Planning Transitions: SEAs, Climate Change, and Energy Transitions in the Ocean

Abstract

Oceans have been gaining attention as a solution to climate change, including as sites of renewable energy development. Thus, oceans are becoming increasingly important sites of the energy transitions necessary for countries to meet climate change commitments. However, oil remains deeply entrenched in many places, often making it difficult to envision and enact different energy futures. This paper addresses the potential of strategic environmetal assessments (SEAs) to play a role in ocean-based energy transitions, specifically exploring whether they provide the information needed to support decisions related to energy transitions. By drawing on 69 offshore energy-related SEAs done in 11 countries between 2000 and 2021, this paper takes a broad view of ocean energy SEAs across time and space. In particular, we explore whether these SEAs consider climate change, include the broader context of climate goals, and assess alternatives. Findings varied by jurisdiction but in many cases, SEAs were done in ways that limited their potential to contribute to energy transition decisions. This is important because countries around the world have climate commitments and SEAs represent an opportunity – specifically one that uses existing and familiar tools – to help with long term planning around offshore energy that can help meet these commitments.

Introduction

Oceans have been gaining attention for their potential role in climate change mitigation, as a “solution to climate change,” for instance, through reducing offshore oil production and increasing offshore renewable energy (Ocean Policy Committee 2023; Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2023). Thus, oceans are becoming increasingly important, albeit contested, sites of the energy transitions necessary for countries to advance climate goals. Indeed, The European Environment Agency considers offshore wind a central pillar of its plan to decarbonize and meet climate commitments (European Environment Agency 2024). Yet, despite the necessity of these transitions, oil – and the infrastructures, economies, politics, and cultures that support it – remains deeply entrenched, often making it difficult to envision and enact different energy futures and uses for the ocean that would contribute to climate change mitigation. This paper addresses the potential of SEAs to play a role in ocean-based energy transitions, specifically exploring whether they provide the information – particularly related to climate change – needed to support energy transition decision making.

Strategic environmental assessments (SEA) are a type of impact assessment uniquely positioned in the impact assessment process to help envision and plan different development futures. They are a planning tool and thus meant to be done early, before specific projects are proposed and project-IAs are conducted, when different scenarios and longer-term issues can be considered and incorporated into planning and development decisions. In other words, SEAs are meant to be proactive (Partidário 2021; Noble 2000), helping to create decision-making contexts more attuned to sustainability and environmental protection (Partidário 2021; Noble 2002; Therivel 2004). These features make SEAs the ideal time to consider climate change (Larsen et al. 2013; Posas 2011), which is an essential consideration during energy planning at any stage. In fact, a position statement on climate change released by the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) board states that impact assessments, particularly strategic, “will be key in helping countries meet their commitments under the Paris Agreement to limit the rise in global temperatures and other changes in the climate regime at the local, regional and global levels” (IAIA, 2020). Addressing and incorporating climate change in ocean energy planning will be critical for developing (or not) oceans in ways that align with broader goals, including climate commitments, sustainable development goals, and blue economy plans. Thus, SEAs hold promise for informing and facilitating ocean-based energy transitions.

Despite the promise or potential of SEAs, some scholars claim that they are not living up to their potential (Bice and Fischer 2020), which is specifically concerning in the context of the energy sector because of the environmental, economic, and political necessity of transitioning away from fossil fuels. Jay (2010) argues that the energy sector, due to its economic importance and potential environmental impacts, is “an ideal candidate for SEA” (p. 3490). Indeed, there have been many SEAs in the energy sector (Geißler et al. 2021); however, Geißler et al. (2021) argue that “more focused research on the role of SEA in sustainable energy sector transformation” (pg. 197) is needed. We take up this call in this paper, asking whether ocean energy-based SEAs are providing the information and context needed to inform and support energy transition-related decisions and, more broadly, help meet climate and sustainability goals.

