Environmental Impact Assessment Review

22 (2002) 129 144

www.elsevier.com/locate/eiar

Environmental impact assessment a tool for

sustainable development?
A case study of biofuelled energy plants
in Sweden
Sara Bruhn-Tysk*, Mats Eklund
Environmental Technique and Management, Department of Physics and Measurement Technology,
Linkoping University, S-581 83 Linkoping, Sweden
Received 1 April 2001; received in revised form 1 November 2001; accepted 1 November 2001

Abstract
Properly performed, environmental impact assessment (EIA) is a useful tool for
promoting sustainable development because it includes many components that can help
facilitate intragenerational and intergenerational equity. In a case study, environmental
impact statements (EISs) for Swedish biofuelled energy plants are analysed to see whether
they include components vital to meet intra- and intergenerational equity, such as assessing
local and global impacts, use of resources, public influence on project development, and
alternative project design. The analysis shows that the environmental aspects of sustainable
development on a local level are only partly met by EIA. However, global effects and
effects on the management of natural resources are not assessed, excluding aspects that
may affect future generations. Based on this, and since no concerns for sustainable
development on a societal level were found, it is concluded that EIA practice in Sweden
may not, to a full extent, serve as a tool to promote sustainable development. D 2002
Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Environmental impact assessment; Sustainable development; Integrational equity;
Intergenerational equity; Energy plant

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +46-13-282-781.

E-mail address: sarbr@ifm.liu.se (S. Bruhn-Tysk).
0195-9255/02/$ see front matter D 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 9 5 - 9 2 5 5 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 1 0 4 - 4

130 S. Bruhn-Tysk, M. Eklund / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 22 (2002) 129144

1. Introduction
The Stockholm Conference in 1972 is by some (see, e.g., Mather and
Chapman, 1995) identified as a kick off for the developed worlds concerns
about the environmental effects of industrialisation. At that time, environmental
and developmental problems were usually regarded separately, and a need for
synthesis between conservation and development was beginning to appear. Some
years later, the publication by the World Commission on Environment and
Development, also known as the Brundtland Report, brought together environmental and developmental issues, i.e., integrating environmental aspects with
economic and social aspects (cf. Reid 1995). The report also emphasised
sustainable development, which, in view of the Commission, would seek to
meet the needs and aspirations of the present without compromising the ability to
meet the needs and aspirations of future generations. The Rio Conference is also
regarded as developing the concept of sustainable development further and
during the conference several major agreements were reached, among them the
Rio Declaration.
In one of its 27 principles, the Rio Declaration calls for environmental impact
assessment (EIA) to be undertaken for activities that are likely to have a
significant adverse impact on the environment (United Nations, 1992). An
EIA can be a useful tool to promote the goals of sustainable development as
the process includes assessments of the effects of a project development and
includes local opinion and knowledge (Lee and George, 2000). EIA is a
predecision tool with many different purposes useful for different actors. Morgan
(1998) suggests that EIA can provide useful information for decision makers
when they consider a projects environmental impacts. Project developers can be
informed about possible environmental implications of a project at an early stage
in the project development. From this information, project design can be
modified to avoid adverse effects. This interpretation of the EIA purpose is
also recognised by Wathern (1988). However, as Smith (1997) notes, the notion
of EIA as only an information-gathering tool narrows the focus and only
emphasises how different impacts can be identified. Therefore, it is also
important to regard the application of EIA as a tool for the public. The public
can use EIA to obtain information about a specific project, and in many
countries, the public has the opportunity to express concerns about the projects
development, location, and impact by commenting on the outcome of the EIA
process, the environmental impact statement (EIS). However, in an ideal EIA,
the public is not only invited into the process once the project is already
designed but earlier during the planning stages.
In Sweden, EIA was introduced in 1981 as part of the Environmental
Protection Act (SFS, 1969:387). At that time, only a description of a projects
environmental effects was required. Ten years later, a general demand for EIA for
projects was implemented in the Act on Management of Natural Resources (SFS,
1987:12) where an assessment of the effects was called for. With the extensive

