SEA screening practice and the inclusion of environmental objectives in Swedish energy and climate planning

ABSTRACT

In municipal energy planning, climate change is a key concern. Additionally, a multitude of environmental impacts and associated objectives also need to be addressed. Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) should increase environmental consideration in planning, including that of national environmental objectives. This paper investigates the SEA screening practice and its effect on the execution of SEA as well as the inclusion of national environmental objectives in Swedish energy and climate planning. The results show that due to low execution and quality of screening, SEA is seldom conducted. However, environmental objectives in which synergies and conflicts can occur in relation to the climate objective were more often included in policy documents when environmental assessment had been conducted, thus indicating that they are incorporated into the basis for planning and decision-making in those processes. If SEA can highlight local co-benefits through this approach, it can facilitate building local support for climate action.

KEYWORDS:

• Strategic Environmental Assessment
• energy planning
• climate strategy
• environmental objectives
• goal conflicts
• sustainable development

Introduction

Given that 2015–2019 were the five years with the highest recorded global average temperatures, measured at ∽1.1°C above pre-industrial levels (World Meteorological Organization 2020), the need to combat climate change has been widely acknowledged. Local communities and their energy and climate planning are recognised as vital components in the decarbonisation process (Pasimeni et al. 2014). In addition to climate change, there are a multitude of anthropogenic environmental impacts, such as biodiversity decline, eutrophication and acidification that need to be mitigated and kept within certain boundaries (Steffen et al. 2015). It is therefore important to adopt a broad scope and consider a wide range of environmental factors in energy and climate planning in order to ensure that the intended actions facilitate development within these environmental boundaries (Wheeler 2016). However, measures for the achievement of different environmental objectives might not necessarily create synergies; even if the objectives themselves are not in conflict, actions for reaching these objectives might stand in conflict (Hildingsson and Johansson 2016).

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is a planning tool that can be defined as a systematic process with the aim of assessing the environmental impacts of policies, plans, and programmes in order to ensure that they are appropriately considered in strategic decision-making (Wood and Djeddour 1992; Fischer and Onyango 2012). Within the EU, the use of Strategic Environmental Assessment is regulated through the directive on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, also referred to as the SEA Directive (EU Directive 2001/42/EC). This Directive stipulates that the findings of the SEA process should be disseminated in an environmental report. Information to be communicated in the report includes ‘environmental protection objectives, established at international, Community or Member State level, which are relevant to the plan or programme and the way those objectives and any environmental considerations have been taken into account during its preparation’ (EU Directive 2001/42/EC, Annex I (e)).

Further, some of the general benefits of SEA include ‘identifying strategic decision paths, revealing conflicting goals and evaluating how the goals are fulfilled’ (Emilsson et al. 2004, p. 137–138). If potential conflicts among objectives are identified, an SEA should aim to find multiple reinforcing gains through alternative solutions and only address trade-offs among the objectives as a last resort (Gibson 2006). For SEA to be able to bring added value to the planning and decision-making processes, it has been identified as essential that the SEA is initiated as early as possible (e.g. Partidário 2012). Then, it can lead to consideration of environmental issues early on in planning (Tetlow and Hanusch 2012). It also enables the SEA to be more strategic (i.e. exploring alternate future pathways or even shaping enabling institutional settings) instead of merely ensuring compliance or reactively assessing impacts (Noble and Nwanekezie 2017).

In the EU, an SEA is required for all plans that could be considered to bring significant environmental effects by setting the framework for future development consent of projects covered by the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive. A variety of criteria concerning characteristics of i) the plan/programme itself, ii) the potential effects and iii) the area likely to be affected should be considered in order to determine whether the plan/programme is likely to have significant environmental effects and if an SEA is therefore required (EU Directive 2001/42/EC, Annex II). If an SEA is regarded as a fruitful planning instrument, it can also be used voluntarily for its potential added value (Stoeglehner et al. 2010). For plans and programmes where an SEA might be required, a screening should be performed in which it should be decided whether or not an SEA has to be performed based on legislative requirements (Bidstrup 2017). Thus, this screening stage is decisive for the initiation of the entire SEA process and therefore determines whether legal requirements to consider national environmental objectives will apply to the planning process. Nevertheless, little research illuminating the practical application of the screening stage has been carried out (Bidstrup 2017).

Similar to many other countries, Sweden is grappling with the process of transitioning to a sustainable energy system while simultaneously fulfilling overarching, national environmental objectives. The practice of Swedish energy and climate planning is changing, for example, through increasing efforts to address climate change mitigation (Wretling et al. 2018), as well as practitioners still adapting to the SEA requirements imposed 15 years ago (Balfors et al. 2018). These trends are also likely to be recognised by other local governments outside of Sweden, as SEA legislation is present in all EU countries and numerous local governments have voluntarily adopting local energy and climate action plans, e.g. under the umbrella of the Covenant of Mayors (Kona et al. 2018). Kørnøv and Wejs (2013) showed that voluntarily adopted climate change plans often lacked an SEA despite it being legally required, and they call for further research into the mechanisms that influence the decision for considering a plan to require SEA by having significant impacts. Thus, an investigation of the presence of as well as reasoning and arguments presented in SEA screenings within the dichotomy of statutory and voluntary energy and climate planning in another EU country (i.e. Sweden) can provide further insights regarding these mechanisms and their effect on the execution of SEA in the fluid and shifting landscape of local energy and climate planning.

However, up until the development of a Swedish National Energy and Climate Plan in 2020 (Government of Sweden 2020) as stipulated by the EU Regulation on the governance of the energy union and climate action (EU Regulation 2018/1999), Sweden has been lacking a national energy plan. Even with this national energy and climate plan in place, Swedish energy policy is still not being subject to SEA at the national level. In consequence, the environmental appraisal of Swedish energy policy and planning is mainly carried out at the municipal level. This notion underlines the important role of SEA in the context of municipal energy planning for leading towards enhanced environmental considerations and reduced climate impact. Furthermore, as SEA can be a vehicle for considering other relevant sustainability objectives, including both national and international ones (e.g. the Sustainable Development Goals), an in-depth probe into the relationship between use of SEA and inclusion of Swedish national environmental objectives can provide relevant insights for a broader audience.