By drawing on 69 offshore energy-related SEAs done in 11 countries between 2000 and 2021, we take a bird’s eye view of ocean energy-based SEAs across time and space, which lets us see trends in what SEAs have been offering for decision makers and planners as they make decisions about how oceans should or should not be developed. In particular, we explore areas that would be important for supporting decision-making related to energy transitions: whether SEAs consider climate change, include the broader context of climate goals, and assess alternatives. This differs from recent work exploring the use of SEAs that specifically focus on renewable energy technology or transitions, where decisions about using renewable energy or transitioning have already been made (Nwanekezie et al. 2021; Nwanekezie et al. 2022; IAIA 2024). Rather, our concern is whether offshore energy SEAs have been/are being done in ways that offer the opportunity to consider energy decisions in the context of the global need for energy transitions to meet climate goals and commitments.

The Potential Role of SEAs to Support Planning Energy Transitions

SEAs have gained prominence due to concerns over the limited nature of project-based assessments (Tetlow and Hanusch 2012; Partidário 2000). One of these problems, as Mulvihill et al. (2013) explain, is that project-based assessments “take place too late in project life cycles to be fully effective” (p. 2). In other words, if environmental considerations are left to the project phase, opportunities are lost to integrate the environment and sustainability concerns into the planning process in more proactive ways (Partidário 2007; Tetlow and Hanusch 2012; Therivel 2004). Moreover, as Hayes and Fischer (2021) explain, once the project phase has been reached and a specific project is proposed, the ability to consider other options and alternatives is limited (see also Jay 2010; Noble et al. 2013; Fusco 2020). This is particularly problematic in the context of energy projects since they have significant short and long-term effects as well as geographically and intergenerationally vast implications when it comes to climate change and meeting climate targets.

SEAs, on the other hand, take place a few steps ahead of the project level, often at the policy, plan, or program phase, so that the environment can be considered “during early stages of strategic decision-making processes” (Tetlow and Hanusch 2012, p. 15; see also Fischer and Retirf 2021). SEAs consider the environment and alternative development options before specific projects are proposed and (in theory) development agendas are set (Noble et al. 2013). In fact, the IAIA refers to the consideration of alternatives as “at the heart of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)” (IAIA 2013) while González et al. (2015) refer to them as “a central stage in the SEA process” (pg. 53). Considering alternatives early in planning processes (before projects) leaves open the possibility that some activities or scenarios may be deemed inappropriate for meeting longer term sustainability and/or climate goals. Thus a key part of exploring alternatives is the inclusion of a no action alternative, which is essentially the maintenance of the status quo, or “the continuation of existing trends” (Therivel 2004, p. 123).

SEAs are also meant to be tiered, so their findings would feed into and inform subsequent assessments and decisions. As Fischer et al. explain, SEAs should “enhance the ability of project-level EIA to promote sustainable development” ((2020), p. 29). Thus, in theory, early SEAs – their findings and the decisions they lead to – would help to create a more environmentally focused context in which specific project decisions can be made (Noble 2000; White and Noble 2013; Partidário 2012). An offshore energy SEA could, therefore, set a context for future projects that would align with a government’s climate targets. However, in reality, SEAs take a variety of forms and can be applied in different ways (Fischer and Gonzalez 2021; Lobos and Partidário 2014; Retief et al. 2008), which allows for flexibility based on context-specific needs (Retief 2007). While most are modeled after project-based assessments and focus on assessing impacts and offering mitigations (Lobos and Partidário 2014; Partidário 2021;Partidário 2012; Noble et al. 2019), others emphasize strategic aspects by establishing a future vision or goals and exploring the different ways these can be achieved (Partidário 2012; Partidário 2021). In offshore energy planning, SEAs have been used in a variety of ways, from broad planning that includes multiple sectors to sector-specific decision making. For instance, SEAs have been used to make decisions about the type of energy to develop in a region as well as to inform decisions about issuing offshore oil exploration licenses.

