Sanne Vammen Larsen

Mind the gap in SEA: An institutional perspective on why assessment of synergies amongst climate change mitigation, adaptation and other policy areas are missing

Abstract This article takes its point of departure in two approaches to integrating climate change into Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA): Mitigation and adaptation, and in the fact that these, as well as the synergies between them and other policy areas, are needed as part of an integrated assessment and policy response. First, the article makes a review of how positive and negative synergies between a) climate change mitigation and adaptation and b) climate change and other environmental concerns are integrated into Danish SEA practice. Then, the article discusses the implications of not addressing synergies. Finally, the article explores institutional explanations as to why synergies are not addressed in SEA practice. A document analysis of 149 Danish SEA reports shows that only one report comprises the assessment of synergies between mitigation and adaptation, whilst 9,4% of the reports assess the synergies between climate change and other environmental concerns. The consequences of separation are both the risk of trade-offs and missed opportunities for enhancing positive synergies. In order to propose explanations for the lacking integration, the institutional background is analysed and discussed, mainly based on Scotts theory of institutions. The institutional analysis highlights a regulatory element, since the assessment of climate change synergies is underpinned by legislation, but not by guidance. This means that great focus is on normative elements such as the local interpretation of legislation and of climate change mitigation and adaptation. The analysis also focuses on how the fragmentation of the organisation in which climate change and SEA are embedded has bearings on both normative and cultural–cognitive elements. This makes the assessment of synergies challenging. The evidence gathered and presented in the article points to a need for developing the SEA process and methodology in Denmark with the aim to include climate change in the assessments in a more systematic and integrated manner.

SEA of river basin management plans: incorporating climate change

In, 2000 the European Parliament and the European Council passed the Water Framework Directive (WFD) to be implemented in all Member States. The consequence of the directive is that river basin management plans (RBMPs) shall be prepared which are legally subject to a strategic environmental assessment (SEA). An important environmental factor for the water sector is climate change, especially the changes it causes to the water environment. However, based on an argument of an inadequate knowledge base regarding climate change impacts, the prospect of Danish authorities including climate change in their SEAs of RBMPs is weak. In this paper the connections between climate change and water are reviewed. As a result, it is suggested that climate change needs to be considered in three ways: mitigation, adaptation and baseline adaptation.

Legitimacy building in weak institutional settings: climate change adaptation at local level in Denmark and Norway

Local strategies for adaptation to climate change in Denmark and Norway are discussed. In both countries, the national impetus for local adaptation is weak; it is largely left to local actors to take the initiative. The dynamics of the different approaches to climate-change adaptation at the local level are illuminated. Using decision-making and learning theory, we present an analytical framework to examine four cases, two in Norway and two in Denmark, which represent two different responses, i.e. anticipatory actions and obligatory actions. We find that, by bringing in knowledge and resources and engaging in persuasive communication across sectors, the presence of institutional entrepreneurs in the adaptation process plays a key role in building legitimacy for anticipatory action in the municipal organisation.

Is Environmental Impact Assessment fulfilling its potential?: The case of climate change in renewable energy projects

One of the topics receiving much attention in recent years is climate change and the potential of its integration in impact assessment, both in terms of achieving mitigation and adaptation. Renewable energy projects are part of the efforts to mitigate climate change, replacing the use of fossil fuel with CO2-neutral energy sources. A variety of these projects are subject to environmental impact assessment (EIA), which raises the following questions: What role does an impact assessment play? When is the project environmentally friendly? How are climate change-related impacts assessed in projects with inherent positive effects on climate change? This paper reviews practice, and takes up these questions based on a document study of 19 EIA reports of renewable energy projects in Denmark. The results show that climate change mitigation is included in 18 of the EIA reports reviewed, while adaptation is absent. Also, the results show an emphasis on positive impacts in the reports, and in a few cases discussions of enhancements. Identification and assessment of negative climate change impacts are less apparent. This leads to a discussion of the results in the light of the purpose of EIA.