This paper presents results from a research project called STEP – Strengthen Municipal Energy Planning, in which Swedish municipal energy and climate planning has been studied. The overall aim of this paper is to contribute to the knowledge and understanding of the ongoing transitions in practice regarding the use of SEA and the inclusion of national environmental objectives within Swedish municipal and regional energy and climate planning. More specifically, the paper aims i) to analyse the role of SEA screening and its effect on SEA practice and ii) to examine the textual inclusion of national environmental objectives in municipal and regional policy documents.

Energy and climate planning and related environmental assessment requirements in Sweden

The need for local energy and climate action encompasses the Swedish municipalities which, due to their autonomy and broad responsibilities, are considered to be vital to Sweden’s climate change mitigation efforts (Gustafsson and Mignon 2019). Besides sovereignty with regard to land use planning (Högström et al. 2018), the municipalities are instructed by the Act on Municipal Energy Planning to have a Municipal Energy Plan (MEP) for the provision of energy (1977:439). The Act was adopted in 1977 in response to the global energy crisis with the intention of securing the energy supply (Stenlund Nilsson and Mårtensson 2003). In the 2000s, governmental incentives spurred the voluntary adoption of Municipal Energy and Climate Strategies (MECSs) (Gustafsson et al. 2015), and it has been shown in recent decades that the aim of Swedish municipal energy planning practice has gradually shifted towards climate change mitigation (Wretling et al. 2018). The content of policy documents prepared within municipal energy and climate planning may vary from case to case. However, a survey concerning MEPs/MECSs conducted by Gustafsson et al. (2015) indicates that transportation, spatial planning and the provision and distribution of renewable energy are some of the themes that are commonly addressed.

Apart from the municipalities, another actor within Sweden’s energy and climate planning is the county administrative boards, which are the regional representatives of the central government, with the primary task of coordinating and supervising central government activities in their respective counties (Bäck 2011). From 2008 onwards, the county administrative boards, which traditionally had been rather passive within strategic energy and climate work, have been instructed by the central government to develop Regional Climate and Energy Strategies (RCESs) through the annual letter of appropriation (Palm and Thoresson 2014). These RCESs should be developed in cooperation with relevant stakeholders as part of the county administrative boards’ strategic efforts to lead the transition to a decarbonised energy system (Ibid.). Thus, many changes have occurred within energy and climate planning in Sweden since the turn of the millennia.

Within Swedish energy and climate planning, the legal requirements for environmental assessment differ between statutory MEPs and non-statutory MECSs and RCESs. In 1991, requirements for environmental assessment were introduced into the Swedish Act on Municipal Energy Planning (1977:439) through Government Bill 1990/91:90. The act now stipulates that all MEPs should include an Analysis of the Plan’s Impact on the Environment (APIE), an analysis without any procedural requirements or other requirements concerning what information this analysis should contain. Thus, the APIE is an assessment tool but not as comprehensive as an SEA. The APIE was initially referred to by a term that currently is used in the Swedish Environmental Code (1998:808) when referring to both an environmental report resulting from the execution of SEA and an Environmental Impact Statement resulting from the performance of EIA.

MEPs are covered by the SEA Directive (EU Directive 2001/42/EC) and SEA screening requirements were imposed in 2004. Thus, an SEA should be performed in accordance with the Environmental Code (1998:808) if this is needed according to the SEA screening. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (2010) states that Municipal Energy Plans generally fulfil the criteria for having the potential to have significant environmental effects and that, in principle, they should always be subject to environmental assessment. In the environmental report that should be prepared when conducting an SEA, information regarding how relevant National Environmental Quality Objectives (NEQOs) are taken into consideration should be included (1998:808). Thus, the SEA screening stage becomes a key step regarding whether or not legal requirements for considering NEQOs will be triggered in the planning and environmental assessment process. Regarding MECSs and RCESs, there are no explicit requirements for any form of environmental assessment since they are non-statutory. Nonetheless, SEA can still be conducted voluntarily for its potential added value in the planning process (Stoeglehner et al. 2010).

National Environmental Quality Objectives in Sweden

In 2001, the Swedish Parliament adopted 15 National Environmental Quality Objectives that should pave the way for sustainable development, with an additional objective concerning biodiversity added in 2005 (Emmelin and Cherp 2016). All of these objectives can be seen in Table A1 in Appendix A. These NEQOs should all contribute to the overarching generational goal of Swedish environmental policy, which is to ‘hand over to the next generation a society in which the major environmental problems in Sweden have been solved, without increasing environmental and health problems outside Sweden’s borders’ (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency 2012, p. 19). The objectives are broad and should encompass all aspects relating to sustainable development, especially from an ecological and biophysical perspective (Höjer et al. 2011). They have, for example, been found to sufficiently represent the planetary boundaries (Nykvist et al. 2013).

Swedish municipalities and their multifaceted planning activities have the overall responsibility for implementing NEQOs at a local level and are key to promoting sustainable development in general (Jörby 2002). This is underlined by their sovereignty over land use planning, the so-called planning monopoly (Högström et al. 2018) and their duty with regard to energy planning (Stenlund Nilsson and Mårtensson 2003). Also of great importance for the fulfilment of NEQOs in Sweden are the county administrative boards. In addition to their responsibility for developing RCESs, county administrative boards have been responsible for promoting the fulfilment of National Environmental Quality Objectives at a regional level since the early 2000s (Swedish Government Official Reports 2015:43).