Fundamentally, SEAs are meant to be a planning tool and are used by governments around the world to support more environmentally-focussed planning and decision making. Scholars have noted that SEAs are well suited to address long-term and cumulative impacts and climate change (Posas 2011; Larsen et al. 2013; Therivel 2004). Indeed, Wende et al. (2012) argue for the importance of SEAs in looking at climate change, stating that “Where else but at the preliminary plan and programme level can the course be set which will determine the level of greenhouse gas or CO2 emissions resulting from economic development? Where else but during SEA might lower-emissions plan and programme alternatives be developed?” (p. 91). This is particularly important when assessing potential future energy development. SEAs offer the space to consider the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate impacts of different energy development scenarios and thus also the ability to assess different energy futures before specific projects are proposed. As O’Mahony (2021) states, the inclusion of climate change in SEAs “should lead to better informed, evidence-based decision-making that is more sustainable in the context of a changing climate” (p. 248). Used in this way, SEAs can help shape decision making contexts in ways that support short-term decision making about space and energy development, which will, in turn, affect longer term goals and energy transitions.

In practice, however, SEAs may be missing the mark when it comes to climate change and not fully meeting their theoretical potential (Larsen et al. 2013; Wende et al. 2012). For example, many of the promises of SEAs have been outlined on theoretical grounds and promoted by researchers and professional societies, not by governments and planning authorities that regulate development and create guidance for SEA use. Indeed, do Nascimento Nadruz et al. (2018) make this point in their study of climate change in 35 SEA reports across sectors in Brazil, stating that “The outcomes reinforce what was previously reported in the literature, regarding the gap between the SEA theory and practice [7]” (p. 52). They argue that in the SEAs they studied, how climate change was incorporated was “far from being considered adequate” (p. 52). Fischer et al. (2011) similarly note in their examination of municipal waste management strategy SEAs in England that “The consideration of climate change per se in the SEAs on average can be considered as being just satisfactory (i.e. the overall need for reducing carbon emissions was acknowledged)” (p. 556).

All of this suggests that there may be a gap or a discontinuity between how SEAs are theoretically suited to operate in the context of energy transitions and how they are actually operating. If climate change considerations are inadequate, for instance, SEAs may not be providing the information or analysis needed for decision making around energy transitions and thus opportunities may be missed for them to inform and/or facilitate energy transitions that support climate targets. This could mean that SEAs become a facilitator of continued fossil fuel extraction in the oceans rather than a broad planning tool that considers other options for the use of ocean spaces (Fusco 2020). The purpose of this paper is to look more closely at how SEAs are being used in the context of offshore energy planning. It is intended to be a broad initial exploration of whether offshore energy SEAs have been including the type of information that could help inform decisions related to energy transition. In particular, we focus on how SEAs have i) connected to broader climate policy and commitments ii) explored alternatives, iii) assessed climate change.

It is important to note here that an SEA may be sector-specific and not include climate-related considerations as part of its purpose and it is not our intent to make judgements about the quality of any given SEA. Our intent is rather to assess broad trends in the use (or lack of use) of SEA to align with broader climate and energy policies of government. Evaluating the inclusion of alternatives and climate variables, as we do here, thus allows for better understanding of the integration of SEAs with climate policy and highlights opportunities for better integration between a government’s broad environmental goals and the tools it uses to help further those goals.

Methods

Our analysis is based on 69 offshore energy SEAs done around the world between 2000 (the first instance we found) and 2021. We found 144 ocean-based SEAs in total, but excluded those that did not focus on or include energy. SEAs in the full set were found by searching government websites, impact assessment registries, and Google. As a starting point to guide our search, we used the resources provided on the Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment website to find coastal nations that have SEA legislation. At the time of data collection, this website housed a database of legislation for project-level and strategic assessment for countries around the world. We also conducted broader searches with Google using the following search terms: strategic environmental assessment + each of the following: offshore, marine, ocean, energy. We used the same terms to search for scholarly articles using the Memorial University library’s OneSearch feature, which searches multiple databases at once. These articles gave us further information and suggested specific regions where ocean-based SEAs are being used and where more targeted searching was necessary. This was helpful for providing a broader context of the use of ocean-based SEAs around the world, particularly in countries where SEAs are not published in English. While we were able to conduct SEA searches in French, Spanish, and Portuguese, we were limited in our ability to analyze these documents and thus focused our analysis on English.

