argumentation for analysing them in more detail
Arguably the elements of individual aspects as listed above are present in the baseline analyses
section but the actual practical approach to the analysis of these aspects (e.g. carrying capacity or
114
ecosystem services) is not indicated The territorial focus of SEA reflects the concerned area of the
spatial plan.
Evaluation
P
M
drivers)?
M
F
Verbal summary:
The relevant issues are described, however, trend analysis and driving forces identification is mostly
absent. Future likely evolution without the plans implementation is not directly addressed,
however, some indication of objectives and planned developments incorporated in relevant spatial
plans and other PPPs is provided, unfortunately without clear link to the baseline analysis.

Evaluation
M/NA
analysed?
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Verbal summary:
The document is not a full SEA report (only a Pre-Scoping report) the full draft of the Spatial plan
was not available for evaluation. To an extent applicable in this context, key likely impacts were
identified and discussed within the baseline description and identification of main concerns of
anticipated developments.
Evaluation
NA
NA
NA
NA
Verbal summary:
was not available for evaluation.

Evaluation
M
115
P
NA
explicit?
NA
P
F
Verbal summary:
was not available for evaluation. The structure of the text is sometimes difficult to follow, some
sections are repetitive. Sometimes it is difficult to comprehend the meaning of the text due to the
poor English. Applied approach is not clearly explained (e.g. biodiversity description refers to a
conservation value index without further clarification p. III-44, similarly use reference to LQ
values for crops production p. III-62, or unclear role of the Matrix 3.1.6). For some of the
descriptive sections it is not clear to what extent are they relevant for the scoping and further SEA
analyses (e.g. description of socio-economic details).
Evaluation
NA
PPPs approval?
Verbal summary:
was not available for evaluation.

Evaluation
NA
NA
NA
Verbal summary:
was not available for evaluation. The report indicates several activities involving stakeholder
participation (e.g. field trip of the SEA team), however the actual level of stakeholder participation
and its effectiveness cannot be determined from the SEA report alone. Further stakeholders
participation activities are envisaged in the report for further stages of the SEA process.
116
6.25 Environmental Assessment for Sei Mangkei Development Area

Name of pilot
Environmental Assessment for Sei Mangkei Development Area

Spatial Planning Directorate, MOPW
2012
Sucofindo
DHI
English

Evaluation
F
?
P
M
P
Verbal summary:
Not a full SEA. The SEA report acknowledges that the Spatial plan draft was not available for the
evaluation, the SEA thus focused on baseline analysis, scoping and preliminary input to the planning
process (without information on actual level of cooperation/integration between the SEA analysis
and planning. The SEA report declares need for integration of SEA to planning and elaborates the
issue in theory, but does not provide consistent record of application those principles in practice.
Unspecified references to both past and future planned meetings with planners are occasionally
made throughout the report but without details. The recommendations for the planning are
formulated but no details on their application within the planning process are provided. The
authorship of the SEA analysis is acknowledged only on the level of naming participating institutions
(companies) and the author of the report (no details on SEA team or planning team composition are
provided).
Evaluation
F
F
P

F
M
Verbal summary:
A comprehensive scoping took place in two phases. Issues of key concern were elaborated in
reasonable detail with inputs from stakeholder consultations. The report acknowledges need for
analysing above listed aspects (carrying capacity, estimation of impacts, etc.) however, they are not
elaborated in comparable level of detail or reflected in the structure of the analysis. Arguably the
elements of individual aspects as listed above are present in the baseline analyses section where
appropriate namely when addressing hydrology- and soil-related issues. Systematic approach is
117
adopted within the scoping analysis (through evaluation matrix). The territorial focus of SEA reflects
the concerned area of the spatial plan.

Evaluation
F
P
drivers)?
P
F
Verbal summary:
The relevant issues are described, however, trend analysis and driving forces identification remains
anecdotal. Future likely evolution without the plans implementation is not directly addressed,
however, the description of objectives and planned developments incorporated in relevant spatial
plans and other PPPs is provided.