S. Bruhn-Tysk, M. Eklund / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 22 (2002) 129144 131

implementation of EIA in Sweden, the Swedish government wanted to develop

and use a more environmentally adapted decision-making process. Decisions
about projects and measures, which solely or together with other measures are
important to the environment, to public health and safety, and to the sustainable
use of natural resources, should only be made where the impacts on the
environment are identified (Government Bill, 1990/1991:90). There was no
discriminating screening phase, leading to a large amount of EIAs. However,
according to Kvarnback (1995) and the Swedish National Audit Office (1996),
Swedish EIA has not been working as intended. Considerable flaws were found
when reviewing EISs. Effects were neither described nor assessed, and alternatives were not properly addressed. Regarding the aspects covered in the EISs,
only pollution was considered. The aspects of health and management of
resources are seldom considered. So far, the formal aim of Swedish EIA had
been to gather information about impacts before decision making. The aim in the
Act on Management of Natural Resources stated that the environmental impact
statement shall permit an overall assessment to be carried out of the impact of a
planned installation, activity or measure on the environment, on health and on the
management of natural resources. Further help for understanding EIA was only
given in the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (SFS, 1991:738) and
by guidelines from the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (1995). In the
ordinance, the content of EIS was specified. The EIS should contain (1) a no
action alternative, where the future environmental effects in the absence of the
project are described, (2) site alternatives, and (3) alternative technical designs.
However, in 1999, the EIA purpose was changed during the introduction of the
new Environmental Code (SFS, 1998:808) in order to adapt Swedish legislation
to ECs legislation and to deal with the flaws mentioned above. The present aim
states that an EIA should identify and describe the direct and indirect effects that
a planned activity or measure can lead to regarding humans and other organisms,
plants, land, water, air, climate, landscape, and cultural environment, and the
management of land, water, and other physical environment, material, resources,
and energy. The aim is also to make an overall assessment of these effects on
public health and the environment. Guidance about the EIA process and a more
thorough guidance on the content of an EIS are also introduced in the new
environmental legislation.
The aim of this paper is to discuss how EIA can be a tool for sustainable
development. Moreover, this paper aims to show if and how and to what extent
EISs for project developments in Sweden consider aspects of sustainable
development. The examination regards aspects of sustainable development
concerning the project itself, as well as sustainable development for society in
general. As a case study, we have studied biofuelled energy plants, since this
sector has been under rapid progress during the recent years. In part, this may be
because of the Swedish energy policy stated in Government Bill (1996/1997:84),
which presents an energy policy program. The program aims to cost effectively
reduce the use of electricity for heating, to use the present electricity system more

132 S. Bruhn-Tysk, M. Eklund / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 22 (2002) 129144

effectively, and to increase the supply of electricity and heat from renewable
energy sources, mainly biofuel. It is further stated in the Government Bill, that the
program is an important investment in the ecologically sustainable development
of Sweden. Therefore, project developments carried out according to this energy
policy are challenged to address environmental and developmental concerns both
at a local project level as well as on a societal and global level. This paper will
discuss intragenerational and intergenerational equity, in which many aspects of
sustainable development are encompassed, such as social, economic, and
environmental aspects. However, the primary focus of this paper will be to
examine environmental aspects, as EIA is a tool for assessing the environmental
impacts of a project development. For a comprehensive, sustainable decision
making, other decision-making tools are also necessary, such as, for example,
social impact assessment and cost benefit analysis.

2. Implementing goals for sustainable development in EIAs for biofuelled

energy plants
George (1999) discusses that EIA, as implemented in many countries, does not
automatically include goals for sustainable development. Instead, EIA is usually
a tool for goals for local and national planning. However, goals for sustainability
can, according to George, easily be implemented into EIA using the concept of
intra- and intergenerational equity from the Rio definition of sustainable
development: To equitably meet developmental and environmental needs of
present and future generations (United Nations, 1992). In the EIA context,
intergenerational equity means that future generations should have the same
possibilities as the present generation, even with project developments proceeding. Intragenerational equity refers to a fair distribution of resources among
present generations without discriminating against minority groups. This means
that all minority and majority groups affected by a project should have the
opportunity to discuss the projects development.
Considering the fact that EIA already was developed as a concept when the
Brundtland Commission discussed sustainable development (World Commission
on Environment and Development (WCED), 1987), it may not seem remarkable
that goals for sustainable development often are not implemented in EIA systems,
as EIA was not developed to serve as an explicit tool for sustainable development
(Weston, 1997; Modak and Biswas, 1999). However, EIA encompasses many
parts that are helpful when trying to meet some of the goals for sustainable
development, although EIA by itself cannot achieve all the goals for sustainable
development. The general aim of EIA is to assess the impacts of a project on the
environment. If the assessment is correctly performed, then the direct and indirect
effects of a project on the environment are assessed for both the short and long
term as well as locally and globally. In this way, the effects of the project on the
environment of both present and future generations are identified and can be used