For the 69 offshore energy-related SEAs, we conducted document analysis (similar to Singh et al. 2020) to examine how SEAs have been conducted, focusing on three areas necessary for SEAs to be used to inform energy development decisions and thus potentially facilitate/support energy transitions: 1) situating the SEA in relation to broader climate policies and/or goals/commitments, 2) the assessment of alternatives, and 3) the incorporation and/or assessment of climate change. To address these areas, we developed a series of yes/no and quantitative questions (listed below). These questions were set to answer the research question, which asked whether SEAs are including the type of information needed to inform decision making around energy transitions. The questions were broad in some cases as we needed them to be answerable for all 69 SEAs, which were done in different parts of the world with different approaches, formats, and requirements for SEA.

Questions

1. Did the SEA get linked to or contextualized within broader climate and energy goals and commitments?

2. How many options were considered?

3. Was no change an option among the options assessed?

4. Did the terms climate change and/or greenhouse gas show up anywhere in the document?

5. Did the SEA discuss the effects of climate change on baseline conditions and/or valued components (VC)?

6. Did the SEA acknowledge/discuss the climate impacts of potential future activities? (and if so how?)

Because SEAs are meant to help think through different ways of meeting broad visions and goals, question one was meant to examine whether the SEA was being framed in the context of broader climate goals. This offered insight into whether the alternatives assessed in the SEA were being (or could be) considered for their potential role in helping or hindering those broader climate goals. To answer this question, we searched the introductory sections of the SEA, where the SEA process and regulatory context are typically explained. In a small number of SEAs, we found nothing in these sections yet there was a comment in later chapters, for instance, about the Paris Agreement. We did not count these instances as they were not provided up front as context and motivation for the SEA and it was unclear if they were being factored into the assessment in any substantial way.

Questions two and three involved examining whether the SEAs were exploring diverse development pathways or alternatives. All SEAs consider at least one option (i.e., a specific plan, policy, or program being assessed); however, for SEAs to fulfill strategic roles, they should also consider and assess alternatives (González et al. 2015). This, as noted above, is considered a key part of SEAs as it helps envision and plan for more sustainable futures by thinking through different ways of reaching goals and/or visions for the future. One key option to consider is no change – that is, none of the other options presented in the SEA are chosen. It is important to note here that choosing the no change option does not necessarily mean no development in an area but rather a continuation of the status quo, which could include some types of development in the present or future (just not one of the options being assessed). To answer questions two and three, we scanned SEA reports for the list of options/alternatives that would be assessed in the SEA. These are typically included in the introductory chapters and then further discussed later in the report.

Questions four through six examined climate change directly and how it was incorporated and addressed in the SEA. To weed out any SEAs that were not engaging with climate change at all, we first searched each document using NVIVO for the words “climate change” and “greenhouse gas emissions” (or GHG) (question four). For those that included at least one of these terms, we conducted additional analysis to explore how they were incorporated. Question five was meant to highlight the SEAs in which the impacts that climate change would have on the environment and/or potential project activities were discussed. This could include, for instance, how changing water temperatures due to climate change could impact one of the VCs (e.g. a particular type of fish). We felt this was important to examine in order to see where climate change was considered asymmetrically, that is, where climate change was acknowledged as important but only in terms of how it would affect development and not how that development would affect climate. On the other hand, question six highlighted how potential options or activities that would be part of them would impact climate change and/or GHG emissions. This could include the GHG emissions from seismic vessels or how developing renewables would decrease emissions. To answer these two questions, we used NVIVO to search for the following keywords in the SEA reports: climate, greenhouse gas, greenhouse gasses, GHG, CO2, carbon dioxide, climate change. We limited our search to the impact assessment and cumulative effects sections so that results included instances relevant to assessment but excluded environmental description or context. For question six, we also searched the baseline conditions section/chapter. We scanned the results of these searches to understand broadly how the search terms were being used in context.

There was such variation in how climate change was assessed (yes to question six) that we further broke down the results of question six to capture some of it. By reviewing findings from the NVIVO search (explained in the previous paragraph), we came up with four categories (detailed in the paragraphs below) to help us make sense of how the SEAs were addressing the climate impacts of potential future activities. These categories were constructed through inductive coding (e.g. Thomas 2006), a methodological process of determining set categories that summarize extensive and varied sets of text in order to do further analysis. These categories were not intended to be comprehensive, mutually exclusive, or hierarchical but rather to show some of the important variation in focus and resolution of climate analysis that we found in the reports.