The primary aim of Swedish energy and climate planning, in practice, is to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, it has the potential to contribute to the fulfilment of the corresponding objective, Reduced Climate Impact, and partially to another objective, A Good Built Environment (as this objective, amongst others, addresses energy use and GHG emissions from the building sector) (Johansson 2012). However, there are numerous links between decarbonisation of the energy system and the other NEQOs, as shown in Appendix A. Thus, both synergies and conflicts can arise in relation to the other objectives depending on which pathways are chosen to achieve the intended transition (Hildingsson and Johansson 2016). For instance, decarbonisation of the transportation system could occur, for example, through electrification of the system or substitution with biofuels, and these different pathways would have very different effects on other objectives, such as Clean Air and Sustainable Forests (Johansson 2012). Hence, it would be beneficial to consider NEQOs in Swedish energy and climate planning in order to utilise these potential synergies across sectors and avoid any path dependencies on pathways that will impede the broader sustainability agenda constituted by these national environmental quality objectives.

Methods

Mapping of current SEA practice

A comprehensive document study has been performed in order to map the current SEA practice within Swedish energy and climate planning. In this document study, municipal policy documents, with a primary focus on energy and climate and associated environmental reports adopted from 2004 to 2015, were collected from all 290 municipalities in Sweden. The municipal policy documents collected were classified as either Municipal Energy Plans or Municipal Energy and Climate Strategies and their year of adoption was also noted (Wretling et al. 2018). In addition, Regional Climate and Energy Strategies developed and adopted by county administrative boards from 2004 to 2015 were collected in the same manner as the municipal policy documents. If multiple policy documents of the same type (i.e. MEP, MECS, RCES) were found from the same local or regional authority, only the most current policy document was included in the results.

Within the collected and classified policy documents, the existence of SEA screenings and the inclusion of an environmental report resulting from an SEA or an APIE was mapped. In order to be considered in this study as a screening, it was sufficient to include a textual statement indicating whether or not an SEA was performed and the reason for doing so. Thus, the mere inclusion of an environmental report was not sufficient. It was still necessary to state the reasons why an SEA had been performed. The paragraphs that were marked as a screening were then thematically analysed as a way to identify and analyse themes (Braun and Clarke 2006). This means that the given reasons were iteratively scrutinized and grouped due to commonalities in the arguments presented in order to discern the basis of the SEA screening decisions. This resulted in three main arguments for and eight against the need to conduct an SEA. It should be noted that a single screening statement could be coded to more than one theme in the thematic analysis.

Two criteria were established in the conducted study to enable the differentiation between an environmental report resulting from an SEA and an APIE. First, the environmental report had to contain a so-called zero alternative, i.e. an assessment of the likely future developments and related consequences if the plan was not implemented, as this is required by the Environmental Code (1998:808). Second, the environmental report had to fulfil one of the following requirements: the presence of a reference to the relevant paragraphs in the Environmental Code, or an environmental assessment section called either Environmental Report (Swedish: miljökonsekvensbeskrivning/konsekvensbeskrivning) or Strategic Environmental Assessment/Environmental Assessment (Swedish: Strategisk miljöbedömning/miljöbedömning). Environmental assessments that did not meet the criteria for being noted as an SEA were noted as an APIE per Act 1977:439 if they met the two following criteria (as discerned in the government bill preceding the introduction of these requirements (Government Bill 1990/91:90)): i) The analysed impacts are those of the proposed plan and/or measures and activities stated in the plan and not a general analysis of the environmental impacts caused by the energy system as a whole. ii) A clear link to an environmental impact or a National Environmental Quality Objective was required. For example, it was not sufficient to state that there would be a reduction of a certain type of emissions, e.g. NO_x, unless it related to an impact or NEQO, e.g. acidification or the objective Natural Acidification Only. If neither criterion was met for SEA nor APIE, the document was classified as lacking an environmental assessment.

In addition to some descriptive statistics, a Pearson’s chi-squared test was performed to examine whether the legal requirements for SEA and APIE affected the proportion of municipal policy documents for which these had been conducted. This question was investigated with the aid of statistical software R (R Core Team 2017). For further details, see Appendix B.

Text analysis of National Environmental Quality Objectives

In order to examine the inclusion of Swedish National Environmental Quality Objectives in the policy documents studied, a text analysis of the documents was carried out. In the analysis, a computer-based full-text search of the objectives was conducted using their Swedish spelling. Some plausible forms of hyphenation for words longer than five letters were also included in the text search, although only one hyphen was used per search string. For each policy document, the occurrence of the respective objective was noted. The policy documents with an associated SEA were then compared with those that had an APIE and those without an SEA or APIE. It was not possible to perform a computer-based text search on 14 of the collected municipal policy documents since they were scanned paper copies. Thus, the results from the text analysis are based on the remaining 212 MEPs and MECSs as well as 21 RCESs. Descriptive statistics were derived from this full-text search and are presented in the Results section. Lastly, a Wilcoxon rank-sum test was performed to investigate whether there is a significant relationship between the use of impact assessment (i.e. either SEA or APIE) and the inclusion of NEQOs in the municipal policy documents studied. This statistical test was conducted in R (R Core Team 2017).

Interviews

Semi-structured interviews (Kvale and Brinkmann 2014) were conducted with eight municipal energy planners representing eight different municipalities in order to contextualise the quantitative results. The municipalities show differences in terms of both geographical location and population size. Three of these municipalities had conducted an SEA, one municipality had conducted an APIE and half of them had not performed any environmental assessment for their Energy Plan/Energy and Climate Strategy. The interviews followed an interview guide with 10 overarching questions and 24 follow-up questions mainly addressing their energy and climate planning in terms of how the planning process was designed, targets and content of the plan, involvement of stakeholders, link to land use planning and use of SEA. The overarching question concerning the use of SEA and follow-up questions was adapted to whether SEA had been executed in the municipalities’ most recent energy and climate planning process, as can be seen in Table A2 in Appendix A. The interviews were recorded and transcribed.

