SEA IN THE CONTEXT OF LANDTUSE PLANNING

ideology of SEA, how far it has developed from its origins in EIA in order to measure theenvironmental effects of plans and programmes more effectively, to a decision-makinginstrument, that shall be integrated into, and change how decisions are made. It can beconcluded from the review that much of the discussions is literary ‘context free’, excludingreference to actual implementation and have the characteristics of a rhetoric, built on alimited empirical basis. The methodological aspects of SEA practice have been discussedsince the early days of the SEA discussion, both as a part of guidance as regards the SEAapplication, academic literature on SEA as well as international policy instruments.Notwithstanding the methodological development in the field, a perceived lack both ofsystematic evaluations and empirical investigations remains in terms of the experiences ofSEA application and the obstacles and actual effects on planning processes and planpreparations. Moreover, data regarding SEA procedures are insufficient and often incompletefor deducting lessons and capitalising on success stories (Chaker, A. et al 2006, Emmelin2006, Hilding-Rydevik 2006). When introduced to land-use planning, it can be argued that thetheoretical basis for SEA methodology is largely undeveloped, and essentially based upon theassumption that comprehensive planning is an instrumental rational decision-making process(Lawrence 2000). According to this view, SEA follows the track laid out by the environmentalplanning discourse, a track that is strongly permeated by instrumental rationality and colouredby a strong belief in the need to improve decision-making and planning with improvedinformation strategies and assumptions about the ‘value-free’ objectivity of policy analysis insupport of planning to protect environmental values. Thus, many negative characteristicsattributed to rationalism, appear equally valid for the environmental assessment process:“The EIA planning process is, for example, often autocratic and technically biased, poorly designedto match contextual characteristics and weak in planning. It, too, can be prone to artificialassumptions regarding comprehensiveness, a unitary public interest, objectivity, predictability andcontrol” (Lawrence 2000).The call for structured approaches to integrating environmental considerations, can,according to Richardson (2000), be seen in other spheres of planning in the emergence in thepost-Rio era of what could be termed ‘rational environmental planning’, where the rationaltechniques of policy analyses are used to support planning in the protection of environmentalvalues. “Examples of this is the development of techno-centric tools, including Geographic Informationsystems, computer modelling, and technically oriented project and strategic level environmental impactassessment (op.cit)”.Looking at the legal basis of the introduction of SEA in Europe, and specifically at SEAdoctrine introduced by the EU directive 2001/42/EC the objectives and the definition of thedifferent steps of the SEA process reflect a view of SEA as an instrumental tool with clearlydemarcated steps. This corresponds to the objectives of the directive of providing for a highlevel of protection of the environment and to contribute to the integration of environmentalconsiderations into the planning process. However, it is not clear how the directive’s secondlystated objective of promoting sustainable development objectives can be achieved by usingthe procedural steps outlined in the directive. The actual application, i.e. whether these stepsare applied in parallel with the planning process or in an integrated way, is however left to thediscretion of the implementers of the directive. Meanwhile, although the SEA process asdescribed in the EU directive largely builds on instrumental rationality, there are also obviousparallels between the theoretical basis for SEA and the communicative strands of planningtheory. This is e.g. reflected in the requirements for public influence in the assessmentprocess through public consultation, as well as the expectations that the outcome of theassessment shall feed into the decision-making process. The potential of communicative40