The first category, qualitative directional, included short future-looking statements acknowledging that the program or activities assessed by the SEA would either increase or decrease GHG emissions (or sometimes phrased as contributing to climate change). For example, the 2016 UK Offshore Energy SEA states that “Certain aspects of the plan (oil and gas licensing, gas storage leasing/licensing)…may be regarded as deleterious to climate change mitigation efforts” (p. 349).

The second category qualitative source tracking, included some of the different sources of GHG emissions from potential future project activities, for instance, transportation, construction, or decommissioning. It involved more detail than qualitative directional as it included some additional information about how future project activities would contribute to increases or decreases in GHG emissions. For example, the 2016 UK Offshore Energy SEA notes that one of the main emissions sources for offshore wind is the manufacture of the foundation (p. 360). It also states that some of the main sources of emissions from oil and gas exploration and production “are internal combustion for power generation by installations, terminals, vessels and aircraft, flaring for pressure relief and gas disposal, flaring from well clean-up and testing, cold venting from storage and loading operations and fugitive emissions” (pg. 341).

The third category we created was quantitative estimate transfer. Because SEAs take place before the project phase, it can be challenging, given the scope of the SEA, to estimate the GHG emissions from the different options assessed. In fact, very few of the SEAs we found included this information. The quantitative estimate transfer category was intended to capture how many SEAs used estimates of GHG emissions from other existing projects (not being assessed in the current SEA) as an example for the activities that were being assessed. In other words, it captured whether an SEA used GHG emissions calculations from other existing projects with similar activities. The key here is that these estimates were not being used to come up with specific calculations for the options or activities being assessed in the SEA but rather as an example to offer some insight into the potential GHG emissions for the scenarios or activities being assessed.

The final category we included was quantitative, which was meant to capture when SEAs were actually estimating future GHG emissions for the specific potential activities being assessed in the SEA.

Results

The 69 offshore energy SEAs that we analyzed were in Canada (21), the US (18), UK (11), Scotland (4), Ireland (2), Northern Ireland (1), Denmark (8), Lebanon (1), Iceland (1), Cypress (1), and Australia (1) between 2000 and 2021. Most of the SEAs analyzed were focused on oil and gas development activities; however some, mostly in the UK, included renewables or a combination of oil and renewables (Fig. 1). SEAs represent a tool that can help governments meet long-term goals by building them into long-term planning. All countries explored in this paper were parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) or had adopted the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) at the time of data collection, though they varied in when they adopted these agreements. This means that they had an obligation to meet specific climate and sustainability targets while they were ratified.

Fig. 1.

The number of offshore energy SEAs analyzed by country and energy type (oil and gas, renewables, and mixed) from 2000 to 2021

We found that 18 out of 69 SEAs analyzed were contextualized within the broader context of climate change and energy goals and commitments (Fig. 2). In the UK, two out of the 11 SEAs done there did not contextualize in this way and both were done in the early 2000s, before the Kyoto Protocol came into force in 2005. The UK is also where we found most of the SEAs that included renewables (Fig. 1). On the other hand, most of the SEAs done in Canada, the US, and Denmark, did not include climate commitments in the introductory sections.

Fig. 2.

The count of SEAs over time that connect to broader climate and strategies and/or goals

Options and Alternatives

Out of the 69 SEAs we analyzed, 29 considered only one option or plan, meaning that no alternatives were assessed (Fig. 3). These were predominantly found in Canada (19) and Denmark (7). This is particularly important because it means that not only were other alternative plans/options not considered in these cases, but that a no action/no change option was not assessed against the different options. On the other hand, 37 out of the 69 SEAs we examined did consider no action/change as one of the alternatives while 32 considered alternatives but did not consider no action/change.

Fig. 3.

The number of SEAs in each country presented in terms of how many options are assessed (1 = only a single option, >1 = alternatives are considered). The contrasting colors indicate whether or not the SEAs considered “no change” as one of the alternatives

We also found that nearly all of the SEAs that did not assess alternatives (most of which were in Canada and Denmark) were assessing oil (27 of 29 SEAs, Fig. 4). Moreover, of the SEAs that included renewables or a mixture of oil and renewables (14 total), 11 assessed alternatives. Eight out these 11 were in the UK.

