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

decision-making. The purpose is to explain why the SEA was effective. Using Anthony Giddens’

Structuration Theory, a frame for analysing the decision-making process was developed in chapter 5. The research focuses on two types of potential influence: the SEA working group’s influence on the structures in the decision-making arenas, and the SEA’s influence on the outcome of the decisions made. The results presented in this paragraph are structured after these.

In Hansen and Kørnøv (2010) the SEA working group’s influence on the structures in the decision-making arenas was not investigated but nevertheless it was identified, as it was pointed out by actors interviewed that the SEA secured public participation in the process.

The SEA also influenced the making process as the SEA process and the decision-making processes were coordinated, so there was interdependence between the time schedules for the two processes. In Hansen et al. (2010) it was identified that the SEA working group changed the formal structure to become enabled to influence the desired outcome, namely inclusion of environmental knowledge in decision-making.

In relation to the SEA working group’s influence on the decision outcome, Hansen (2010) found that the SEA secured the inclusion of environmental knowledge in decision-making in three out of four key decision arenas. Hansen et al. (2010) showed that the SEA’s desired outcome was inclusion of environmental knowledge in decision-making. In three out of four key decision arenas this was obtained. In one instance, the SEA did not influence constrained by structure, The SEA was used to argue the key decisions made, including the final decision on selection of the site.

Communication is a resource that can be used to influence decision-making. If used differently from the way it is supposed to be used, the formal decision-making structure is influenced.

79

Influence? No influence The SEA working group influenced

Table 7.7: SEA working group’s influence on the decision-making regarding the location of an aluminium smelter(Hansen et al. 2010)

As presented in Table 7.7, in arena 1 the communication was happening according to the formal structures and the decision was made by the actors with formal decision-making competence. The SEA working group was not included nor had it secured communication with the decision-makers at this stage of the decision-making, it did not influence the

80

decision-making and environmental knowledge was not included. In arena 2 communications also happened according to the formal structure including the SEA working group in the communication. The decision-making competence was informal as the SEA working group was given the right to formulate the part of the decision support report for the politicians which concerned the environmental assessments for the different alternatives presented. The structure was hence reshaped and the SEA working group had influence and environmental knowledge was included. In arena 3 the SEA working group is not included in the decision-making process any longer. Informal communication is happening. The decision-decision-making competence is following the formal rules. The SEA working group did not influence the process but as they had formulated the environmental part of the decision-making support report, the environmental information was carried into the arena by the other actors and thus the SEA working group indirectly influenced the decision-making as environmental knowledge was included and used to argue the decisions made. In arena 4 the SEA working group was again excluded from the process, but the decision-making support report was carried into the process by the other actors. The communication did not follow the formalised structures. The decision-making competence was delegated to the Parliament even through the Cabinet had the formal competence. The SEA report was used to argue the decision made and thereby indirect influenced was gained.

The actions of the other actors thus secured the SEA’s effectiveness, as they allowed the environmental statement to be included in its original version in the final decision support report without correcting, changing or in other way influencing the content. After the environmental information was included in the materials, the SEA working group was excluded from further communication and thereby constrained in its access to influence further. It was therefore again the interests of the other actors that carried the environmental information further on in the process. If the other actors had not been interested in promoting the environmental results, there is no guarantee that the environmental knowledge would have been accessible, as the SEA working group was not included.

Looking at the full decision-making process, it shows that the formal structures did not secure influence for the SEA working group. Environmental knowledge was included in the process, but this was not due to the structures, as the SEA working group was not included in the first or the last part of the process. Rather it was due to the other actors’ interest in promoting the environmental arguments, which were in support of the site recommended. If the environmental knowledge had been in opposition to the economic recommendations, then the actors representing the environmental considerations in the process would maybe not have had the access to influence the decision-making arenas they enjoyed in practice.

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 need for SEA in relation to implementation of new industries in Greenland. Still the result of the analysis leaves the question of why the SEA was effective.

There can be different reasons for the effectiveness of the SEA in this case. Would the SEA have been as effective, for example, if environmental impacts of significant ‘showstoppers’

had been detected? By the word ‘showstoppers’ the actors meant negative impacts considered of such high significance that implementation of the project was not possible. Or did it simply have to do with the fact that the SEA was continuously adjusted to match the

81 needs in the process? These are questions that still need attention in order to identify how impact assessments in Greenland can support decision-making processes.

The overall results indicate that accessibility of environmental information determines whether or not environmental knowledge is obtained and used. Further the power dynamics in making processes strongly influence the process. Communication and decision-making is hence often informal but still influences the structures and outcome of the decision-making process. The influence of power dynamics makes it hard to predict when and where the decision is made in practice. If environmental information is fed into the decision-making process when the decision is formally supposed to be made, according to the formal structures, there is a risk that the decision is actually already made. The formal structures are influenced by the actions of the actors. Structures are influenced during the process and are therefore not stable. To ensure that environmental knowledge is accessible at appropriate times in the decision-making process and thereby secure environmental knowledge in decision-making, it is crucial for the SEA practitioners not only to follow the structures but also to communicate with the other actors and gain an understanding of the development in the process, and to use resources to ensure that information is shared when it is needed.

82

83