Results

Application of screening and execution of SEA

The mapping of the screening practice shows that SEA screening was carried out in 51 of the 226 municipal policy documents studied (22%), whereas no screening statement had been included in the RCESs. Out of these 51 policy documents, merely two were Municipal Energy and Climate Strategies with the remainder being Municipal Energy Plans. Only 10 of the screenings concluded that an SEA was needed. The views of the interviewees confirm that screening is often lacking in energy and climate planning processes. Interviews with officials from municipalities that did not perform an SEA showed that only one municipality had conducted a screening. In this municipality, the interviewee had discussed the necessity of an SEA with a superior. The interviewee and the superior concluded that an SEA was not required but did not state this screening decision in written form. The interviewee from the municipality that had conducted an APIE was unaware of the specific requirements for an SEA in the Environmental Code and had therefore not conducted one. None of the municipalities that were lacking an SEA had consulted the county administrative board during screening, nor did their respective county administrative boards make any remarks regarding the lack of environmental reports/screenings in the county administrative boards’ review. However, for one of the interviewed municipalities that initially was lacking an environmental report during the consultation of the plan, this absence was indeed addressed by the county administrative board. This comment, in turn, caused the interviewee to initiate the SEA process.

Of the interviewees who had conducted a screening, one argument for performing an SEA was that there is a statutory requirement to perform an SEA for Energy Plans, whereas the argument against conducting an SEA given by another interviewee was that there would be no significant environmental effects. Both of these arguments could also be discerned in the thematic analysis of all the screenings included in the policy documents studied, which are presented in Figure 1. Examples of these different themes are also provided in Table A3 in Appendix A.

Figure 1. Arguments for conducting/not conducting an SEA in the performed screenings

As shown in Figure 2, SEA is lacking for all policy documents except Municipal Energy Plans, for which eleven environmental reports were identified due to the execution of SEA. It should, however, be highlighted that three of the SEAs were not preceded by a screening that could be identified by the authors. Subsequently, two of the MEPs containing screenings that concluded an SEA was necessary were registered as having performed an APIE, as their environmental reports did not meet the criteria established in the study. Moreover, of the 176 MEPs, approximately 31% had an APIE, leaving more than 60% without any environmental assessment. Regarding the 50 MECSs, 12% had included an APIE. The Pearson’s chi-squared test found a significant relationship between the type of municipal policy document and the execution of either SEA or APIE. χ2 (1 df, N = 226) = 11.66, p < 0.001 (Appendix B). Thus, the municipalities were less likely to conduct an SEA or an APIE for Municipal Energy and Climate Strategies than for Municipal Energy Plans. The lowest shares, however, were found within the 21 Regional Climate and Energy Strategies in which neither SEAs nor APIEs could be identified, as can be seen in Figure 2.

Figure 2. SEA or APIE per type of policy document

The titles of the identified SEAs and APIEs indicate some similarities and overlaps in environmental assessment practice. The titles of all eleven environmental reports could be characterised by the three following key phrases: i) environmental assessment, ii) impact assessment and iii) environmental report (miljöbedömning, konsekvensbedömning and miljökonsekvensbeskrivning respectively in Swedish). These same key phrases were found in the titles for 26 of the 61 APIEs. Figure 3 shows the temporal development of the use of SEA and APIE at a municipal level. The figure displays some oscillations concerning the share of SEA/APIE, although it does show an upward trend at the end for SEA as ten of the eleven identified SEAs were conducted from 2012 onwards.

Figure 3. SEAs/APIE performed for MEPs and MECSs per year

Inclusion of National Environmental Quality Objectives

Figure 4 shows the inclusion of Swedish National Environmental Quality Objectives in energy and climate-related policy documents at a municipal and regional level. When examining the median values of NEQOs included per policy document, the median value for Municipal Energy Plans with an associated SEA was eight NEQOs while the median value for Municipal Energy Plans and Municipal Energy and Climate Strategies with an APIE was 4. Lastly, the municipal policy document with no SEA/APIE had a median value of 1.5. A Wilcoxon rank-sum test shows that the municipal policy documents with either SEA or APIE have a significantly higher median value for the inclusion of NEQOs when comparing them as a joint group against municipal policy documents with no form of impact assessment [W = 3635.5, p < 0.001 (Appendix B)]. Regarding Regional Climate and Energy Strategies, the inclusion of NEQOs is generally lower than it is for municipal policy documents that were also lacking SEA/APIE, with the two objectives, Reduced Climate Impact and A Good Built Environment, being the only exceptions (Figure 4). Textually, these objectives were also the most commonly included overall, both for municipal and regional policy documents. The median value of the number of included NEQOs for all the studied documents was 2.5.

Figure 4. Inclusion of NEQOs in municipal and regional policy documents, divided per SEA/APIE

According to the three interviewees who had performed an SEA, a common denominator was that the three SEAs had been initiated late in the planning process, not sooner than when a draft had been developed. Thus, the influence of the SEAs on the process and the content of the plan was limited. These three interviewees also stated that the use of SEA had not elevated the consideration of the objectives to any great extent, as this had been present earlier in the process, mainly due to the existence of environmental programmes and/or the involvement of experts. However, the environmental report reconnects with the environmental objectives for the three municipalities. According to one of the interviewees, SEA still fills an important function in highlighting environmental impacts other than the climate impact and stated that it can be useful to explain to other actors, both internally to municipal practitioners and externally to, e.g., the general public, how potential conflicts have been considered in the planning and decision-making process.

Discussion

Application of screening and execution of Strategic Environmental Assessment

There is a general lack of SEA screening statements found in the policy documents studied. As a consequence of the lack of screening and the deficient application when performed, the execution of SEA is also largely non-existent within Swedish energy and climate planning. Furthermore, even though the shares of statutory MEPs with environmental assessment can be considered low in comparison with legal requirements, they still constitute a significantly higher share of conducted SEA/APIE than non-statutory MECSs and RCESs. This is supported by the screening analysis in which almost all of the identified screening statements were found in the MEPs, and only one municipality claimed that the SEA had been conducted voluntarily. Even though this difference could be expected, this contrast nonetheless raises some questions regarding the emerging, voluntary mode of energy and climate planning. This is due to the fact that MECSs are often developed instead of the statutory MEPs, although the purpose and content of the two policy documents largely overlap in practice, i.e. within climate change mitigation (Wretling et al. 2018). Thus, the key differences lie in requirements and execution of environmental assessment. MECSs will thereby miss substantive and procedural benefits of SEA, such as aiding the consideration of environmental objectives and acting as a mechanism for stakeholder and public involvement. The possible implications of a potential revision of Swedish energy planning legislation are further discussed in the section, Legislative revisions.