Social Impact Assessment in Europe: A Study of Social Impacts in Three Danish Cases

Social impact assessment (SIA) is applied worldwide to assess social impacts of plans and projects. In Europe, directives on environmental assessment (EA) require attention to social impacts, however, there is a need to investigate the implementation in practise. To this end, we study three Danish cases, which are characterised by debates and conflicts on social issues. Analysis of the EA statements shows inclusion of a broad range of social impacts. However, the EAs do not fully match the concerns of the public, and social impacts are not always analysed in depth, mitigation measures are not suggested or are postponed and the geographical distribution of impacts assessed is biased towards including negative local impacts. We discuss the scope and handling of social impacts, and possible implications. Based on this, we conclude with the view that EA might do the job of handling social impacts in Europe, if practise is improved.

How strategic environmental assessment can inform lenders about potential environmental risks

In this paper, we explore the potential for strategic environmental assessment (SEA) to be a useful tool for banks to manage environmental risks and inform lending decisions. SEA is an environmental assessment tool that was developed to assist strategic-level decision-makers, such as policy-makers, planners, government authorities and environmental practitioners in improving developmental outcomes, aiming to facilitate the transition to sustainable development. We propose that SEA may also be a valuable tool for banks because it has the capacity to provide information about environmental risks at a time when it can be used as an input to bank lending decisions, which can assist banks in making lending decisions with better environmental outcomes. For these reasons, we argue that in some circumstances, and particularly for project finance transactions, SEA may be a more useful environmental assessment tool for lenders than environmental impact assessment, which many banks are currently relying on to help assess and mitigate environmental risks. Furthermore, we suggest that the use of SEA by banks would contribute to the sustainability goals of SEA.

Use of scenarios and strategic planning to explore an uncertain future in Greenland

Greenland is facing unpredictable changes due to ongoing exploration in the extractive sector. More exploration applications than ever are being submitted to the Greenlandic authorities and development trends are therefore hard to determine. Based on the challenge of securing strategic planning in the Greenlandic context, this article examines scenario building as a planning tool. An empirical study that uses local stakeholder input identifies nine primary driving forces to frame and setup four scenarios for potential Greenland futures. The study also demonstrates that there are significant barriers for strategic planning. These are related to creating an inclusive process, reaching agreement on values and content of the scenarios and securing coordination, ownership and commitment among the stakeholders.

The challenges of risk society for impact assessment

This paper takes its point of departure in Ulrich Beck’s theory of risk society and the aspects that characterise this society. The paper puts forward a hypothesis, on which theoretical challenges the characteristics of risk society pose to impact assessment as a decision support tool; namely, the challenge of delivering assessments and predictions and the challenge of handling differences of opinion and debate. Through a case example of integration of climate change in strategic environmental assessment, the paper uses empirical evidence from a survey and a series of interviews to carry out a preliminary discussion of how the theoretical challenges are reflected in practice. The case study results show that the challenge of delivering assessments and predictions in a risk society is reflected in the current state of practice, while the challenge of handling differences of opinion and debate is not clearly reflected.

The mitigation hierarchy upside down - A study of nature protection measures in Danish infrastructure projects

Abstract This paper presents a Danish study of mitigation directed at nature protection in environmental impact assessment (EIA) of infrastructure projects. The study is based on a document analysis of EIA reports, a workshop held with EIA professionals, and a study of two cases. The paper takes a point of departure in the mitigation hierarchy as a central conceptual framework, identifies which mitigation measures have been suggested in the EIA reports, and compares this to the mitigation hierarchy. Further, the paper explores the dynamics behind which mitigation measures are chosen and later implemented. The findings point to a discrepancy between the prevention principle embedded in the mitigation hierarchy and the actual EIA practice with increased use of nature compensation. Further, the research reveals significant variation in the design of mitigation measures, e.g. in the level of detail used in describing them and the level of clarity as to aims and actions.