S. Bruhn-Tysk, M. Eklund / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 22 (2002) 129144 133

by both decision makers and project developers. As the purpose of a project can
be fulfilled in many different ways, another crucial part of EIA is the presentation
of project alternatives. Alternatives to the project development regarding both
project location and technical design should be presented and compared. As
Glasson et al. (1999) indicate, a consideration of alternatives ensures considerations of different approaches to the project and hence a focus on differences
between choices. The discussion of project alternatives should be undertaken
during the earlier stages of the project planning when project design is not fixed
due to any important decisions (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency,
1995). The most important alternative, however, is the no action alternative,
which functions as a baseline to which the effects of the project will be compared
(Morgan, 1998). A discussion of alternatives to project design would, from a
sustainable development point of view, mean that project design could change if
necessary due to negative effects on the present and future generations. Public
participation is yet another part of EIA that can help to achieve at least some of
the goals of sustainable development. In many countries (see, e.g., Wood, 1995;
Grandell, 1996), the EIA systems include public participation. This means that
the public groups have a chance to discuss project design and to express their
concerns about the project development. By providing this possibility for every
public group, including minority groups, the project developer sees to that a part
of the concept of intragenerational equity is met. Any impact affecting the public
has to be mitigated in some way in order to reduce the effects on the public to an
acceptable level. Where that level is, will be for the public to discuss with the
authorities and the developers, for example, in public hearings.
If Georges basic idea of assessing sustainable development in EIA is to be
applied to the Swedish EIA system and the case of biofuelled energy plants, then
intra- and intergenerational equity need to be translated and adapted to fit the
Swedish system and the environmental impacts of biofuelled energy plants. Some
of the biofuelled energy plants reviewed in this study involve a replacement of
nonrenewable fuel to renewable fuel. A change from fossil fuel to biofuel
indicates that there will be no net addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere;
such a strategy will decrease the effects of fuel consumption on global warming.
Nevertheless, an assessment of the projects future global impacts will be
necessary in order to consider if and how future generations may be affected.
By assessing the long-term effects, some of the goals of sustainable development,
i.e., the ones concerning intergenerational equity, can be addressed. Changing to
biofuel, e.g., forest fuel, will probably also mean an increase in resource use.
Although a biofuelled energy plant does not use fossil fuel, there have to be
concerns for the management of resources. A large use of the resources may
affect future generations ability to use the resources; therefore, concerns have to
be addressed in the EISs regarding the issues about intergenerational equity. In
the Act on Management of Natural Resources (SFS, 1987:12), which was valid
during the studied period, the aim of EIA also emphasises the need for
assessment of the management of natural resources. Emissions from a new

134 S. Bruhn-Tysk, M. Eklund / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 22 (2002) 129144

energy plant may affect public health and cause concern and discomfort among
the prospective neighbours. As mentioned above, the emissions will also affect
the environment in various ways. Hence, different alternatives regarding what
will happen if the energy plant is not built (the no action alternative) and if it
could be built somewhere else (alternative locations), must be described and
compared. Different alternatives are vital as they offer a way to examine what the
present and future generations will sacrifice and gain as the result of a new energy
plant. Furthermore, in the Swedish EIA process, the major part of public
participation activities seem to be to let people comment on the project before
decisions on the project development and later on its design are made (Grandell,
1996). Public comments should therefore be a significant part in the EIS so
decision makers can consider public opinion; this should help insure that
intragenerational equity on a local level is met.

3. The case study

As the findings in each step of the EIA process should be documented in an
EIS (Wood, 1995; Morgan, 1998; Glasson et al., 1999; Petts, 1999), the EIS
document would be a feasible way to study whether some aspects of sustainable
development are considered in the case of biofuelled energy plants. It has
therefore been examined whether the EISs in our case study reflects a tool that
considers parts of intra- and intergenerational equity, the goals for sustainable
development. This examination is based on a review of 55 applications for
development consent with associated EISs (referred to in this document as EISs),
made according to the Environmental Protection Act (SFS, 1969:387). The EISs
in the review were made from 1995 through 1998 for the bioenergy sector and
include practically all EISs made for this sector in Sweden during this period. The
applications include several different application objectives, such as building a
new energy plant, enlarging the capacity, building a new flue gas condensation
plant, continued operation of an energy plant, conversion of an energy plant, and
legal conditions regarding emissions. The capacity of the energy plants range
from 11 to over 200 MW. According to the Environment Protection Ordinance
(SFS, 1989:364), in place during this study, biofuelled plants delivering less than
10 MW did not need development consent, leading to an exclusion of such small
energy plants. For the distribution between different application objectives and
the size of the energy plant (see Table 1). The time period studied entails that the
former Swedish EIA law was in place and hence the more general purpose of
EIA. To aid in the review, a checklist inspired by Lee and Colley (1990) and the
European Commission (1994) was developed according to current Swedish
environmental law and was adapted for the bioenergy sector. The checklist
covers areas such as how both current and planned projects are described, how
the environment is described, and how impacts and effects on the environment,
public health, and management of natural resources are assessed. Mitigating

