SEA practice in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) was taken as an exploratory single-case study. The DRC is located in Central sub-Saharan Africa with a population of more than 81 million and an area of 2,345,409 km² [37] and is one of the few African countries with a formal SEA system being implemented (the legislation was approved in 2014). According to the Ministry of Environment (personal communication, January 15, 2016) DRC’s experience with SEA practice consisted of 12 SEAs prepared since 2007.

Through an extensive search in Multilateral Development Agencies (MDA) databases and contact with the IA’s professional community in the DRC, 10 SEAs were identified (Table 1). It is relevant to say that nine of these SEAs were required by MDAs, thus reinforcing the relevance of multilateral agencies to SEA dissemination and practice, as previously reported by [4] [38] [39] .

Documentation (SEA reports, Summary report or the Term of Reference/ToR) was found to eight SEAs of different types/purposes, which were analyzed in this paper. It is important to highlight that the DRC lacks of an Environmental Agency and there is few national consultants, thus exacerbating the difficulty of accessing EA documents.

*Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation.

¹Summary reports have been used as source of information in quality review studies. According to [46] , a summary report has to adequately represent the main report emphasizing its major findings and, therefore, it is expected to meet the criteria applied in quality reviews.

Although some of these criteria were inspired in the EU SEA Directive (42/ EC/2001) requirements, they reflect common good SEA practice [43] [44] . Furthermore, they have been already applied in non-EU contexts to review the quality of SEA reports (e.g., [45] ).

Reports were reviewed using the grade system proposed by [2] , within which the scores vary from A (task well performed with no important omissions) to G (task not attempted at all) (Box 2). Criteria and sections were graded individually by at least 2 different reviewers and divergent grades were defined by consensus. Section grades are based on the overall picture emerging from individual grades, same approach used to attribute the grade to the overall report.

· SEA ToR quality review

Not all SEA reports needed to cover the purposes of the study were available (Table 1). In this case it was decided to analyze the ToRs emitted by MDAs, assuming that as they are SEA guiding documents they must provide a substantive overview of the assessment to be conducted [48] .

¹Summary reports have been used as source of information in quality review studies. According to [46] , a summary report has to adequately represent the main report emphasizing its major findings and, therefore, it is expected to meet the criteria applied in quality reviews.

A tool was specifically designed to review the quality of 3 ToRs (Box 3), based on existent guidelines to ToR development [49] [50] [51] and quality evaluation checklists applied to ToRs [48] . Due to certain features of ToRs, it was needed to redefine the descriptions of sections and criteria in order to allow for a review of the DRC ToRs guided by best practice principles. Although the review of ToRs may be seen as problematic because it is unusual in scientific literature, their evaluation enabled a more comprehensive analysis of SEA practice in the DRC.

ToRs were reviewed on the basis of the expected content of SEA (Box 4), following a simplified qualitative scoring system adapted from [52] [53] [54] . Sections and the overall ToR were evaluated individually according to whether the whole picture emerging from individual grades was fully, partly or not met at all.

Box 1. SEA report review criteria.

Source: based on [2] [20] [41] [42] [43] .

Box 2. Report scoring system.

Source: [2] , based on [47] .

Box 3. ToR review criteria.

Sources: [48] [49] [50] [51] [54] .

Box 4. ToR scoring system.

Sources: See text.

The context of SEA in the RDC is currently set out by two regulations promulgated in 2011 and 2014, respectively, namely the Environment Protection Act No. 11/009 (EPA) and the Environmental Minister Decree No. 14/019. Based on these documents, the framework of the DCR SEA system was described focusing on the characteristics of the assessment process and the involved stakeholders.

In order to get a better picture of the SEA process as a whole based on an international perspective, this framework was then assessed against international principles of SEA effectiveness (Box 5), which has been widely used to examine the effectiveness of SEA in different contexts [55] [56] [57] [58] . Once again following [53] a 3-level assessment grades was applied (Box 6).