Evaluation
NA
analysed?
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Verbal summary:
The document is not a full SEA report the full draft of the Spatial plan was not available for
evaluation. However, the assessment of likely impacts from the implementation of general
objectives associated with the spatial plan was carried out. To an extent applicable in this context,
key likely impacts were identified and discussed.
Evaluation
P
NA
NA
NA
Verbal summary:
evaluation. The mitigation measures were outlined on general level corresponding with the low level
of detail information about the planned interventions (spatial plan design). General reference to the
5 years monitoring/follow up cycle is made, but no further specification is provided.
118

Evaluation
P
P
P
explicit?
NA
P
F
Verbal summary:
The report provides information in a structured manner. The SAE process steps carried out so far are
described, subsequently planned phases are acknowledged. Certain descriptive parts of the report
are not clearly linked with analytical section (i.e. some statistical and other information provided are
in fact not utilized by the analysis) and sometimes are information reproduced repeatedly
throughout the report. The analytical approach and the scoping technique are satisfactory explained,
the assessment of impacts and potential cumulative impacts is only outlined (full Spatial plan not
available for evaluation). The preliminary recommendations towards PPP are sketched. The sources
of information are in most cases regularly acknowledged, however uncertainties are not recognized.
Evaluation
NA
PPPs approval?
Verbal summary:
evaluation as it is not fully elaborated yet. The effects of the SEA on the Spatial plan thus cannot be
documented at this stage.

Evaluation
P
? NA
? NA
Verbal summary:
The SEA report makes reference to the stakeholders identification exercise and numerous
stakeholder involvement activities in the SEA process phases carried out so far. Actual level of
stakeholder participation and its effectiveness cannot be determined from the SEA report alone.
Further stakeholders participation activities are envisaged in the report for further stages of the
SEA process.
119
6.26 Preliminary Environmental Analysis for KSN Prambanan

Name of pilot
PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL
PRAMBANAN
Ministry of Public Works
2012
SUCOFINDO
DHI
English
ANALYSIS
FOR
KSN

Evaluation
F
?
M
M
P
Verbal summary:
Not a full SEA. The process designed as a preliminary analysis and early input to the planning
process (without information on actual level of cooperation/integration between the SEA analysis
and planning. The SEA report suggests an early stage of planning the decision on delineation of
the subject area still being under consideration as well as other planning tasks. The
recommendations for the planning are formulated but no details on facilitation of their application
within the planning process are provided. The authorship of the SEA analysis is acknowledged only
on the level of naming participating institutions (companies) and the author of the report (no details
on SEA team or planning team composition are provided).
Evaluation
F
F
P

P
F
Verbal summary:
The scoping analysis constitutes the core of the document. Reflecting the nature of the subject area
a cultural heritage site and its surroundings, the analysis covers reasonably wide set of potentially
relevant issues, without apparent gaps. The report acknowledges need for analysing above listed
aspects (carrying capacity, estimation of impacts, etc.) however, in fact only estimation of the
impact and risks on the environment aspect is further elaborated. Certain elements of the
remaining aspects are arguably present within the description of the baseline conditions and main
issues. Considering the character of the concerned territory as well as spatial planning objectives
the limited scope of addressing issues such as the performance of ecosystem services and levels
120
of vulnerability and adaptive capacity to climate change does not need to be regarded as
insufficient.
The clear definition of the territorial scope was not possible with respect to the fact, that the decision
on the delineation of the subject area has not yet been made. The SEA-related report however
demonstrably analyses broader territory, beyond the area supposedly covered by the Plan.
Evaluation
F
P
drivers)?
M
F
Verbal summary:
The document is not a full SEA report. It only provides record of the pre-scoping analysis.
The relevant issues are described, however, trend analysis and driving forces identification remains
anecdotal. Future likely evolution without the plans implementation is not addressed.