S. Bruhn-Tysk, M. Eklund / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 22 (2002) 129144 135

Table 1
Applications for development consent with associated environmental impact statements according to
the application objective and energy plant capacity found in the case study
Number of applications
Distribution of objectives
Continuation of energy plant operation
Conversion into a biofuelled energy plant
Flue gas condensing
Construction of a biofuelled energy plant
Enlarged electricity and/or heat production
Legal conditions regarding emissions

11
8
2
22
9
3

Distribution of capacity of the energy plant (MW) *

1 20
21 60
61 100
> 100

9
28
4
13

* In total, 55 applications with EISs were analysed. However, the total number of applications
is only 54 when distributing them according to power capacity, due to one application lacking the
relevant information.

measures, alternative considerations, and public opinion are also reviewed. In the
review, three review criteria were used: adequate (all necessary information
included in the EIS), inadequate (further information needed), and absent (no
information included on the subject). Although these review criteria are referred
to in this paper, not all of the review areas are discussed. Only the areas
concerning alternatives, public participation, and assessment of the direct and
indirect effects on the environment, public health, and the management of natural
resources will be focused on. For a discussion of the other review areas, see
Bruhn-Tysk (2001). In addition to the review areas in focus here, we also discuss
if and how the EISs have included any concern for sustainable development for
society as whole.

4. Sustainability in EISs for biofuelled energy plants

4.1. Local and global impacts
Impacts of a planned project must be assessed in order to get an overall picture
of a projects effects on the local as well the global environment. In the studied
EISs, 44 of the 55 EISs adequately described air and water emissions from the
current project. That is, these EISs described the kind and amount of emission.
Four inadequately described the emissions as only the kinds of emissions were
mentioned. Seven EISs did not mention any emissions. Emissions from the
planned project were adequately described in 48 EISs, two inadequately
described them, and five did not describe emissions at all. The direct effects of

136 S. Bruhn-Tysk, M. Eklund / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 22 (2002) 129144

air and water emissions on the natural environment were thoroughly and, hence,
adequately assessed in 23 of the 55 EISs. Ten EISs inadequately assessed them
stating that there would be effects on the natural environment but did not mention
what kind of effects alternatively the EIS only mentioned that the emissions
would probably not give rise to any effects at all. In 22 of the EISs, there was no
assessment of any effects. The indirect effects on the natural environment were
adequately assessed in nine EISs, two inadequately assessed them, and the
remaining 44 EISs did not consider any indirect effects on the natural environment. The direct effects on the cultural environment were adequately considered in one case and inadequately considered in five cases. Forty-nine EISs did
not include an assessment of the direct effects on the cultural environment. No
EIS included an assessment of the indirect effects on the cultural environment.
Furthermore, assessments of the direct effects of the emissions on the public
health were adequately presented in seven cases with the direct effects on the
public health clearly explained and assessed. Of the 55 EISs, 17 assessed the
effects inadequately by stating that the public health would be affected but not in
what way, alternatively merely stating that the public health presumably would
not be affected. Thirty-one of the EISs did not mention this aspect at all. The
indirect effects on the public health were described adequately in six EISs and not
at all in the remaining 49 EISs. The results are presented in Table 2. These results
show that many of the EISs do not assess the effects on the environment or on
public health. Therefore, it can be assumed that project developers do not have a
complete picture of the effects of their planned projects. Moreover, the decision
makers have to be very competent to make decisions about the planned project
Table 2
Number of EISs including issues on emissions and the effects of the emissions on the natural and
cultural environments, as well as effects on public health
Number of EISs including the issue
Reviewed issue

Adequately

EIS includes a description of the

current projects air and water emissions
EIS includes a description of the
planned projects air and water emissions
EIS includes an assessment of the
direct effects on the natural environment
EIS includes an assessment of the
indirect effects on the natural environment
EIS includes an assessment of the
direct effects on the cultural environment
EIS includes an assessment of the
indirect effects on the cultural environment
EIS includes an assessment of the
direct effects on the public health
EIS includes an assessment of the
indirect effects on public health