Table 2 shows the results of the quality review of SEA reports. Only two out of five SEA reports reviewed in this paper were deemed a satisfactory quality. The main weaknesses of SEA in DRC practice are related to the determination of impact significance (criteria 17, 20 and 21), consultation process (criterion 27) and recommendations on the preferred alternatives and monitoring (criteria 35 and 36). By contrast, reports showed good quality when documenting baseline, strategic actions and SEA processes integration (criteria 1 and 9), and the SEA report layout (criteria 37, 38, 39 and 40).

Regarding ToRs quality review, the results are presented in Table 3. None of the three ToRs was deemed a fully satisfactory quality, indicating that the whole picture emerging from individual grades was not fully met. Very few of the ToRs adequately refer to the identification of standard limits (criteria 16), approaches to mitigate and monitor the negative impacts of the proposed strategic action (criteria 18) and consideration of alternatives (criterion 19). However, most of ToRs have an explicit consideration of the SEAs titles (criteria 2 and 3), description of main stakeholders involved in the strategic action (criterion 10), relevant and applicable legislations (criterion 11), scope of the SEA (criteria 14 and 15), outputs to be delivered by the SEA team (criterion 20), and responsibilities as well as skills and experience of the SEA team (criterion 23).

Box 5. International principles of SEA effectiveness.

Source: Intermational Association for Impact Assessment.

Box 6. Regulation ratings key.

Common weaknesses were observed in SEA reports and ToRs, thus reinforcing the relevance of the scoping stage. Omissions and deficiencies include the lack of information regarding how reasonable alternatives were identified (Cases B and C) and how the preferred alternative was defined (Case D). These findings are similar to what was previously reported to other contexts, such as the transport sector in New Zealand (non mandatory context) [59] and spatial plan core strategy SEAs in England (mandatory context) [20] .

Adequate development of alternatives constitutes a major concern in both developed and developing countries [11] [20] [60] . Since it is acknowledged that the identification and development of alternatives is a recognized challenge to SEA effectiveness [61] , it would be desirable to ensure best practicable environmental options are chosen.

The lack of information on approaches to monitoring impacts was also found to be a significant shortcoming of DRC’s SEA. None of SEA reports and ToRs have explicitly considered monitoring arrangements. Only one case (case C) referred to the use of existing monitoring arrangements as a proxy, suggesting the institutions responsible for this task. This aspect has showed to be relevant to improve SEA’s effectiveness in DRC, given the role monitoring can play in strengthening the quality of the whole SEA process [62] .

Added to this, the weak performance of ToR in guiding the scope and content of the assessment may be hindering SEA effectiveness.

· Characterizations of DRC SEA legislation

After many years in draft form, a framework for environment assessment was promulgated: the Environmental Protection Act (EPA), No. 11/009 of the 9^th of July, 2011. It contains several new requirements, notably the obligation to undertake an environmental and social impact study; environmental audits; environmental evaluation of PPPs; the creation of new institutional structures; and an Environmental Fund for research, conservation, clean-up operations, rehabilitation and pollution prevention (Article 25).

The EPA establishes environmental assessments to be undertaken during planning process conducted by the state, provinces and other decentralized territorial entities (Article 6). It requests the consideration of the imperatives of environmental protection and the wellbeing of local population during the preparation of land use management and zoning plans, including urban plans.

In Article 2, it defines environmental assessment of PPP as a tool, which aims to systematically assess environmental issues at strategic level. According to the law (article 19), all public strategic actions, which may have a significant environmental impact, are subject to prior environmental evaluation. The term “Strategic Environmental Assessment” is not adopted in the EPA, but was first presented in the Environmental Minister Decree (EMD) No. 14/019 of the 2^nd of August, 2014, which named the environmental assessment of PPPs as “Strategic Environmental Assessment” and established the operational rules to this instrument (Article 1). A set of activities and sectors subject to SEA is listed: infrastructure, hydrocarbons, mining, energy, telecommunication, industry, land use, forestry, agriculture, fishery, urbanism and habitat, transport, rural development, tourism and hospitality, education, health and any other commercial activities that may have an impact on the environment (Article 4).

