Effectiveness of the aluminium SEA

Up to this point in this thesis, effectiveness has been understood and investigated as ‘direct’

effectiveness, defined in the research as inclusion of environmental knowledge in decision-making. However, during the investigation of the aluminium case, a lot of other effects were revealed as well. I have decided to include these here as they are effects which are important to bear in mind when a SEA system is implemented in Greenland because of the limited experience in general. It is therefore the identified effects, rather than the narrower concept of direct effectiveness, that is referred to and presented here, divided into direct and indirect effects.

76

Starting with the presentation of the direct effects, understood as the inclusion of environmental knowledge in decision-making, Hansen and Hansen (2008) point out, based on a review of official documents regarding the process of the aluminium SEA combined with experiences expressed by the chair of the SEA working group, that the aluminium SEA brought several positive effects, some of which are highlighted as significant. The visible effects identified in Hansen and Hansen (2008) are, first and foremost, the environmental report and the formally arguments from politicians in the decision-making, which were articulated with reference to the report. Hansen et al. (2008) and Hansen and Kørnøv (2010) develop on this and add that the visible effect of the aluminium SEA report is being the most strategic and comprehensive report carried out in Greenland, and the broadest assessment in terms of environmental concept included and number of alternatives assessed.

Hansen (2010) focuses on specifically evaluating the inclusion of environmental knowledge and it is identified that environmental knowledge was accessible and used to argue the decisions made in three out of four key decision arenas that influenced the course and the final outcome of the decision-making process.

Furthermore, the indirect effects turned out to be essential to the planning process. This means that benefits other than those related to the objective of carrying out the SEA were obtained. These effects could seem to be relevant to the governmental institutions both to identify how the most benefit is gained in relation to carrying out SEAs and also in order to achieve an outcome from the investment of resources in carrying out SEAs if they lead to a situation where a project is turned down. This would be relevant to investigate further if and when SEA legislation is implemented. Distinguishing between indirect and direct effectiveness, it is clear that all the central actors interviewed point to indirect effectiveness, for example, changes in attitudes, learning and institutional changes, as effects of major importance to both the process and the outcome. This is also confirmed by the results in Hansen et al. (2010), which showed that the formal communication structures were changed by the actions of the actors in the decision-making arenas.

In this case study, the objective of the SEA related to the planning of a site for an aluminium smelter was to provide an overall overview of relevant problems, in addition to an assessment of the potential consequences of the choice of different locations, in order to support the decision-making. As the SEA was effective in securing inclusion of environmental knowledge in three out of four key decisions in the process, understood as the actors’ short- term comprehension of environmental knowledge, and without distinguishing between different levels of inclusion, the conclusion must be that the SEA does conform to this main criterion of effectiveness, and thus also to the objective in the Greenlandic context.

When considering the results across the decision arenas, the review shows that the SEA was effective in three out of four arenas. Firstly, in relation to the assumption of presence and access to environmental knowledge, the decision-makers in three out of the four key decisions had access to environmental knowledge from the SEA, which was submitted as part of the decision support materials as well as part of presentations of the project from the government officials. The full SEA was furthermore accessible on the internet. Secondly, it was found that the SEA was used to argue the decisions made. A summary of the main results from the four key decisions is shown in Table 7.5.

77

Primary outcome 5 sites excluded Content of decision

Table 7.5: Summary of four decision arenas (Hansen 2010).

The first of the four key decisions is different from the others due to the fact that this decision was made before the preliminary results of the SEA were known. There can be several reasons for this early decision, which narrowed down the number of potential sites for the aluminium smelter. It was argued by the chair of the Administrative Coordination Group that this was due to economic interests. However, the SEA could also have influenced the exclusion of sites at this stage of the process and added to a narrower scope for the rest of the process if environmental considerations had been included at this stage. The SEA covered the whole area including all the potential sites. In this way, the same investigation was made in relation to the SEA despite the fact that some of the sites were excluded. The SEA would therefore have had the opportunity to be more effective if the process of conducting the SEA had begun earlier in relation to the planning. This could have resulted in the initial exclusion decision being based not only on technical data but also on environmental parameters. The effectiveness of the SEA both in the role of securing environmental knowledge in decision-making in the planning phase and as a facilitator of learning and institutional change indicates that there is a role for SEA in relation to the implementation of new industries in Greenland.

The results further indicate that the presence of the SEA, and thus environmental information and knowledge, in the decision-making arena as the environmental information is used to argue the decisions made in all the decisions were that environmental knowledge was accessible.

The indirect effect identified in Hansen and Hansen (2008) is increased awareness in the local society about environmental issues related to the potential aluminium smelter operation. Furthermore, the SEA led to a new approach and experience with cross-sectorial cooperation within the governmental administration, which created a shared insight in the project and the planning process, while the cooperation contributed to the effectiveness of the SEA. Finally the SEA contributed to political awareness and questions being raised regarding the need for and function of environmental assessments in Greenland (Hansen and

78

Hansen 2008). Further, Hansen (2010) points at; knowledge and understanding of environmental issues, learning, public participation, cross-sectorial cooperation, data collection from existing materials, gaining an overview of the existing knowledge, and understanding the possibilities of SEA.

7.3 Influence of SEA on decision-making regarding location of aluminium smelter