44

48

23

10

22

44

49

Inadequately

Information absent

55

17

31

49

S. Bruhn-Tysk, M. Eklund / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 22 (2002) 129144 137

development since the basis for their decisions in many cases does not include a
clear description of the direct and indirect effects of the planned project. In
addition, the EIA should describe local and global effects. A biofuelled energy
plant built to replace energy of fossil origin will mitigate future global warming
effects, considering that a decreased use of fossil fuel will lead to a decreased
supply of the net addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. However, at the
same time that biofuelled energy plants may mitigate environmental impacts on a
global scale, they may also give rise to local effects, such as increased emissions
of particles and volatile organic compounds compared to oil combustion. In this
study, the focus of the EISs is primarily on the local scale. Mitigation measures
that regard emissions affecting the local environment are considered in the EISs,
but global impacts are not. This may be due to a focus on the energy plant
location and its immediate vicinity observed in Bruhn-Tysk and Eklund (2000). It
could also be the result of the difficulties in assessing global impacts by
comparing the significance of an individual contribution to the overall total,
when on its own that contribution is insignificant (George, 1997). These
difficulties have also been noticed in the study when arguing for development
permission. The argument has also been recognised by Carlman (1993), who calls
it the argument of relative insignificance (the authors translation), which
refers to the project developers most common phrase when trying to convince
the authority of the advantages of the planned project. Yet, the need for an
assessment of global impacts remains in order to develop a complete picture of
the effects on other groups of people and on future generations.
4.2. Management of natural resources
Management of resources is another important aspect when assessing the
effects of the biofuelled energy plants. Of the 55 EISs, 22 adequately described
the amount and the kind of resources the current project was using. Four EISs in
the study inadequately described the amount and kind of resources being used
since they only described the total amount of resources that the project was
using. Twenty-nine did not include this information. The anticipated use of
resources for the planned project was adequately described in 32 of the 55 EISs,
and five EISs only mentioned the total amount. Eighteen EISs did not consider
this issue at all. The assessment of the direct effects on the management of
natural resources was adequate in three EISs, in which it was explained the
effects the use of resources would have. Ten EISs inadequately assessed the
direct effects as these only mentioned that the use of resources would have
effects but did not specify the effects. They may also have stated that the use of
resources would have no effects. The remaining 42 EISs did not assess the direct
effects at all. Furthermore, the indirect effects were assessed in only one case and
not at all in the remaining 54 EISs. The results regarding the management of
natural resources are shown in Table 3. Even if the energy plants use renewable
resources, there is still a use of resources in the form of logging residues. A large

138 S. Bruhn-Tysk, M. Eklund / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 22 (2002) 129144

Table 3
Number of EISs including issues on the use of resources and effects on the management of
natural resources
Number of EISs including the issue
Reviewed issue

Adequately

Inadequately

Information absent

EIS includes a description of the amount and the

kind of resources the current project is using
EIS includes a description of the amount and the
kind of resources the planned project is using
EIS includes an assessment of the direct
effects on the management of natural resources
EIS includes an assessment of the indirect
effects on the management of natural resources

22

29

32

18

10

42

54

removal of logging residues following an extended energy production may, over

the long term, lead to a change in, for example, the productivity of the forest
ecosystem. One possible reason for such a development could be the loss of base
cations in the forest ecosystem. This would, in turn, lead to an effect on present
and future generations ability to use the forest as a resource or for recreation.
However, some authors (e.g., Neumayer, 1999) discuss sustainability in terms of
weak and strong. According to Pearce (1992) and Turner and Pearce
(1992), weak sustainability refers to the view that it is justified to use natural and
environmental resources as long as the degraded natural capital is invested in
other forms of capital (machinery, roads, etc.). Strong sustainability refers to the
notion that all capital must be preserved for the next generation, both manmade
and natural. In terms of biofuelled energy plants, this would mean that in case
weak sustainability should be applied, a use of resources and its effects on the
management of natural resources may be acceptable because the use of resources
leads to heat and electricity production, something that can be used by both
industries and households. If strong sustainability would be applied when
making decisions about a project, the effects on the management of natural
resources should be a very important issue. Whether strong or weak sustainability has been applied in the case of the biofuelled energy plant projects may
be difficult to define, as none of the EISs has included this reasoning. However,
in this study, few of the EISs assessed the effects on the management of natural
resources, implying that this issue is not considered important to the project
developers nor the decision makers.
4.3. Alternative project design
Alternatives ought to be considered in an EIS for a biofuelled energy plant
bearing in mind that they give an opportunity to compare the effects of different
project designs. In the review, which this study is based on, 14 adequately
described the no action alternative and 22 inadequately described it, as these

