[en] Screening within Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is the first critical stage involving considerations on whether an assessment is carried out or not. Although legislation and guidance offer practitioners a legal and logical approach to the screening process, it is inevitable that discretionary judgement takes place and will impact on the screening decision. This article examines the results of discretion involved in screening of climate change plans (CCPs) in a Danish context. These years voluntary CCPs are developed as a response to the global and local emergence of both mitigation and adaptation, and the voluntary commitment by the local authorities is an indication of an emerging norm of climate change as an important issue. This article takes its point of departure in the observation that SEA is not undertaken for these voluntary CCPs. The critical analysis of this phenomenon rests upon a documentary study of Danish CCPs, interviews with a lawyer and ministerial key person and informal discussions between researchers, practitioners and lawyers on whether climate change plans are covered by SEA legislation and underlying reasons for the present practice. Based on a critical analysis of mandatory SEA and/or obligation to screen CCPs according to significance criteria, the authors find that 18 out of the 48 CCPs are mandatory to SEA and 9 would require a screening of significance and thereby potentially be followed by a SEA. In practice only one plan was screened and one was environmentally assessed. The legal, democratic and environmental consequences of this SEA practice are critically discussed. Hereunder is the missed opportunity to use the broad environmental scope of SEA to avoid a narrow focus on energy and CO₂ in CCPs, and the question whether this practice in Denmark complies with the EU Directive. -- Highlights: ► It is inevitable that discretionary judgement takes place and will impact on the screening decision. ► The article hereby calls for greater awareness of the discretion and judgement involved in SEA screening. ► Practice seemingly reveals a lack of application of SEA within climate change planning and a lack of explicit screening. ► Absence of SEAs of voluntary plans such as CCPs, have legal consequences, as well as democratic and environmental consequences. ► The vague definition of ‘administrative provision’ seems to impose the lacking SEA

[en] The implementation process involved in translating Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) intention into action is vital to an effective SEA. Many factors influence implementation and thus the effectiveness of an SEA. Empirical studies have identified and documented some factors influencing the implementation of an SEA. This research is fragmented, however, and it is still not clear what are the most critical factors of effective SEA performance, and how these relate to different stages of the implementation process or other contextual circumstances. The paper takes its point of departure in implementation theory. Firstly, we introduce implementation theory, and then use it in practice to establish a more comprehensive model related to the stages in the implementation process. Secondly, we identify the critical factors in order to see how they are related to the different stages of SEA or are more general in character. Finally we map the different critical factors and how they influence the overall results of an SEA. Based on a literature review, we present a comprehensive picture of the critical factors and where they are found in the process. We conclude that most of the critical factors identified are of a more general character influencing the SEA process as such, while only one out of four of these factors relates to the specific stages of the SEA. Based on this mapping we can sketch a picture of the totality of critical factors. In this study 266 notions of critical factors were identified. Seen at the level of notions of critical factors, only 24% of these relate to specific stages while for 76% the critical factors are of a more general nature. These critical factors interact in complex ways and appear in different combinations in different stages of the implementation process so tracing the cause and effect is difficult. The pervasiveness of contextual and general factors also clearly suggests that there is no single way to put SEA into practice. The paper identifies some of the critical factors for effective SEA implementation, but further research is still needed to conclude which factors are more critical than others, just as the contingencies on which they depend are not easy to unravel. - Highlights: ► The research on critical factors influencing SEA implementation is fragmented. ► The critical factors are used to discuss “hot‐spots” in the implementation process. ► Critical factors are just as broad as the concept of effectiveness. ► Both stage and general factors are relevant in explaining the effectiveness of SEA.

[en] In the last decades, China has introduced a set of indicators to guide the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) practice. The most recent indicator system proposed in 2009 is based on sector-specific guidelines and it found its justification in past negative experiences with more general guidelines (from 2003), which were mostly inspired by, or copied from, international experiences. Based on interviews with practitioners, researchers and administrators, we map and analyse the change in the national guidelines. This analysis is based on a description of the indicators that makes it possible to discern different aggregation levels of indicators and then trace the changes occurring under two sets of guidelines. The analysis also reveals the reasons and rationales behind the changes found in the guidelines. This analysis is inspired by implementation theory and a description of some of the more general trends in the development of SEA and other environmental policies in a recent Chinese context. Beside a more top-down, intentional approach specifying indicators for different sectors based on Chinese experiences from the preceding years, another significant change, following the new guidelines, is a more bottom-up approach which gives more discretion to practitioners. This entails a call for practitioners to make decisions on indicators, which involves an interpretation of the ones present in sector guidance. Highlights: • Focusing on the new Chinese national SEA guidelines proposed in 2009 • Mapping and analysing the most recent change in the indicator system • Revealing the reasons and rationales behind the changes found in the new guidelines • A top-down intention specifying indicators for different sectors • A bottom-up effect in giving discretion and interpretation of using indicators

[en] Indicators have become one of the primary tools for Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) in the Chinese context, but what does this use of indicators mean for communication within the SEA processes? This article explores how the selection and use of indicators influence the communication between different stakeholders involved in SEA. The article provides a conceptual communication model covering directions and level of communication. Using this model on empirical findings from interviews with two specific SEA cases and from general experience collected through an online survey, the results suggest that indicators are used mainly in internal communication although a change of approach, with more external communication and stakeholder engagement, is taking place as a consequence of working with indicators in the SEA. However, the external communication mainly involves the experts and other relevant sectors (planning, energy, land use, forestry, etc.), the involvement of the public and NGOs is still not well implemented in Chinese SEA practice, and the direction of communication is mainly one-way channel of providing information rather than a two-way channel of dialogue and participation. Highlights: • Exploring indicators' influence on the communication in SEA with Chinese experience. • Providing a conceptual model covering directions and level of communication in SEA. • Empirical findings from two specific SEA cases and collected general experience. • The external communication mainly involves the experts and other sectors. • More one-way information provision than two-way dialogue and participation

