74 STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IN POLICY AND SECTOR REFORM
BOX 3.6
Selection of Environmental and Social Priorities: Sierra Leone SESA Ranking Methodology The ranking methodology for selecting environmental and social priorities in the SESA of the mining sector in Sierra Leone involved horizontal and vertical classification of the issues. Nominal scales and preferred responses were used for cross-comparison of issues. This method aimed at removing some of the potential survey biases and ensured that equal weight was given to the voice of vulnerable groups in the ranking procedure. Horizontal ranking used five dimensions for each of the issues considered. These included (i) health, ecological, and socioeconomic/cultural risk; (ii) number of affected people; (iii) political will; (iv) remediation cost; and (v) technological difficulties. Initially, stakeholders were asked to rank these dimensions in a low-medium-high scale. “Low” scored three points, “medium” received two points, and “high” received one point. The lowest scores corresponded to the potential priorities. In addition, a vertical ranking process involved the selection of 5 issues from a list of between 22 and 25 (depending on the region) that stakeholders thought were the most significant. Each time an issue was included in a person’s top-five list, it received one point. Potential priority issues, then, were those that received the highest scores. A cross-analysis of horizontal and vertical ranking was undertaken in order to identify the SESA priorities. Five cross-regional priorities were established: (i) land and crop compensation and village relocation, (ii) sanitation and water pollution, (iii) deforestation and soil degradation, (iv) child labor, and (v) postclosure reclamation. There were also issues that pertained to specific regions. These regional priorities included (i) mine employment (southern region); (ii) provision of infrastructure, especially paved roads and electricity (southern region); (iii) community development and participation (southern and western regions); and (iv) regulations to mitigate the negative impacts of blasting (eastern region). Source: Adapted from Loayza and Albarracin-Jordan 2010.
they perform three fundamental functions—assessing needs and problems, balancing interests, and implementing solutions (World Bank 2003). Institutional and Capacity Assessment The institutional and capacity assessment is focused on the ability of the existing environmental management system to deal with the SEA priorities. Guidance is first provided to undertake this assessment. The analysis of interest groups that seek to protect their interests, which may affect the impact of the policy reform on the environmental management system, is left to the next section.