The relative absence of SEA screening also observed in the statutory Municipal Energy Plans can have a variety of explanations. One explanation could be that the planners were not aware of the legislative requirements and that screening was therefore not performed, while another explanation could be that a discretionary judgement was made without revealing the reasoning behind this judgement, as is seen in the accounts of the interviewees. The thematic analysis of the arguments presented in the screenings also shows inconsistencies, inadequacies and even inaccuracies. A common argument observed was that SEA was not needed as any subsequent projects would be environmentally assessed if required, although this implicitly fulfils the decisive criteria of bringing about significant environmental effects through setting the framework for future development consent. Besides this argument, one of the most common arguments for not performing an SEA was that the environmental effects were positive, with some of these policy documents even stating that due to the urgency of climate change mitigation, any other potential negative effects were not worthy of consideration. This reasoning also fails to follow the stipulations of applicable legislation, as both positive and negative environmental effects should be taken in consideration. Our results, therefore, support the claim of Whelan and Fry (2011) that plans and programmes aiming to provide environmental benefits are often exempt from SEA, in spite of the fact that the positive outcomes are assumed rather than known and that unintended consequences can arise. Notably, since another argument identified for not performing SEA was that no standard practice exists for how to carry out an SEA process for energy plans, there appears to be a lack of knowledge in most municipalities concerning both if an SEA is needed and how to perform an SEA. Support mechanisms such as capacity building in the form of, for example, education and guidelines are likely to be necessary if a considerable increase in the execution of SEA is to be achieved.

The Swedish environmental assessment practice appears to be more fluid and overlapping than the dichotomous character of SEA and APIE in the classification might suggest. In fact, the criteria established in the methodology of the study were required in order to differentiate the use of SEA and APIE. This was initially difficult due to the subtle differences, even though the legislative requirements differ widely. To critically reflect upon our methodology, it is evident that the established criteria clearly affected the results. Nevertheless, without the ability to differentiate between these two types of impact assessments, the study would not be able to show this fluidity in practice. The titles of the identified environmental assessment sections also hint at overlaps and similarities between SEA and APIE, something that might be explained, in part, by this mixing of terminology in Swedish legislation. This overlaps, together with the upwards trend of SEAs performed at the end of the time span, indicate that energy and climate planning practice is in a phase of transition with regard to environmental assessment in which practitioners are still adapting to legislative changes made more than 15 years ago. Over time, theoretical and practical knowledge of environmental assessment may have been diffused within the municipal organisation from the comprehensive planning process in Sweden where the shares of environmental assessment have been much higher (Balfors et al. 2018), to sectoral planning practices such as energy planning. However, the gap in identified SEAs in some of the earlier parts of the time frame studied might also, in part, be explained by the fact that only the most current version of each policy document was included. A number of municipalities with the institutional capacity to perform SEA might also be more prone to perform more continuous energy and climate planning, therefore updating their policy documents several times during the period.

Inclusion of national environmental objectives

In general, the national environmental objectives are included to a higher degree when an SEA or an APIE has been performed, compared with policy documents with no environmental assessment. The fact that the inclusion of environmental objectives appears to also be elevated when an APIE has been performed, even though there are no formal requirements for this, further strengthens the picture of a more fluid and overlapping environmental assessment practice that is currently in a phase of transition. Potentially, practitioners might have drawn inspiration from environmental reports resulting from an SEA when conducting an APIE. In other instances, municipal officials might have aimed to perform an SEA but failed to include a zero alternative, thus resulting in a classification of APIE. With regard to Regional Climate and Energy Strategies, it can be seen that due to a lack of screening and the application of SEA/APIE, they also largely fail to incorporate National Environmental Quality Objectives in their strategising. If interactions among the different objectives could be addressed in this more strategic setting, knowledge could possibly have trickled down to the municipalities, thereby helping them also achieve multiple gains among some of the objectives.

Moreover, the results show that just about half of all the policy documents studied have textually included two objectives or less, which have predominantly been the objectives, Reduced Climate Impact and A Good Built Environment. In terms of their fulfilment, these objectives are the two that benefit the most from a transition to an energy system characterised by renewables and energy efficiency (Johansson 2012). Thus, there was a possibility of considering additional relevant environmental objectives in many of these planning contexts which, in turn, represent a range of impacts in which conflicts or synergies may arise. As a larger number of NEQOs were included on average when SEA or APIE were performed, such additional relevant environmental objectives were more frequently included in the policy documents with an impact assessment. This indicates that the interacting objectives were more frequently a part of the basis for planning and decision-making in the energy and climate planning processes with a joint impact assessment. The inclusion of interacting objectives can be seen as a precondition for a more elaborate consideration of potential synergies and conflicts in the planning process. Possibly, the inclusion of interacting environmental objectives might also, in some instances, have led to the attainment of multiple gains in terms of decarbonisation and other environmental objectives. In this way, SEA may have the potential to provide a mechanism deemed necessary within Swedish municipal energy and climate planning by Ivner and Hjelm (2009), namely, a mechanism to weigh between different environmental concerns and avoiding goal conflicts.

