SEA IN THE CONTEXT OF LANDTUSE PLANNING

3.1.4 The origins of SEA and its relation to other disciplinesDespite the fact that a number of common trends can be identified among these scholars’views of SEA, their definitions and expectations of the SEA process continue to differmarkedly. In order to understand the different ways that SEA can be interpreted andimplemented, different categories have been developed and presented by researchers. Theapplication of SEA draws on different disciplines and the different positions are discussed inSheate 2001 and Emmelin and Lerman 2008. According to Sheate et al 2001, an explanationfor divergence in the expectations and interpretation of SEA can be found in the fact thatSEA can be seen to originate from two main disciplines; natural resources management andpolitical science and that the optimal SEA process is something of a hybrid between thesetwo approaches. Sheate et al (op.cit) provides a further exemplification of the differentapproaches for national implementation of SEA related to what is their main sources ofinspiration by presenting four different categories. Those are:• ‘EIA inspired SEA’: originating from ecological and/or resource management disciplines,and includes a base line assessment of preferred option or alternative locations. There ismore emphasis on technical methodologies and a necessity to undergo a systematicassessment procedure. This form of SEA is generally used at the programme level andoften is an incremental development from EIA.• ‘policy analysis/appraisal inspired SEA’: originating from political science. Impacts of apreferred option are appraised against objectives, there is no baseline survey, and oftenlittle or no direct public participation. This model is often seen within regional and spatialland use.• ‘policy integratory SEA’: focuses on an objectives led process, and is a combination of thefirst two models. Impacts are appraised against a combination of an environmentalbaseline survey and objectives. The process begins early in the development of the policyand investigates alternative means of achieving those objectives. Public participation isnormally an important component of the process. This form of SEA is most likely to befound where there is a strong national environmental legislation and policy framework.• ‘Ad hoc mechanisms of environmental integration’ a collection of independentinstitutions and processes such as roundtables, audit committees and state of theenvironment reports. These tools often fulfil similar roles found within elements of anSEA. However, there is no systematic process providing discrete hooks into thedeveloping policy.The relevance of these models of SEA application is discussed in relation to the results of thereview of national experiences in chapter 7. The importance of understanding the underlyingparadigm of governance of the planning context to which SEA is introduced and mustinterrelate to in its application, is discussed in Emmelin and Lerman (2008). Emmelin andLerman present two competing paradigms within SEA practice, based upon experience of theSwedish system for environmental governance; i.e. environmental management and spatialplanning. The differences are based upon the grounds on which the paradigms build theirlegitimacy as well as their respective sets of legislation. Legitimacy in the environmental paradigmis seen as stemming from scientific quality of the underlying information and the principles.The basis for the plan paradigm is that governance of changes in land use and natural resourcemanagement should rest on the weighting or balancing of legitimate but not necessarilycompatible interests. A decision is seen as good and legitimate if it is reached in a processwhere interests are explicit and weighted.Emmelin and Lerman (2005) presented three different models of introduction of SEAnationally, minimalist, environmentalist and intentionalist modes of implementation.31