Evaluation
NA
analysed?
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Verbal summary:

Evaluation
NA
NA
NA
NA
Verbal summary:
The document is not a full SEA report. It only provides record of the pre-scoping analysis. However,
it produces certain recommendations for the subsequent phases of SEA including identification of the
key concerns that need to be addressed in the Spatial plan, and general mitigation measures to be
elaborated in the both SEA and the spatial plan.
121

Evaluation
P
P
P
explicit?
NA
P
NA
Verbal summary:
The report provides information in a structured manner. Certain descriptive parts are not clearly
linked with analytical section (i.e. some statistical and other information provided are in fact not
utilized by the analysis). Considering the limited scope of the report (not full SEA) the analytical
approach is satisfactory explained. The preliminary recommendations towards PPP are outlined. The
sources of information are in most cases regularly acknowledged, however uncertainties are not
recognized.
Evaluation
NA
PPPs approval?
Verbal summary:

Evaluation
NA
NA
NA
Verbal summary:
122
6.27 SEA for Spatial Plan (RTRW) of Tasikmalaya District

Name of pilot
International
consultants
involved
Language
of
SEA
report
reviewed
SEA for Spatial Plan (RTRW) of Tasikmalaya District

District Government, supported by KLH from the
national budget
2010
----Bahasa Indonesia (translated via Google Translate into
English)

Evaluation
F
Was the SEA carried out as an integral part of the planning process (at least
?
partially)?
?
?
Is it clear who conducted SEA (external experts, officials, special working group
?
etc.)?
Verbal summary:
The SEA was focused on the direct spatial plan. The SEA report doesnt provide any information
regarding the SEA process and how it was designed (therefore communication with planners cannot
be evaluated). It only mentions that SEA should provide support to the spatial plan preparation,
which might mean that SEA was carried out during the planning process.

Evaluation
F
Did SEA cover all relevant issues? If not, what are the most important missing
F
issues?
P
P
M
Verbal summary:
Yes, the SEA report defines a list of the sustainable development issues (altogether 10: degradation
and land use of protected areas, degradation of productive agricultural land, environmental quality
and water pollution, damage to biodiversity, waste problems, public health, standard of living /
welfare, disturbance of protected areas, abrasion / sedimentation, and infrastructure), which seem
to be fully covering the existing problems. It is very positive that public health and standard of
living / welfare were included among the sustainable development issues, since the most probably
these areas can be affected by the RTRW implementation.
The SEA report does not explicitly mention the territorial scope of the assessment; it can be supposed
that the SEA addressed the entire area of the district (i.e. covered by the RTWR).
123

