تجزیه و تحلیل چند معیاره برای بهبود ارزیابی زیست محیطی استراتژیک برنامه های آب. یک مطالعه موردی در منطقه نیمه خشک برزیل

Multi-criteria analysis (MCA) is a family of decision-making tools that can be used in strategic environmental assessment (SEA) procedures to ensure that environmental, social and economic aspects are integrated into the design of human development strategies and planning, in order to increase the contribution of the environment and natural resources to poverty reduction. The aim of this paper is to highlight the contribution of a particular multi-criteria technique, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), in two stages of the SEA procedure applied to water programmes in developing countries: the comparison of alternatives and monitoring. This proposal was validated through its application to a case study in Brazilian semi-arid region. The objective was to select and subsequently monitor the most appropriate programme for safe water availability. On the basis of the SEA results, a project was identified and implemented with successful results. In terms of comparisons of alternatives, AHP meets the requirements of human development programme assessment, including the importance of simplicity, a multidisciplinary and flexible approach, and a focus on the beneficiaries’ concerns. With respect to monitoring, the study shows that AHP contributes to SEA by identifying the most appropriate indicators, in order to control the impacts of a project.

The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (2005) committed donors and their partner countries to reforming the way in which aid is delivered. The aim was to improve effectiveness by harmonising efforts and aligning with the priorities of partner countries. Furthermore, to ensure that environmental considerations were taken into account in this new aid context, the declaration encouraged the use of strategic environmental assessment (SEA). SEA can be defined as “the formalized, systematic and comprehensive process of evaluating the environmental impacts of a policy, plan or programme and its alternatives, including the preparation of a written report on the findings of that evaluation, and using the findings in publicly accountable decision-making” (Therivel, 1992). The adoption of SEA supports the decision-making process through the development and comparison of future scenarios. This helps to ensure that policies and programmes meet sustainable development objectives and that positive synergies between economic and environmental development priorities are established and assessed. In developing countries, where people depend more directly on natural resources than in any other society, SEA has become an essential tool for formulating future development strategies. The application of SEA to development cooperation has benefits for both decision-making procedures and development outcomes (OECD, 2006). It supports more informed decision-making by taking into account environmental aspects and by encouraging a systematic and thorough examination of development options. SEA helps to ensure the sustainability of economic growth, which, in turn, will support political stability and facilitate trans-boundary cooperation around shared environmental resources, thus helping to prevent conflict. SEA is a complex procedure and various decision-making tools can be used within the process especially in the following steps: comparison of alternatives and monitoring. Examples include life cycle assessment (LCA) (Tukker, 2000), cost-benefit analysis (CBA) (Finnveden et al., 2009) and multi-criteria analysis (MCA) (Finnveden et al., 2003). MCA aims to rank a finite number of options on the basis of a set of evaluation criteria and it is a very flexible family of techniques. In fact a multi-criteria tool can be applied for all kinds of impacts, can be made site-time-specific or not, and quantitatively as well as qualitatively (Finnveden et al., 2003). These are key characteristics when SEA is applied in developing countries, where often data are not easily available. MCA in SEA procedure has been used to solve many environmental problems in energy, waste management or urban infrastructure sectors, among others (Bobylev, 2006, Finnveden et al., 2003, Fischer, 2003, Jay, 2010 and Salhofer et al., 2007). However there are no examples of MCA application in SEA procedure for water programmes in developing countries. The aim of this paper is to present the contribution of a particular multi-criteria tool, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) (Saaty, 1980, Saaty, 1990 and Saaty, 1994), to the SEA procedure, mainly with respect to comparisons of alternatives and monitoring. A case study in Jequitinhonha Valley, located at the semi-arid region of Brazil, is presented. Water resources are a major concern in this region, in relation to agricultural water management for dry-land and irrigated cultivation and to drinking water availability. Specifically, we use the SEA procedure and AHP to assess two water programme alternatives: the “One Million Cisterns Project” (P1MC) and the “Spring Assessment Programme”. When this study was carried out, both projects had already been implemented by NGOs as isolated pilot projects. According to the SEA and AHP results, P1MC is the most appropriate solution, so this project was promoted and implemented, and monitoring started in 2006. Today, more than 2000 cisterns supply safe water in Jequitinhonha Valley. The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 analyses SEA challenges for developing countries; Section 3 introduces a detailed description of AHP and its contribution to SEA procedure; the case study is introduced in Section 4; Sections 5 and 6 present the results of the AHP contribution to the comparison of alternatives and monitoring, respectively; finally, Section 7 summarises the conclusions.

This paper discusses the advantages of AHP and its contribution to SEA for human development projects, through its application to a case study in a semi-arid region of Brazil. The results of the case study enable us to draw various conclusions. Firstly, P1MC is an appropriate solution to improve drinking water supply in the Brazilian semi-arid region. Secondly, AHP makes a valid contribution to the SEA procedure in human development projects. From a technical point of view, the contribution of AHP to SEA in the comparison of alternatives enabled us to state that rainwater catchment and storage through the construction of cisterns is the best alternative in the Brazilian semi-arid region in terms of technical, economic, political, social and environmental aspects. Technically, the building of cylindrical cisterns is easy and uses local materials. Moreover, cisterns provide enough good quality water for the entire year. Economically, the costs of cisterns are low in relation to their benefits. Politically, they help to reduce the dependence of families on local politicians. Environmentally, this is an appropriate technology for the area, as it does not have any negative impacts: it does not exploit the water table or deposit any residues in the ground. Not only do P1MC cisterns catch and store water, but they also represent the construction of citizenship in the Brazilian semi-arid region. From a methodological point of view, the study shows that AHP contributes to different stages of the SEA procedure. It permits the evaluation of different criteria such as social, environmental and economic effects. The multidisciplinary nature of the approach is very significant for developing countries, where environmental projects aim to improve living standards and human development. AHP also allows the direct involvement of multiple experts, interest groups and stakeholders. The analysis is easy, flexible, transparent to participants, and focuses on people’s needs. These characteristics make SEA an effective and appropriate tool for environmental strategy assessment in developing countries, in order to achieve sustainable development in environmental planning. Moreover AHP for SEA can be used to identify the most critical and important criteria, to determine their relative weights, and, consequently, to define indicators for monitoring. Thus, we can state that AHP contributes to the SEA procedure by providing a systematic guide for identifying appropriate indicators. The study also describes the results of monitoring, and stresses that the alternative (P1MC) chosen in the SEA procedure, due to AHP, is a good alternative in the context. Thus, AHP was validated and is a good tool for SEA applied to human development projects.