Fig. 4.

A mosaic plot of the number of options considered by country and type of industry assessed. These are graphical representations of contingency tables. The width of each box within a region along an axis (e.g. oil based SEAs with one option in Canada) is proportional to how many SEAs of a given category make up the total number of SEAs. Numbers within each box indicate the number of SEAs that each box represents

There was no clear trend between the kinds of industries assessed (oil or renewables) and whether a no change option was considered (Fig. 5). In Canada and Denmark, most SEAs were done for oil only and very few considered no change as an option. On the other hand, all SEAs done in the US considered a no change option. In the UK, six of the SEAs that considered the no change option included renewables and seven were for oil. Three UK SEAs for renewables did not consider a no change option (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5.

A breakdown of how many SEAs by industry considered no change as one of the options considered. The size of the box within a region along each axis (e.g. oil based SEAs in the UK) indicates the relative contribution of a specific category. Numbers within each box indicate the number of SEAs that each box represents

Climate Change

11 of the 69 SEAs we examined did not mention either climate change or GHGs anywhere in the document. Eight of these were in the US, two in Canada, and one in Denmark. Aside from the one in Denmark, all were done before 2010 and thus before the current Paris climate agreement (although the previous Kyoto Protocol came into force in 2005, which was ratified by all countries except the US). We did not do further analysis on these SEA reports.

Of the remaining SEAs that did mention climate change, 47 mentioned the impact that climate change would have on baseline conditions, VCs, or the program activities (Fig. 6). Twelve only considered climate change in this way (and thus did not consider how projects might contribute to climate change), nine of which were in Canada. This means these SEAs acknowledged that climate change was happening and required consideration, but that consideration was one way – the impacts that climate change would have on future projects and planning but not how the potential project activities would impact climate change or GHG emissions. This information is critical for understanding how potential activities would help or hinder meeting climate goals and for planning energy transitions that align with these goals.

Fig. 6.

The number of SEAs in each country per year that assess GHGs, include climate change impacts on baseline conditions, or do not mention climate impacts at all

In contrast, we found that 40 SEAs acknowledged or assessed the impacts that potential project or program activities would have on climate or GHG emissions (Fig. 6). Eight only did this through a qualitative directional statement without any other analysis (Fig. 7). That is, they only included a short statement acknowledging that the activities would impact climate change or GHG emissions. 26 of the 40 included qualitative source tracking, 13 included estimate transfer, and 12 included quantitative estimates (Fig. 7). Our four categories were chosen based on our findings to illustrate some of the main trends we found in how climate change was incorporated. They were not intended to illustrate an ordinal scale. Thus, the relationships between the categories are different in each SEA (Fig. 8).

Fig. 7.

Treemap of the count of SEAs within each country that account for impacts on climate. The distribution of colours in each region’s box corresponds to how SEAs in that region assessed impacts on climate. For example, blue shows the proportion of SEAs in each jurisdiction that did not assess impacts on climate whatsoever. The text inside each box correspond to the climate change assessment categories we developed: qual directional = qualitative directional; qual source = qualitative source tracking; quant estimate = quantitative estimate transfer; quant future = quantitative; all qual = both qualitative directional and qualitative source tracking; all quant = both quantitative estimate transfer and quantitative

Fig. 8.

The relationship between the four qualitative and quantitative categories of assessing GHGs in the SEAs we reviewed

Discussion

In exploring 69 ocean energy SEAs across multiple countries and regions of the world, we chose to examine three aspects that would be critical for an SEA to offer the kind of information needed to substantively inform decisions about energy transitions: the assessment of alternatives, consideration of climate change impacts, and the broader context of climate goals. This information would be important for energy transition-related decisions at all moments in policy and planning processes, including those about sector-specific licensing or planning the type of energy to be developed in a region.