The fact that more objectives have been included in policy documents when an SEA has been performed compared with policy documents with no environmental assessment can be a vital function for Management by Objectives systems, such as the Swedish National Environmental Objectives. This role is deemed important as the NEQO system in itself does not provide any principle for handling potential goal conflicts (Edvardsson 2004), making it a task for local governments to handle such conflicts in planning and decision-making (Nilsson and Persson 2003). Additionally, the different environmental objectives are seldom incompatible on their own, but the conflicts are instead procedural in nature, i.e. they occur when actions for achieving the objectives are more concretely defined (Wandén 2007). SEA can thereby aid in addressing interactions between the objectives in the context in which conflicts most frequently arise. Reflecting on the planetary boundaries, the use of SEA and the inclusion of environmental objectives in this regard could be a stepping stone to the consideration of planetary boundaries in planning, hopefully constraining anthropogenic impacts well within these crucial boundaries. Furthermore, the UN Sustainable Development Goals lack the same internal principle for addressing goal conflicts as the Swedish NEQOs (Waage et al. 2015) and, similarly, local governments will be key actors for the implementation of Sustainable Development Goals (Fenton and Gustafsson 2017). Thus, the function of SEA to address higher-level environmental objectives could potentially have broader implications for sustainability efforts globally.

As Fenton and Gustafsson (2017), pointed out with regard to prerequisites for the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals, fulfilment of the NEQOs will likely also require regional-local, inter-municipal and intra-municipal forms for cooperation. Potentially, SEA can not only be a mechanism for incorporating relevant environmental objectives into the basis for planning and decision-making, but also be a vehicle for dialogue concerning interactions between the climate objective and other environmental objectives through stakeholder involvement in the planning process. Hypothetically, this could stimulate and coordinate actions across different sectors and on different levels, although it should be noted that this is beyond the scope of this paper.

Legislative reflections

A legislative revision that includes Municipal Energy and Climate Strategies in the Energy Planning Act (1977:439), as proposed by the Swedish Energy Agency (2011a) in 2011, would make the MECSs statutory and therefore covered by the SEA Directive. Such a legislative revision would likely increase the execution of environmental assessment for these policy documents. However, a strengthened screening practice will also be required if the execution of SEA is to become substantially more widespread within Sweden’s energy and climate planning. The screening requirements were slightly revised in 2018 (2018:955), and it is now stated that screening is not obligatory if it initially stands clear that the plan will have significant environmental impacts and a full-scale SEA thus should be carried out. However, if this is not the case, it is currently more distinctly emphasised that a screening is needed. This could have a normative impact by highlighting the fact that the execution of an SEA should be seen as a rule of thumb and by streamlining the SEA process by sidestepping the screening stage if the need for SEA is evident.

Since the revision, it is also stipulated that, e.g., the county administrative board should be consulted concerning the screening. This was not required at the time when the interviews were held, which likely explains why such consultation was lacking. The screening practice could potentially become more consistent through this consultation requirement. This effect could, however, be further strengthened if county administrative boards could be given some decisive authority over whether or not the plan/programme in question would require a full-scale SEA, a responsibility that they currently have for Environmental Impact Assessments. Given that the rationale for SEA was to counteract some of the deficiencies of only imposing EIA at a project level, for example, integrating environmental considerations earlier in the decision-making process as well as addressing large-scale and cumulative effects (Tetlow and Hanusch 2012), it seems counterintuitive not to also exert an external control mechanism for SEA.

An additional approach could be to make SEA mandatory for some (i.e. MEPs) or all policy documents prepared within Swedish energy and climate planning. This was discussed by Balfors et al. (2018) as a suitable measure for Swedish comprehensive planning. Not only would this be a strong measure for increasing the use of SEA, but it could also address the issue that the SEAs performed by the interviewees were reactive rather than proactive in character. If it is already clear that a full-scale SEA should be conducted when the energy and climate planning process is initiated, the SEA process could be initiated at the same time as the planning process. The SEA would thereby have a greater possibility to influence the content of the policy document as the two processes would be conducted in parallel, also enabling a more integrated planning and SEA approach.

Implications for energy and climate planning

As this study shows, national environmental objectives in which synergies or conflicts can occur in relation to the climate objective are more likely to be included as a basis for planning and decision-making when environmental assessment tools, such as SEA, have been utilised. Reflecting more broadly on what implications this has for local energy and climate planning, SEA may in this regard be able to provide climate change with a so-called local framing. Local framing refers to the emphasis of pressing local issues resulting from climate change as well as highlighting the potential co-benefits that climate change mitigation can entail in a local context and has been identified as a key component affecting the capacity for climate action among local governments (Ryan 2015). Due to the recent upsurge of local climate initiatives both in the EU (Kona et al. 2018) and internationally (Gordon and Johnson 2017), and given the large amount of co-benefits that could be gained from climate action (Karlsson et al. 2020), SEA can play a vital role to play in building local support both internally and externally in these processes. However, as local climate plans are only compulsory in four of the EU member countries according to Reckien et al. (2018), and this study indicates that SEA seldom is conducted for voluntarily adopted plans, this raises concerns regarding the dichotomy between voluntary and statutory local energy and climate planning in an international context as well.

Conclusions

This paper has investigated the role of SEA screening and its effect on the SEA practice as well as the inclusion of National Environmental Quality Objectives in Swedish energy and climate planning at a municipal and regional level. Firstly, this paper shows that more NEQOs are included in municipal policy documents when an impact assessment, such as SEA, has been carried out. In particular, objectives in which synergies or conflicts might occur in relation to the climate objective are included to a higher degree, which indicates that these interacting objectives more often become a part of the basis for planning and decision-making in the energy and climate planning processes where an impact assessment has been performed. In this way, SEA can potentially highlight the local co-benefits of climate action, thereby framing climate change from a local perspective, which can build local support.

Secondly, the SEA screening practice is deficient, as screening statements are seldom included in the policy documents studied and contain arguments that contravene legislative requirements, which illustrates the fact that the potential value of SEA is not fully recognised by practitioners. This leads to a low execution rate for SEA. Nevertheless, the increase in the execution of SEA at the end of the time span and the elevated inclusion of NEQOs when SEA, as well as an Analysis of the Plan’s Impact on the Environment, have been performed, show that municipal energy and climate planning practice is evolving and adapting to legislative changes imposed over the last two decades.

