SEA IN THE CONTEXT OF LANDTUSE PLANNING

importance of improved knowledge and understanding of the planning system. However,despite the recognition of the relevance of context in academic literature, there are limitedattempts of defining or pinpointing the individual components that make up the SEAimplementation.Comparing the findings from the review of the introduction of the requirements of thedirective nationally in the three countries studied, the expectations of SEA illustrated in thelegislations resemble more the EU directive than the much of the academic literature on SEA,with nearly direct application of the aims of the directive in the legislation. All the countriesadhere closely to the contents of the directive in their legal application and none of thecountries studied request stricter requirements. However, para-SEAs already appliednationally often have a wider scope than the legal requirements. This is particularly the case inrelation to the more encompassing aims (including the political endorsement) of sustainabledevelopment. All the countries have national programmes and strategies to achievesustainable development where land use planning is identified as an important tool tofulfilling its goals. In England this commitment was embodied with the requirement ofpreparing Sustainability Appraisal for plans and programmes that unlike SEA should alsoencompass economic and social aspects as well as environmental ones. The legalimplementation of the SEA is unlikely to change this practice, as the SEA requirements shallbe integrated into the existing practice of Sustainability Appraisal. Likewise, the pre-directivepractice of Swedish application of impact assessment of comprehensive municipal plans hasalso encompassed social and economic aspects on par with environmental ones. Howeversustainable development initiatives have met the criticism that it has become too streamlinedand that the environmental aspects fade away in the wider context of sustainabledevelopment, often led by economic interests. In Iceland, the introduction of the directiveappears to strengthen an SEA approach that was under development when the directive2001/42/EC was introduced, based upon a strong linkages with the existing planning processand focus on environmental aspects, much in line with the requirements introduced by thedirective. In that way, the directive is regarded as an instrument that can support an on-goingchange in the revision of planning with regard to its strategic components and possibilities forpublic participation.With regard to the empirical evidence assembled in the three countries studied as a partof this research, the symptoms that the introduction of the SEA directive shall solve are noteasily identifiable. Furthermore, the ‘added value’ cannot easily be discerned in the SEA orplanning discussion, even to the extent that the main purpose of the implementation of theSEA directive is to fulfil the EU requirement as is the case in the English implementation ofthe directive.8.2 The bearing of the planning contextIt could be argued that the strength of SEA and its largest potential influence for fulfilling itsaims is its connection to existing planning instruments. In that way it is not faced with thesame risk of fading away or becoming ’a paper tiger’ as has been the case with some otherenvironmental initiatives. This is however also the limiting factor of SEA since the nationalcontext, institutional framework and planning systems to which it is introduced provides aframework that gives a clear limitation of what SEA can achieve. First and foremost it mustbe relevant to understand the context to which the directive is introduced. This does not onlyrelate to the institutional factors, i.e. the legislation and main actors responsible for theimplementation but also the actual steps of the process to which SEA is introduced. Thisrequires an understanding of the planning system that often is described in an overlysimplified manner – as a rationalistic and clearly tiered system.115