According to the Decree, the DRC Environmental Agency should grant a compulsory Environmental Notice for the implementation of PPPs, so the beneficiary must comply with the principles of environmental and social safeguards stated in Article 15. Figure 1 summarizes the procedure for obtaining the environmental notice.

Figure 2 presents the content of SEA report as stablished by the Decree, which has three main parts including screening, scoping and the proper SEA. Figure 2 also presents the steps of each part. It is to be noted that the Decree points these steps without providing their meanings and/or the information to be provided in each of them.

The Decree also states that the assessment has to be conducted by a national or international consultant accredited by the Ministry of Environment (Article 10), and makes provision for regulations to be made regarding institutions involved, content of the SEA report, guidelines for various stages of the SEA process, sectors concerned and the review process.

· Regulation evaluation against international SEA performance criteria

Results of SEA system evaluation against international SEA performance criteria are summarized in Table 4. Ratings were based on qualitative evaluation; the table’s footnotes present justifications for the ratings. According to the findings, the new DRC SEA system is far from fulfilling its potential to enable more effective environmental assessment at PPP level.

Broadly speaking, SEA can be considered time-consuming in the DRC. According to [43] (p. 208) “a typical, reasonably brief and efficient SEA might take 50 - 100 person-days”. However, the whole process is accepted to run in 18 months. The EMD requires a SEA scoping report to be provided by the consultant. The environmental agency has up to three months to check the conformity of this document. If needed, the consultant will be notified to rectify the scoping report within three months. Once again, the environmental agency has up to three months to decide on the conformity of the corrected scope report and grant the environmental notice. Only then the SEA process is allowed to proceed, following a similar timeframe to the final SEA report. There is obviously a need to overcome time constraints, once time is a major concern of all SEA systems in terms of cost [63] and, presumably more relevant, in terms of the restrictions posed to future developments [64] .

Public consultation is another main concern of the DRC SEA system. The role of public consultation in promoting accountability and transparency of the decision-making process is largely recognized in the literature [65] [66] [67] . However, whilst the EPA (Art 9) requires public involvement in any decision-making process, the Decree does not make provisions for any type of formal consultation at higher decision-making levels.

Also, similar to what was reported by [43] regarding the European Union’s SEA Directive (2001/42/EC), many aspects of the DRC regulations remain to be interpreted and consolidated, and perhaps this will have to wait until specific cases emerge requiring court decisions or through the cumulated experience and learning from SEA practice.

A clear strength of the SEA system is the provision to integrate SEA and PPPs development in order to provide information early enough, preferably in a moment in which the recommendations could still be considered relevant to modify the strategic actions. This is relevant, according [65] , once planning and SEA processes should run in a way that allows interaction between stakeholders, an adequate SEA timing and diffusion of results linked to the needs of decision-makers.

Table 5 summarizes the comparison of SEA practice before its transposition into national legislation and the new SEA system.

Findings from the quality review indicate that screening, scoping, mitigation and report were explicitly addressed before SEA transposition into the DRC