[en] Cumulative effects (CE) assessment is lacking quality in impact assessment (IA) worldwide. It has been argued that the strategic environmental assessment (SEA) provides a suitable IA framework for addressing CE because it is applied to developments with broad boundaries, but few have tested this claim. Through a case study on the Danish mining sector, this article explores how plan boundaries influence the analytical boundaries applied for assessing CE in SEA. The case was studied through document analysis in combination with semi-structured group interviews of the responsible planners, who also serve as SEA practitioners. It was found that CE are to some extent assessed and managed implicitly throughout the planning process. However, this is through a focus on lowering the cumulative stress of mining rather than the cumulative stress on and capacity of the receiving environment. Plan boundaries do influence CE assessment, though all boundaries are not equally influential. The geographical and time boundaries of the Danish mining plans are broad or flexible enough to accommodate a meaningful assessment of CE, but the topical boundary is restrictive. The study indicates that collaboration among planning authorities and legally appointed CE leadership may facilitate better practice on CE assessment in sector-specific SEA contexts. However, most pressing is the need for relating assessment to the receiving environment as opposed to solely the stress of a proposed plan.

[en] 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 Scott's 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. - Highlights: ► Synergies between climate change mitigation, adaptation and other environmental concerns are not addressed in Danish SEA. ► Institutional explanations relate to organisational set-ups and understandings of climate change as a new planning issue. ► The paper points to a need for developing SEA to include climate change in a more systematic and integrated manner.

[en] Impact assessment (IA) tools are targeted at decisions and decision-making in theory and in practice. Often described as decision support instruments, most IA are driven by the grand purpose of providing for informed decision-making. In practice this often means IA tends to be more concerned with the information to be provided than with the outcomes of IA and its relevance to the decision(s), and decision-makers(s) to which it should be targeted. Decisions and decision-making are, however, understood in many different ways, and actors involved in decision-making may therefore act widely different with diverse results. Therefore, distinguishing which decisions, and to which decision-makers IA are targeted at, is arguably indispensable to enhance IA effectiveness. Based on an overview of decision-making theory, this paper searches for the understanding of decision and decision-making in IA by exploring how it is conceived in guidance documents. Guidance documents have a prominent role in defining IA practice, and the explicit and implicit recognition of decision-making in guidance is therefore relevant to investigate in order to understand how IA relates to decision-making. With a focus on guidance documents related to the European Union Directive on environmental assessment of plans and programmes, this paper scrutinises four guidance documents and discusses the implications of the identified understandings of decision-making to the practice of IA. The key finding of this paper is that legislation-oriented guidance documents appear to miss to reflect the different forms of decision-making, and primarily depicts decision-making as a single, often timeless and faceless moment. The implications for practice are discussed including reflection on how to describe the nature of decision-making in guidance documents.

[en] This article is concerned with how Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) practice handles climate change uncertainties within the Danish planning system. First, a hypothetical model is set up for how uncertainty is handled and not handled in decision-making. The model incorporates the strategies ‘reduction’ and ‘resilience’, ‘denying’, ‘ignoring’ and ‘postponing’. Second, 151 Danish SEAs are analysed with a focus on the extent to which climate change uncertainties are acknowledged and presented, and the empirical findings are discussed in relation to the model. The findings indicate that despite incentives to do so, climate change uncertainties were systematically avoided or downplayed in all but 5 of the 151 SEAs that were reviewed. Finally, two possible explanatory mechanisms are proposed to explain this: conflict avoidance and a need to quantify uncertainty

[en] Debates concerning the relation between Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and environmental assessment (EA) have long suggested their integration in some form. The purpose of this paper is to go beyond conceptual debates to explore practices of environmental impact assessment and strategic environmental assessment in terms of how they change in response to the Agenda 2030. A thorough web search for EA reports integrating SDGs resulted in 45 cases from five continents, which were then analyzed using a framework on levels of integration to examine and reflect on practice. The results show that in the majority of reports, SDGs are merely mentioned with no further function, that there is a trend towards focusing on positive impacts and that there is a high variation in how contributions to SDGs are assessed and displayed. The paper concludes by identifying key directions for further research, such as ways to further understand practices and to close the gap between theoretical considerations and EA practice.

[en] During the discussion on the “Environmental Protection Law Amendment (draft)” in 2011, it was decided to drop the proposed clauses related to environmental impact assessments (EIAs) on policy, which means that there remained no provisions for policy EIAs, and China's strategic environmental assessment system stayed limited to the planning level. However, considering that economic policy making is causing significant direct and indirect environmental problems and that almost every aspect of governmental policy has an economic aspect, EIAs on economic policies are of the utmost urgency. The purpose of this study is to review the EIA work that has been carried out on trade policy in China through four case studies, and illustrate how trade policy EIAs can be helpful in achieving better environmental outcomes in the area of trade. Through the trade policy EIA case studies we try to argue for the feasibility of conducting EIAs on economic policies in China. We also discuss the implications of the case studies from the point of view of how to proceed with EIAs on economic policy and how to promote their practice. - Highlights: • SEA system is incomplete and stays limited to the plan EIA level in China. • EIA on economic policy is of utmost importance for all the developing countries. • Four case studies of trade policy EIA in China are reviewed for policy implications. • Departmental competition for political power impedes economic policy EIAs in China. • Legislative regulation on policy EIA is the first thing needed to overcome barrier