S. Bruhn-Tysk, M. Eklund / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 22 (2002) 129144 139

EISs only described the no action alternative briefly or referred to it as a

description of the current situation. Nineteen EISs did not consider a no action
alternative at all. At least from a developmental point of view, a no action
alternative would mean that some aspects of intragenerational equity are
considered because project developers, permitting authorities, as well as the
public evaluate the impacts of the project. Building a new energy plant means
that land will be used and, hence, there is a need for evaluating different
locations. A comparison between different locations could prevent the loss of
valuable environments and habitats, as well as keeping all parties content, as
there might be opposition from people who live next door to an energy plant. Of
the total 55 EISs, 27 thoroughly outlined at least one alternative location,
alternatively motivated why alternative locations were not included, both in
adequate ways. Three EISs inadequately outlined alternative locations for the
energy plant, only briefly while 25 did not include the issue at all. As regards
alternative technical design of the project, 12 of the 55 EISs adequately presented
details of possible alternative technical design; two gave inadequate details of
this, as other possible project design was only mentioned. Forty-one did not
discuss alternative technical design at all. The figures are presented in Table 4.
These results might indicate that in many cases the EISs could have been made
when the project design already was decided upon. Such a situation means that it
would be difficult to change the project to a more environmentally friendly
design if necessary. The results also indicate that some aspects of intragenerational equity, one of the goals for sustainable development, are not met since the
project design was only discussed between project developers.
4.4. Public participation
To influence the project and discuss the project design, the public can
comment on the project. In our study of 55 EISs, 24 project developers included
the public comments in their EISs meaning that the public comments were
considered in an adequate way. Three only mentioned that the public had
commented on the project but did not specify what the comments regarded.
Furthermore, 28 project developers did not include if the public had commented
on the project or not. In the cases where the public was allowed to comment, for
example, in a public hearing, the protocols showed situations where project
Table 4
Number of EISs including issues on project design alternatives
Number of EISs including the issue
Reviewed issue

Adequately

Inadequately

Information absent

EIS includes a no action alternative

EIS includes alternative project location(s)
EIS discusses alternative technical design

14
27
12

22
3
2

19
25
41

140 S. Bruhn-Tysk, M. Eklund / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 22 (2002) 129144

Table 5
Number of EISs including public comments
Number of EISs including the issue
Review issue

Adequately Inadequately Information absent

EIS includes the publics comments on the project 24

28

developers defended rather than discussed project design. This indicates that
although the public was invited to comment, the design was already decided and
the hearing functioned only to justify the project. As mentioned earlier, the
opportunity to comment on a project is one of the aspects that if fulfilled would
facilitate intragenerational equity. However, the results indicate that, in many
cases, EIA does not serve as a tool for the goal for sustainable development. The
results of the review of the EISs regarding the issue on public participation are
shown in Table 5.
4.5. Societal sustainable development
The issues concerning the assessment of the effects on the environment, public
health, and the management of natural resources, as well as considerations of
alternative project design and the publics possibilities to comment on the project
may be some of the ways to examine aspects regarding sustainable development
but only on a local project level. As mentioned earlier, biofuelled energy plants
developed because of the Swedish Energy Policy was challenged to deal with
sustainable development on a national level as well. Ten of 55 EISs in this study
have recognised this issue by using sustainable development as an argument, for
example, when applying for permission for fuel conversion. The EISs usually
state that a use of biofuel would lead to sustainability because of the decreasing
use of fossil fuel. Since this argument is used both by project developers and by
authorities to justify their permitting decisions, it may indicate that this is the only
concern for societal sustainable development. However, there are seldom any
explicit links to the change of the Swedish energy system as an investment in the
ecologically sustainable development of Sweden. The results of how societal
sustainable development is considered in the EISs are presented in Table 6.
4.6. Environmental legislation and strategic environmental assessment (SEA)
When interpreting the results, however, one should consider that the EISs have
been made in order to obtain development permission according to the, at the
Table 6
Number of EISs recognising societal sustainable development
Review issue

Number of EISs including the issue

EIS recognises societal sustainable development

10

S. Bruhn-Tysk, M. Eklund / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 22 (2002) 129144 141

time valid, Environmental Protection Act (SFS, 1969:387). In this Act, no

concerns for societal sustainable development were needed, which may explain
the results to some extent. The Environmental Protection Act aims to protect the
environment from polluting emissions and other disturbances. The Act is only
applicable on all emissions to the water, the air, and the ground that originate
from the use of real estate or plants (Bjallas and Rahmn, 1996). The Act also
concentrates on the location of the proposed project, which may, to some extent,
explain why the effects on the management of natural resources are rarely
considered, as they usually are not directly linked to the energy plant location and
the energy plant activity. Furthermore, the Environmental Protection Act is linked
to the Act on Management of Natural Resources (SFS 1987:12), which, in turn,
acted as an umbrella for many of the environmental acts in Sweden during the
period when the EISs in this study were made. The umbrella function implies that
the regulations in the Act on Management of Natural Resources were supposed to
be applied whenever a project developer wanted development consent according
to the Environmental Protection Act. Some of the common regulations regarded
whether natural resources could be used, an important issue considering the
biofuelled energy plants in this case study. However, as Michanek (1993)
indicates, the Act did not focus on sustainable energy and resource flows since
it originally belonged to the planning legislation with an aim to regulate conflicts
about different ways to use land and water resources. In addition, the common
regulations of suitable management were not effectively considered in the acts on
which it should be applied as many of the specific acts had more thorough rules
and regulations. This may, at least in part, explain the insufficient discussion of
societal sustainable development and the effects on the management of natural
resources. Furthermore, the focus on the development projects may also explain
why societal sustainable development is not considered in most of the EISs.
Perhaps SEA would be more suitable to deal with this kind of issue as it tends to
be more suitable to assess the effects of a policy or a programme (as argued by
many EIA researchers, e.g., Partidario, 1999; von Seht, 1999). Many of the
project developments probably responded to the Swedish energy policy; a policy
that aims to change the energy system in Sweden because it is an investment in an
ecologically sustainable development of Sweden. Therefore, a SEA could have
taken a broad approach to resource management and other aspects and discussed
the effects from a temporal (short- and long-term effects) and spatial (local,
global) perspective.