^(a)The EPA (art 2, 19 and 20) requires the application of SEA to PPPs. The EMD (Art 3 and 4) indicates sectors subject to SEA. However, none of them refers to the achievement of sustainable development. ^(b)No mention of any kind of interrelationships of biophysical, social and economic aspects. ^(c)Tiered to decision-making and policies in relevant sectors (EMD Art 3 and 4). No reference of tiering with EIA. ^(d)The EMD (Art 5c) only refers to alternatives as one of DRC SEA steps. However, there is no reference to sustainability. ^(e)The EMD (Art 5b and c) refers to the report content, which includes, amongst other, baseline description; strategic action challenges, mitigation measures and, environmental opportunities and constraints. ^(f)No mention of focus on key issues of sustainable development. ^(g)The EMD (chapter 4) describes the step by step of the decision-making process. The Environmental agency has to guide consultants to ensure the conformity of the SEA scope and final report (EMD Art 11). ^(h)The cost of the SEA could not be evaluated in this study. Regarding the time effectiveness, the whole SEA process lasts 9 to more than 18 months (EMD Art 11, 12, 13 and 14). ⁽ⁱ⁾The State, province, territorial entity or public institution is responsible for its strategic decision to be taken. ^(j)The environmental agency is responsible for checking the final report (EMD chapter 4). ^(k)No requirement to justify how sustainability issues were taken into account in decision-making. ^(l)The EPA (Art 9) requires the public involvement in the SEA process. However, the EMD does not request formal consultation for SEA. ^(m)No requirement to address stakeholders inputs and concerns. ⁽ⁿ⁾No requirement about quality and access to information. ^(o)SEA has to be conducted during planning process (EMD Art 6). ^(p)Consultants has to identify, assess and document strategic action impacts (EMD Art 5). Based on the SEA outcomes, the Environmental Agency judges whether the decision should be amended. However, there is no provisions for future decisions.

legislation. On the other hand, consideration of alternatives, assessment of environmental effects and incorporation of SEA results in decision-making are questions that obtained unsatisfactory average grades in SEA reports and/or ToRs. However, the new SEA legislation considered these issues. Of particular interest, to this matter, is the consideration of scenarios and incorporation of SEA results in decision-making. Although the Decree requires their consideration, it does not provide specific information on development, selection and types of options to be considered nor how SEA results has to be consider by the decision-maker.

As shown in Table 5, there is no established procedures for consultations and public participation as well as monitoring in the DRC regulations. This may be attributed to the lack of perception amongst developers of the real benefits that may accrue from adopting a participative and continuing approach to SEA despite the additional costs it may entail. There is a need to overcome these omissions to ensure an effective use of this tool.

Legal arrangements in African countries such as Botswana, Cameroon, Guinea Bissau, Kenya, Swaziland, Tanzania and Zambia explicitly address screening, scoping, assessment of environmental effects and documentation principles. Different from other African countries, the Congolese Decree does not provide specific requirements to the consideration of alternatives. Likewise, Cameroon regulation make no mention of this principle [68] . The literature on SEA advocates the need to consider alternatives. However, this principle is poorly respected in several countries, such as Canada [56] , China [69] and Namibia [70] . There is a need to address the lack of attention paid to alternatives, both in SEA reports and in regulations. [70] argues that more detailed regulation could allow alternatives to be properly identified and evaluated.

According to [68] SEA legislation in Kenya, Swaziland, Tanzania and Zambia does not take into account the principle of monitoring. In Sweden, [71] report the lack of environmental monitoring in the planning of regional transport infrastructure. The EU Directive 2001/42/EC requires the monitoring of significant environmental effects in order to identify any unanticipated adverse effects and to allow for adequate remedial action. However, the Directive and the resulting guidelines for its implementation provide little information on how monitoring should be carried out [72] . Monitoring is intended to address any negative impacts of the strategic action [43] . It is important to strengthen the monitoring of SEA, as this principle strengthens the SEA process and serves as a link between higher and lower decision-making levels [71] .

The incorporation of SEA results in PPP decision-making as well as the consultation and public participation were identified as weaknesses in several African countries [68] . However, it is recognized that these requirements are very difficult to implement, especially in low- and middle-income countries [73] . In practice, public awareness of SEA is low [74] and SEA is based on a complex and challenging process [75] . Getting people to understand this process is key to ensuring effective participation by those at the bottom of the ladder [73] , and establishing clear requirements contributes to a better integration of SEA results into the decision-making process.