Evaluation
P
P
drivers)?
P
described
M
Verbal summary:
The SEA report only very briefly mentions existing problems or drivers for the sustainable
development issues (e.g. providing information on the protected area for the green turtle
population (issue damage to biodiversity). However, even if the SEA report doesnt describe past
trends, it identifies causes and drivers for several sustainable development issues (e.g. for land
and forest degradation the report provides that it is caused mainly by weak supervision and law
enforcement, wide use of improper mining techniques, utilization of the land on steep slopes etc.,
or a lack of waste water treatment facilities is identifies as one of the drivers causing water
pollution, population decline of green turtle has been e.g. caused by encroachment of turtle eggs,
disturbance of the turtles habitats by the provincial road system, and a lack of facilities and
infrastructure for turtles protection).
However, drivers and causes described are not supported by data and information (e.g. natural and
human factors are mentioned as drivers of the coastal degradation, but the SEA report doesnt
provide any details on it e.g. which parts of the coastline are degraded, damaged etc.) and thus a
validity of statements cannot be verified.
The SEA report lists several points on the possible future development for the land and forest
degradation providing that current conditions will lead to e.g. decline in biodiversity, decrease in
water resources, decline in land productivity etc. However, similar information is not provided
for other sustainable development issues.
Evaluation
M
P
M
M
M
M
M
Verbal summary:
As mentioned above, the impacts evaluation was carried out in a form of a matrix the impacts of
altogether five RTRWs policies, plans and programmes on sustainable development issues were
evaluated, using following scale:
-1 or + 1 = small impacts
-2 or + 2 = impacts
-3 or + 3 = large impacts
0 = no impacts
The SEA report doesnt provide any further comments or verbal explanation to the numerical
evaluation i.e. it doesnt provide information on how the sustainable development issues might be
affected by proposed or expected development. It is also not fully clear why only five RTRWs
components (policies, plans and programmes) were selected and evaluated. It seems that evaluation
was solely based on discussions with stakeholders i.e. main inputs were provided in a form of
workshops and focused group discussions.
Evaluation
124
P
P
M
M
Verbal summary:
The SEA doesnt clearly define mitigation measures; however there are chapters Alternative policies,
plans and/or programmes and Recommendations in the SEA report, which include certain
suggestions which might be considered as mitigation measures. These measures are focused more
or less on emphasizing environmental protection and sustainable development in the RTRW e.g.
to support the development of the province by improving the livelihood of the society taking into
account the carrying capacity of the environment and thus contribute to sustainable development
or it is recommended to add in the matrix of indicators also programme to control the use of
agriculture land. Some other measures are mentioned already in chapter Scope of the study
e.g. what activities should be implemented in order to decrease the sedimentation (e.g. limit licensing
of the mining exploitation in the beach finish line).
Even if the SEA suggested several mitigation measures, these (i) are not directly related to the
impacts identified (i.e. it is not clear what impacts should be mitigated), and (ii) measure remain
only on a very general level (e.g. mining shouldnt not be implemented at the locations of protected
areas).
There are neither indicators nor monitoring system suggested by the SEA RTRW. The SEA Report
only mentions within chapter Alternative PPPs that Monitoring of environmental quality should be
included as activity.
Evaluation
P
Does the SEA report describe the SEA process and all its stages and analyses as well
P
as the overall methodology/approach used?
P
explicit?
M
SEA have been integrated in the plan (i.e. if there were any changes of the plan
resulting from SEA)?
M
matters of opinion?
M
Verbal summary:
The SEA report has a logical structure i.e. starting from background information and objectives of
the SEA RTRW followed by a list of stakeholders involved, scope of the study (which also includes
analysis for each of the sustainable development issues), impacts assessment and alternative PPPs
and recommendations. The SEA provides a list of recommendations (Chapter V of the SEA report),
which are formulated in a form of general statements to be included at the RTRWs objectives or
development priorities.

PPPs approval?
Verbal summary:
The SEA report does not provide any information regarding the decision-making.
Evaluation
125

Evaluation
?
?
?
Verbal summary:
The SEA report provides only list of stakeholders involved in the SEA RTRW (i.e. Parties taking an
active role in the assessment, preparation, utilization and do a 'review' KLHS without any further
details of their participation and consultation process. However, stakeholders involvement can be
expected, since obviously the assessment was based primarily on discussions with stakeholders i.e.
main inputs were provided in a form of workshops and focused group discussions.
126

ESP3 SEA Synthesis Study April 2013 Final Report ENG Rev0

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

ESP3 SEA Synthesis Study April 2013 Final Report ENG Rev0

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

ESP-Environmental Support Programme

SEA synthesis study on lessons learned

January April 2013

Integra Consulting Limited, Suite 2006

Date of Submission: 30 April, 2013

ESP-Environmental Support Programme

Synthesis study on SEA lessons learned, final version

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stakeholders participation ....................................................................................... 15

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Synthesis study on SEA lessons learned, final version

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Synthesis study on SEA lessons learned, final version

The State Ministry of National Development Planning

Focus Group Discussion

Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup (Ministry of Environment)

National Strategic Area

Law on Environmental Protection and Environment no. 32/2

Ministry of Home Affairs

Ministry of Public Works

Policy, plan or programme

Mid-Term Development Plan

Long-Term Development Plan

Strategic Environmental Assessment

Synthesis study on SEA lessons learned, final version

Synthesis study on SEA lessons learned, final version

Relevance of the SEA and the result

1.2 Approach to the assignment

1.3 Workshop on SEA lessons learned

E.g. if final decision hasnt been adopted yet

Synthesis study on SEA lessons learned, final version

Royal Danish Embassy

Lessons learned KLH and Bappenas