The role of participation in the planning process: examples from Sweden

ABSTRACT

Participation in decision-making has successively developed into a guiding principle at both EU and national level. However, diverse perspectives exist on what the role of different interests in participative processes should be, and the legal rules regarding participation varies between different sectors; from clearly defined to virtually non-existent requirements. This may have adverse effects on the legitimacy of decisions and decision-making. This paper reviews the role of participation in the planning process in relation to natural resource development in Sweden, as guided by EU and international law. Based on the notion of effective participation, the study illustrates the potential clashes that may result from different conceptions of participation, for instance, at various levels of governance, as well as from disparate principles for implementation in different sectors.

KEYWORDS:

• Participation
• legitimacy
• planning
• land use
• Sweden

View correction statement:

Erratum

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID

Maria Pettersson http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0767-4908

Notes

1. The approach of public participation has been derived from philosophy in order to supplement the political process. In this sense, participation has its roots in participation theory, which is anchored by the democratic values that since government is derived from the people, all citizens have the right to influence governmental decisions and the government should respond to them (Spyke 1999). These views are derived from “classical” theorists of participatory democracy such as Rousseau, John Stuart Mill, and G. D. H. Cole, and focuses on the relation between government and its constituency (Pateman 1970). However, this ideal of involving broader groups than those directly responsible for making the decision has more recently been applied not only in policy but also in business and in the prioritisation of scientific research aims. One has thus come to speak of stakeholders, generally seen as those individuals or socially organised groups who are affected by, “have a stake in”, a certain issue or decision whatever authoritative body and field this may be related to (Van de Kerkhof and Wieczorek 2003).

2. EU Regulations, on the other hand, are directly applicable and binding in all parts; they “become” national law once they are adopted (Ch. 2, part. 1, Art. 288 TEUF).

3. Under the Swedish law, the government issues regulations on the activities and actions that should always be assumed to have significant environmental impacts (Ch. 6, s. 4a, Environmental Code). See s. 3 in the Ordinance (1998:905) on environmental impact assessment.

4. Regulations on the plans or programmes that should always be assumed to have significant environmental impacts are issued by the government (Ch. 6, s. 11, Environmental Code). See s. 4 in the Ordinance (1998:905) on environmental impact assessment.

5. The authorities referred to here are further specified in the government’s regulations in relation to this assessment. Accordingly, County Administrative Boards, municipalities and other authorities affected by the plan shall be given the opportunity to make a statement. In the case of plans and programs at the national level, the consultation circuit instead includes the Environmental Protection Agency, the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management and other relevant government administrative agencies (s. 6, Ordinance (1998:905)).

6. Under the Swedish law, the municipalities have a so-called planning monopoly, which entails that planning the use of land and water is a municipal concern (Ch. 1, s. 2 Planning- and Building Act). The municipal self-government is also evident by constitutional provisions (see Ch. 1, s. 1 Instrument of Government).

7. A similar consultation with reindeer husbandry is required under market-based certification systems that forestry actors themselves sign up for, however, with a similar caveat that makes these consultative rather than, for instance, possible to appeal (e.g. FSC 2009).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research (MISTRA) Arctic Sustainable Development Programme.