Thirdly, as might be expected, SEA has only been performed for statutory Municipal Energy Plans and not for non-statutory energy and climate strategies at a local and regional level. If the aim is a more widespread use of SEA in order to gain the potential added value, a revision of the Act on Municipal Energy Planning that also encompasses Municipal Energy and Climate Strategies would aid the clarification of the legal requirements of SEA within municipal energy and climate planning in Sweden. In addition, if SEA were required for all of these statutory policy documents, as they all presumably result in significant environmental effects, this could further increase the execution of SEA.

Lastly, some recommendations for future research can be provided. Given the identified need to build local capacity for the execution of SEA as well as the need for climate action to go hand in hand with other sustainability concerns, a topic for future studies could be an investigation of the suitability of an objectives-based SEA approach utilising national and/or international sustainability objectives within local energy and climate planning. Additionally, scrutinizing the dichotomy of statutory and voluntary local climate planning in terms of the execution of SEA and inclusion of environmental objectives in an international context would be a fruitful addition to this national investigation.

List of acronyms

APIE - Analysis of the Plan’s Impact on the Environment

EIA – Environmental Impact Assessment

MECS - Municipal Energy and Climate Strategy

MEP - Municipal Energy Plan

NEQO - National Environmental Quality Objective

RCES - Regional Climate and Energy Strategy

SEA - Strategic Environmental Assessment

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Swedish Energy Agency (project number 41347-1). The authors wish to thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments, which aided to improve the paper.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Energimyndigheten [41347-1].

Appendix A

Table A1. Description of Swedish Environmental Quality Objectives and their link to energy and climate planning

Objective	Definition (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency 2018)	Relation to energy and climate planning (Compiled from Johansson (2012) unless other references are given)
Reduced Climate Impact	‘In accordance with the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere must be stabilised at a level that will prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. This goal must be achieved in such a way and at such a pace that biological diversity is preserved, food production is assured and other goals of sustainable development are not jeopardised. Sweden, together with other countries, must assume responsibility for achieving this global objective.’	Strongly linked to energy production and use.
A Good Built Environment	‘Cities, towns and other built-up areas must provide a good, healthy living environment and contribute to a good regional and global environment. Natural and cultural assets must be protected and developed. Buildings and amenities must be located and designed in accordance with sound environmental principles and in such a way as to promote sustainable management of land, water and other resources.’	Linked to energy efficiency and waste management.
Clean Air	‘The air must be clean enough not to represent a risk to human health or to animals, plants or cultural assets.’	Impacted by energy production and use, e.g. the transport sector.
Zero Eutrophication	‘Nutrient levels in soil and water must not be such that they adversely affect human health, the conditions for biological diversity or the possibility of varied use of land and water.’	Linked to emissions from energy use and production of bioenergy
A Rich Diversity of Plant and Animal Life	‘Biological diversity must be preserved and used sustainably for the benefit of present and future generations. Species habitats and ecosystems and their functions and processes must be safeguarded. Species must be able to survive in long-term viable populations with sufficient genetic variation. Finally, people must have access to a good natural and cultural environment rich in biological diversity, as a basis for health, quality of life and well-being.’	Can be negatively affected by energy production, e.g. the production of bioenergy, hydropower and wind power.
Natural Acidification Only	‘The acidifying effects of deposition and land use must not exceed the limits that can be tolerated by soil and water. In addition, deposition of acidifying substances must not increase the rate of corrosion of technical materials located in the ground, water main systems, archaeological objects and rock carvings.’	Impacted by emissions from energy use and production.
Sustainable Forests	‘The value of forests and forest land for biological production must be protected, at the same time as biological diversity and cultural heritage and recreational assets are safeguarded.’	Linked to production of bioenergy.
A Varied Agricultural Landscape	‘The value of the farmed landscape and agricultural land for biological production and food production must be protected, at the same time as biological diversity and cultural heritage assets are preserved and strengthened.’	Linked to production of bioenergy. Potential negative impacts on the cultural landscape from wind power.
A Non-Toxic Environment	‘The occurrence of man-made or extracted substances in the environment must not represent a threat to human health or biological diversity. Concentrations of non-naturally occurring substances will be close to zero and their impacts on human health and on ecosystems will be negligible. Concentrations of naturally occurring substances will be close to background levels.’	Linked to the energy system, for example, through emissions of fossil fuels and waste incineration.
Flourishing Lakes and Streams	‘Lakes and watercourses must be ecologically sustainable and their variety of habitats must be preserved. Natural productive capacity, biological diversity, cultural heritage assets and the ecological and water-conserving function of the landscape must be preserved, at the same time as recreational assets are safeguarded.’	Impacted by production of hydropower.
A Safe Radiation Environment	‘Human health and biological diversity must be protected against the harmful effects of radiation.’	Linked to nuclear power.
A Protective Ozone Layer	‘The ozone layer must be replenished so as to provide long-term protection against harmful UV radiation.’	Impacted by emissions of nitrous oxide, for example, from fossil fuel combustion and burning of biofuels (Ravishankara et al. 2009)
A Magnificent Mountain Landscape	‘The pristine character of the mountain environment must be largely preserved, in terms of biological diversity, recreational value, and natural and cultural assets. Activities in mountain areas must respect these values and assets, with a view to promoting sustainable development. Particularly valuable areas must be protected from encroachment and other disturbance.’	Impacted by wind power and hydropower (Swedish Energy Agency 2011b).
Good-Quality Groundwater	‘Groundwater must provide a safe and sustainable supply of drinking water and contribute to viable habitats for flora and fauna in lakes and watercourses.’	Some potential indirect impacts from the transport sector, for example, salting of roads, as well as from production of bioenergy.
Thriving Wetlands	‘The ecological and water-conserving function of wetlands in the landscape must be maintained and valuable wetlands preserved for the future.’	Impacted by peat extraction.
A Balanced Marine Environment, Flourishing Coastal Areas and Archipelagos	‘The North Sea and the Baltic Sea must have a sustainable productive capacity, and biological diversity must be preserved. Coasts and archipelagos must be characterized by a high degree of biological diversity and a wealth of recreational, natural and cultural assets. Industry, recreation and other utilization of the seas, coasts and archipelagos must be compatible with the promotion of sustainable development. Particularly valuable areas must be protected against encroachment and other disturbance.’	Can be negatively affected by wind power.