5. Conclusions
The case study of 55 EISs for biofuelled energy plants in Sweden has shown
few signs of EIA functioning as a tool to promote sustainable development. On
a local level, project developments may facilitate intragenerational equity in
some ways, when considering how local impacts are described and compared

142 S. Bruhn-Tysk, M. Eklund / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 22 (2002) 129144

with different project designs. However, the failure to assess local impacts, as
well as effects, of resource use together with the publics difficulty in
commenting on the project may indicate that other aspects of intragenerational
equity are overlooked. Global effects and the management of natural resources,
which may affect future generations, are not considered either, implying that
intergenerational equity has not been considered during project development,
even on the local level. During the period studied, EIA only promoted
sustainable development on a local level as the absence of assessments of
the effects on the environment and effects from the use of resources leads to an
exclusion of environmental concerns and future generation concerns. In part
because of the environmental legislation that was in place during the studied
period, EIA mainly served as a tool for a local and short time perspective on
project developments. Project developments concerning biofuelled energy
plants have to deal with both environmental and developmental issues, but
the results indicate that Swedish EIA practice do not function for national
societal changes and developments. There may be better places to discuss
sustainable development for society, perhaps on a more strategic level, in this
case, where the decision to change the Swedish energy system was made.
Hopefully, the new Environmental Code should help to bring in issues into EIA
to facilitate intra- and intergenerational equity and consequently sustainable
development as it includes a more comprehensive aim and furthermore
guidance on the EIA process. The development of SEA will certainly help to
discuss and assess the effects of changes on a societal level and to promote
societal sustainable development.

Acknowledgments
This paper is based on research in the project Improving the Quality of
Environmental Impact Assessments for Biofuelled Energy Plants in Sweden,
which is funded by the Swedish National Energy Administration. An earlier
version of the paper was presented at the Sixth Annual International Sustainable
Development Research Conference in Leeds, 13 14 April 2000, and the authors
gratefully acknowledge Clive George at the EIA Centre, University of
Manchester, UK, for commenting on that version.

References
Bjallas U, Rahmn T. Miljoskyddslagen-handbok i miljoratt. 2nd ed. Stockholm: Fritzes Forlag, 1996.
Bruhn-Tysk S. Environmental impact statements for biofuelled energy plants in Sweden-Scope and
fulfillment of legal requirements and international practice of the statements. Environmental
Technique and Management Report 2001:1. Department of Physics and Measurement Technology,
Report 227. Linkoping: Linkoping University, 2001.
Bruhn-Tysk S, Eklund M. System boundaries in environmental impact statements for biofuelled