The assessment of alternatives signals that an SEA is open to considering different development pathways. In theory, the assessment of alternatives at the SEA phase means that a variety of pathways are considered at a time when they could still be pursued – that is, before specific projects are proposed that already have momentum behind them (for instance investment from companies or government planning) (Hayes and Fischer 2021). In the context of energy, the number (or even the existence) of alternatives suggests the extent to which the SEA process may be open from the start to considering a variety of energy development paths, including maintaining the status quo or no development at all. In a multi-sector SEA, this may include looking at different types of energy that could be developed while in a sector-specific SEA it may include different locations, intensity/amount, or no development at all. While we recognize that not all SEAs are structured to assess alternatives, doing so is important for the SEA to contribute to decision making about energy transitions. Assessing only one option suggests a more limited or rigid vision of how a region will be developed. For instance, an SEA that only assesses oil development and does not include any alternatives is more or less closed to the possibility that oil may not be the best option. It doesn’t leave much room for transitions away from oil and/or toward other industries, energy sources, or uses of ocean space. This is particularly important in the context of climate change and energy transitions because of the long-term climate implications of energy project decisions. If SEAs are going to be a tool to help plan energy transitions, then multiple options – including no change – must be assessed early.

The number of options considered in the SEAs we looked at varied, with significant regional differences. Most notably, the SEAs in Canada and Denmark, where the SEAs were, for the most part, considering oil development, rarely assessed alternatives. That is, they had one option that they were assessing and did not assess a no change option against it. On the other hand, most SEAs in the US and UK assessed at least two options and usually more. Most SEAs in the UK were assessing renewables or a mix of oil and renewables. These also typically considered multiple options with most of them including a no change option. The US SEAs were, for the most part, assessing oil, and did include multiple options, one of which was always no change. A no change option could be important even in sector-specific SEAs as it would leave open the possibility of planning other uses of space including renewable energy, conservation, or other climate mitigation initiatives.

Even if alternatives are considered but the SEA only addresses oil and gas development, the focus of alternatives on oil and gas confines choices. That is, technically options are available but the result is constrained to pre-set industry pathways or shaped by larger priorities of government. Thus, including the context of climate and sustainability goals in the SEA establishes a more complete environmental/sustainability decision-making context, one that includes broader motivations and commitments to address critical international issues like climate change. This context helps to highlight how the activities and options assessed in the SEA will fit into, contribute to, or hinder meeting those goals (Partidario 2021). If an SEA is not contextualized or assessed within the context of broader climate goals and commitments, there may be less chance that the assessment includes consideration of how the activities (of the program, plan, or policy) would help or hinder reaching those goals. It also may be less likely that the SEA is used to support those goals. We found that aside from the SEAs done in the UK, few of the SEAs examined provided broader climate policy as context. Again, notably, most of the UK SEAs were done for renewables or a mix of renewable and non-renewable energy. Also important to note here are the contextual factors shaping SEAs that would not be captured within them, including historical, cultural, and political factors. These would require more in depth and qualitative research to explore (Cashmore et al. 2008; Bina 2008; Hilding-Rydevik and Bjarnadóttir 2007).

For an SEA to be relevant to decision making related to energy transitions, part of the assessment of options would need to include impacts on GHG emissions and/or climate change. However, the SEAs analyzed in this paper reveal that offshore energy SEAs are often not being employed in ways that would support transition decisions. This represents an important gap and missed opportunity for better climate policy integration. We recognize that not all SEAs are scoped to include climate change or assess a variety of energy types. The specific decisions being addressed may be far more sector-specific, such as in Atlantic Canada where SEAs were used in decisions about issuing oil exploration licenses. However, assessing alternatives and greenhouse gas emissions in an SEA would help shift the decision making context toward development that is better integrated and aligned with sustainability and climate policy. Thus, while informing energy transition decisions may not be the goal of an SEA, establishing SEAs that can support energy transition decision-making could be an important start to better policy integration and moving jurisdictions toward their climate targets.

We found significant jurisdictional differences in how climate change was included in SEAs. For instance, most SEAs done in Canada did not include a climate policy context and few included any assessment of how option activities would impact climate. We note that the SEAs in the early 2000s did not mention climate change at all. While this changed in 2008, most still only mentioned the impact of climate change on potential activities. We see a similar temporal trend in the US, where early SEAs did not mention climate change. The move toward attention to climate change in the early 2000s may have had to do with the global move toward climate policy from Kyoto and suggests the importance of examining how broader climate policy shapes and influences SEAs in specific regions over time. The SEAs we looked at in the UK considered both the impacts of climate change on projects and projects on climate.