Table A2. Questions in the interview guide relating to the execution of environmental assessment

If SEA had been executed
Describe the SEA process. Who executed the SEA? When in the planning process was the SEA initiated? Was the county administrative board consulted concerning the SEA screening? What did the SEA contribute? Did the SEA contribute to the consideration of National Environmental Quality Objectives?
If SEA had not been executed
Did you consider and discuss environmental assessment in your planning process? If so, how? Did you conduct an SEA screening? How was it conducted? What were the conclusions of the screening? Was the county administrative board consulted concerning the SEA screening?

Table A3. Arguments for conducting/not conducting an SEA in the performed screenings, with examples

SEA is conducted (n = 10)
Theme	Example (author’s translation)	Number	Share
Significant environmental effects	‘The Energy and Climate Plan also sets the framework for future consent … The implementation of the plan can thus bring significant environmental effects.’ (Skövde Municipality 2012, p. 6).	7	70%
SEA should always be conducted for Municipal Energy Plans	‘An SEA should, according to the Environmental Code, always be conducted when a municipality develops an Energy Plan.’ (Partille Municipality 2013, p. 6).	2	20%
Voluntarily conducted	‘The proposed measures are assessed as not bringing significant environmental effects … the regulatory requirements can therefore be interpreted as meaning that Vallentuna Municipality has chosen to conduct an assessment as a way of showing commitment and forward thinking’ (Vallentuna Municipality 2013, p. 7).	1	10%
SEA is not conducted (n = 41)
Theme	Example (author’s translation)	Number	Share
No significant environmental effects	‘The Energy Plan for Flen Municipality is assessed as not bringing significant environmental effects’ (Flen Municipality 2007, p. 37).	26	63%
An EIA will be conducted for any subsequent projects/actions if needed	‘For concrete measures that are a consequence of the targets in this document, an EIA in accordance with the Environmental Code will be conducted when required’ (Municipality and Municipality 2010, p. 8).	19	46%
The environmental effects are positive	‘There are few plans that are associated with so many positive elements as an Energy Plan … An Impact Assessment of the traditional kind – describing any negative effects – is difficult to handle in the climate issue. There is an inherent urgency in the matter that greatly outweighs any negative side effects’ (Eksjö Municipality 2008, p. 24).	13	32%
Environmental aspects have already been considered	‘The work on Helsingborg’s Energy Plan with regard to its process and content has, to a large extent, met the stipulated [SEA] requirements and hence no separate SEA of the Energy Plan has been conducted’ (Municipality 2014a, p. 4).	6	15%
No standard practice exists	‘New regulations state that an SEA should be carried out for certain plans, e.g. Municipal Energy Plans, but no standard practice exists that shows the meaning of this requirement.’ (Mora Municipality 2011, p. 4).	5	12%
The significant environmental effects are assessed in SEAs relating to other plans	‘Important strategic energy issues for the municipality include energy efficiency and renewable energy sources. However, these are not put into practice in the Energy Plan but in other plans and will be environmentally assessed in such plans’ (Flen Municipality 2007, p. 36).	3	7%
Non-statutory policy document	‘According to the Environmental Code, an SEA should be conducted when developing a plan which, through its implementation, can bring significant environmental effects … This Energy and Climate Programme is not a plan in this sense but rather a proposal for an action programme based on overarching targets and sub-targets in energy and climate issues’ (Municipality 2014b, p. 64).	3	7%
The planning process was initiated before legislative requirements were implemented	‘Because Nybro Municipality initiated the work on the Energy Plan prior to the legislation entering into force on 21 July 2004 and because the Energy Plan will be adopted before 21 July 2006, we do not need to make an environmental report’ (Nybro Municipality 2006, p. 4).	1	2%

Appendix B

Type of policy documents and impact assessment

To examine whether there is a relationship between the type of municipal policy document, i.e. Municipal Energy Plans and Municipal Energy and Climate Strategies, and whether or not an SEA/APIE was conducted, a Pearson’s chi-squared test was used. Input data from the test are shown in Table B1.

Table B1. Contingency table for SEAs/APIEs performed for MEPs and MECSs, which was used as input for the chi-squared test

	MEPs	MECSs	Total
SEA or APIE performed	66	6	72
No SEA/APIE	110	44	154
Total	176	50	226

The null hypothesis (H₀) is that the use of either SEA or APIE is independent of the type of policy document (MEP or MECS), whereas the alternative hypothesis (H₁) states that these variables are dependent on each other. The alpha value used is 0.05.

When running the chi-squared test in R (R Core Team 2017) without continuity correction, the results obtained are:

χ2 = 11.66, df = 1, p-value = 0.0006375. As the p-value is lower than alpha, we, therefore, reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis.

Inclusion of NEQOs and impact assessment

In order to investigate whether there is a significant relationship between the use of impact assessment (i.e. either SEA or APIE) and the inclusion of NEQOs in the municipal policy documents studied, a two-tailed Wilcoxon rank-sum test (a.k.a. Mann-Whitney U test) was performed. H₀ says that the median value for the inclusion of NEQOs for the municipal policy documents that have performed SEA or APIE equals the median value for the municipal policy documents without any impact assessment, whereas H₁ says that the two median values differ. Alpha = 0.05. The results obtained from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test were W = 3635.5, p-value = 0.00002469‬., H₀ is therefore rejected in favour of H₁.