S. Bruhn-Tysk, M. Eklund / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 22 (2002) 129144 143

energy plants in Sweden. In: Bjarnadottir H, editor. Environmental assessment in the nordic
countries experience and prospects. Proceedings from the 3rd Nordic EIA/SEA Conference,
Karlskrona, Sweden, 22nd 23rd November 1999. Stockholm: Nordic Centre for Spatial Development, 2000. pp. 31 8 (Nordregio R 2000:3).
Carlman I. Tankom. Studier av konflikter i svenska miljoarenden. Uppsala, Sweden: Institute of
Environmental Law, Uppsala University, 1993 (IMIR Report No 1993:2).
European Commission. Environmental impact assessment: review checklist. Brussels: Directorate
General for Environment, Nuclear Safety and Civil Protection (DGXI), 1994.
George C. Assessing global impacts at sector and project level. Environ Impact Assess Rev
1997;17(4):227 47.
George C. Testing for sustainable development through environmental assessment. Environ Impact
Assess Rev 1999;19(2):175 200.
Glasson J, Therivel R, Chadwick A. Introduction to environmental impact assessment: principles and
procedures, process, practice and prospects. 2nd ed. London, UK: UCL Press, 1999.
Government Bill 1990/1991:90. En god livsmiljo. Stockholm, Sweden: Swedish Government.
Government Bill 1996/1997:84. En uthallig energiforsorjning. Stockholm, Sweden: Swedish
Government.
Grandell N. Allmanhetens deltagande i MKB processen i de nordiska landerna Copenhagen, Denmark: Nordic Council of Ministers, 1996 (Report Nord 1996:588).
Kvarnback M. Hur beskrivs. konsekvenserna for miljon? En studie av miljokonsekvensbeskrivningar.
Stockholm, Sweden: Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 1995 (Report no. 4469).
Lee N, Colley R. Reviewing the quality of environmental statements. Manchester, UK: EIA Centre,
University of Manchester, 1990 (Occasional Paper No. 24).
Lee N, George C. Introduction. In: Lee N, George C, editors. Environmental assessment in developing
and transitional countries. Chichester, UK: Wiley, 2000. pp. 1 12.
Mather AS, Chapman K. Environmental resources. Harlow, UK: Longman, 1995.
Michanek G. Svensk miljoratt. 2nd ed. Uppsala, Sweden: Iustus forlag, 1993.
Modak P, Biswas AK. Conducting environmental impact assessment for developing countries. Tokyo,
Japan: United University Press, 1999.
Morgan RK. Environmental impact assessment. A methodological perspective. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998.
Neumayer E. Weak versus strong sustainability. Exploring the two opposing paradigms. Cheltenham,
UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 1999.
Partidario MR. Strategic environmental assessment principles and potential. In: Petts J, editor.
Handbook of environmental impact assessment: vol. 1. Environmental impact assessment: process, methods and potential. London, UK: Blackwell, 1999. pp. 60 73.
Pearce D. Towards sustainable development through environmental assessment. Working Paper PA
92-11. Norwich, UK: University of East Anglia, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the
Global Environment, 1992.
Petts J. Environmental impact assessment overview of purpose and process. In: Petts J, editor.
Handbook of environmental impact assessment: vol. 1. Environmental impact assessment: process, methods and potential. London, UK: Blackwell, 1999. pp. 3 11.
Reid D. Sustainable development. An introductory guide. London, UK: Earthscan Publications, 1995.
SFS 1969:387. The Environmental Protection Act. Stockholm, Sweden: Riksdagstryck.
SFS 1987:12. Act on the Management of Natural Resources. Stockholm, Sweden: Riksdagstryck.
SFS 1989:364. Environment Protection Ordinance. Stockholm, Sweden: Riksdagstryck.
SFS 1991:738. Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance. Stockholm, Sweden: Riksdagstryck.
SFS 1998:808. Environmental Code. Stockholm, Sweden: Riksdagstryck.
Smith LG. Impact assessment and sustainable resource management. Halow, UK: Addison Wesley
Longman, 1997.
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. MKB i miljoskyddslagen. Stockholm, Sweden: Swedish
Environmental Protection Agency, 1995 (Allmanna rad 95:3).

144 S. Bruhn-Tysk, M. Eklund / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 22 (2002) 129144

Swedish National Audit Office. Miljokonsekvensbeskrivningar i praktiken. Stockholm, Sweden:
Swedish National Audit Office, 1996 (Report No. 1996:29).
Turner RK, Pearce DW. Sustainable development: ethics and economics. Working paper 92-09.
Norwich, UK: University of East Anglia, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global
Environment, 1992.
United Nations. The United Nations conference on environment and development (UNCED Report
A/CONF151/5/Rev.1, United Nations, New York, 13 June 1992).
von Seth H. Requirements of a comprehensive strategic environmental assessment system. Landscape
Urban Plann 1999;45(1):1 14.
Wathern P. An introductory guide to EIA. In: Wathern P, editor. Environmental impact assessment
theory and practice. London, UK: Unwin Hyman, 1988. pp. 3 30.
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). Our common future. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press, 1987.
Weston J. Introduction: EIA in the UK. In: Weston J, editor. Planning and environmental impact
assessment in practice. Harlow, UK: Addison Wesley Longman, 1997. pp. 1 25.
Wood C. Environmental impact assessment a comparative review. Essex, UK: Longman, 1995.
Sara Bruhn-Tysk holds an MSc in Biology and is now studying for a PhD in Environmental
Technique and Management at Linkoping University, Sweden.
Mats Eklund holds a PhD in environmental science and is a senior lecturer at the Environmental
Technique and Management, Linkoping University. His present research deals mainly with studies of
material flows, environmental impact assessment, and the issue of their integration into environmental
management of different organisations.