For the SEAs that did look at the impact of potential activities on climate change, how they assessed this varied. It is important to note that The four categories we looked at for how SEAs assessed the impacts of potential future activities on climate were meant to point out broad trends. However, given the different ways SEAs are done and the complexity of climate analysis, we couldn’t evaluate the quality of this analysis or how well it would support decision making. Therefore, it was not possible to determine if the climate-related information/assessment included was enough to inform transition-related decisions. For instance, some SEAs only included a qualitative directional statement (such as, the activities will contribute to GHG emissions). This is not likely enough to shape decision making when it comes to energy transitions because it is only a statement of acknowledgement and involves no analysis. However, SEAs that include source tracking or quantitative data could include valuable insights or discussions into potential climate impacts that could inform decision-making, specifically when examined in the context of climate goals and commitments.

Our original aim for this paper was to explore whether SEAs done for ocean energy development have been providing the information needed to support decision-making related to energy transitions. Due to the variability of the SEAs we looked at over space and time, we cannot offer sweeping generalizations based on our findings but can offer points of interest and future research. For instance, it is probably safe to say that the SEAs that don’t mention climate change at all or only assess how climate will impact project activities do not provide enough information. On the other hand, SEAs done in the UK may be providing the information needed – most are assessing multiple options that involve a variety of energy sources, include climate context, and look at how activities will impact climate. Yet, we cannot determine that these SEAs are providing the information, only that they are more likely to. Further research could be done to analyze the quality of data and analysis done and whether there is a correlation with the SEA providing broader climate context/goals. Even further analysis into how the climate analysis relates to the decisions or mitigations offered in the SEA would also be valuable. Similarly, while we cannot make any conclusions based on energy source (i.e. we cannot say whether oil SEAs are more likely to only assess one option), our findings do suggest that further jurisdictional analysis, specifically into contextual factors and motivations could offer further insight into how SEAs are being used and why.

This work also highlights that there is a need to examine how changes in broader climate policy and goals change how SEAs are used. For instance, examining how recent commitments made by Denmark (Danish Ministry of Climate, Energy and Utilities 2020) and Ireland (Government of Ireland 2022) to no longer issue oil exploration licenses are incorporated into energy SEAs would be valuable. The Irish Offshore Strategic Environmental Assessment 6 (Interek Energy 2022) (done beyond the temporal scope of this project) specifically notes this commitment as context and would be an important comparative case to look at in the context of the background provided in this paper.

Conclusion

Energy transitions will require long-term planning to envision and enact. SEAs hold promise to support these transitions, in part, because of when they happen – by design they happen before specific projects are approved and started. This means they have the potential to contribute to long-term planning and decisions about future energy development, including the types of energy that should or should not be developed and where as well as decisions not to develop an area at all. Yet how SEAs are done matters. While they are meant to be flexible, able to adapt to specific contexts and needs, this flexibility can mean that some SEAs may not be providing the type of information that would support decision-making related to energy transitions. Our purpose in this paper was to explore at a broad level whether offshore energy SEAs have been including this information so that we can better understand their potential and opportunities for them to play a greater role in energy transition planning and decision making.

Not all energy SEAs are scoped to contribute to transitions specifically. However, as the climate crisis intensifies, it is important to consider how existing tools can be used or better used to support the long-term planning needed to address the climate crisis and meet climate and sustainability goals. If oceans are going to be a solution to climate change and not exacerbate it, this planning is critical for offshore energy SEAs of all types. SEAs hold the potential for putting regional offshore planning and future energy projects into a broader planning context of climate change so that they support decision-making that aligns with climate change commitments and sustainability goals.

Author Contributions

Both authors contributed to the study conception and design. Data collection was performed by LMF and analysis was performed by LMF and GGS. The first draft of the manuscript was written by LMF and both authors revised and edited. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00267-025-02263-6.