SEA IN THE CONTEXT OF LANDTUSE PLANNING

developers and planners argued that the flexible and site-sensitive approach provided by theland-use planning system; the planning permission from local authorities and the specialisedpollution licences (e.g. discharges to water) was more effective than over-defined rules.Overall the Government's approach to EIA has been described as being " […] from the outsetgrudging and minimalist" (CPRE 1991). The DoE stated in 1997: “Consideration of the report by localauthorities should not be allowed to delay normal planning procedures and nay new procedures involvingadditional calls on central or local government finance and manpower are unacceptable during the presentperiod economic restraint” (DoE 1997). This view corresponds in some ways to the scepticism(and resistance) of many planners to the legal introduction of the EIA directive to planningsystems in Sweden in the early 1990s, that saw EIA as an unneeded addition to the planningsystem that already considered environmental impacts as a part of planning practices(Westerlund 1981).7.2 The transposition of selected articles of the directiveExamining the approach chosen for transposing selected articles of the SEA directive into anational legislation, the similarities, rather than the differences are most noticeable. As regardsthe plans covered by the directive and the main steps of the assessment process all thecountries keep rather close to the contents of the directive in their national legislation. Thedifferences mainly related to the accountability for conducting different parts of the process,i.e. to which extent the conduction of the different steps of the process is stipulated in law ora matter of the autonomy of the relevant authorities. An example of this is the responsibilityfor conducting the screening requirements where in Sweden and England the responsibility isallocated to the planning authorities responsible for the plan in question, whereas in Icelandthis decision is taken at the national Planning Authority. Another difference is the view of theenvironmental report, what it shall contain and how it shall be presented. The Englishlegislation stresses the integration of the Environmental Report in the plan or theprogramme, whereas in the Icelandic and Swedish legislation the report can either beintegrated or presented as separate document. With regard to Article 6 of the directive,Consultation, the level of consultation, the actors involved and the time frame differs as well asthe extent to which this is stipulated in the legislation. Below is the transposition of selectedarticles of the directive 2001/42/EC presented and compared.7.2.1 Article 3. Plans and programmes covered by the SEA requirementsPlans coveredRegarding the plans and programmes covered by the SEA requirements, none of thecountries have presented a definitive list of plan and programmes to which the SEArequirement apply, but refer to plans and programmes prepared according to certainlegislation, e.g. the planning legislation and road law. In Sweden and England the criteria foridentifying plans and programmes requiring SEA are listed. Plans not falling within thescreening requirements do not require a SEA. In Iceland no such criteria applies, whichmeans in practice that all plans and programmes that fulfil the all of the following threeconditions: a) The plans or programmes are prepared or adopted by governmental authorities,b) the plans or programmes are prepared by legislations or a ministerial decision, c) the plansor programmes set out a strategy that has consequences for permission for projects that areidentified in the Act on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) no 106/2000, always shallundergo a strategic environmental assessment. In all the three countries, an exception is madefor financial plans and programmes as well as plans and programmes prepared for defencepurposes. This openness in the interpretation of the coverage of the directive adds to theuncertainty of the application of the directive, i.e. which plan and programmes are coveredand how is duplication with regard to project EIA avoided?100