Transformative power in an inert planning system?

1. Transformative power in an inert planning system? implementation gaps, structuralresistance and strategy making Ph.D. Karolina Isaksson, VTI/KTH Prof. Tim Richardson, Aalborg University M.Sc. Chia Jung Wu, KTH

2. Barriers and bridges in the planning process • Many efforts have been made to enhance environmental consideration in infrastructure planning • Ambitious goals and frameworks – but slow progess in practice • 1) What are the barriers in the planning process about? • 2) What are the potential solutions for the future?

3. 1. What are the barriers about? • Research findings from Include: a) Implementation gaps: systematic lack of resources for environmental concern in planning practice b) Structural resistance: the importance of norms, perspectives and power-relations in the planning process c) Tools do not produce outputs that can be integrated into the strategic process

4. systematic lack of resources “[The EIA-process] starts with the tender. Then we get the offer and we present what we want to do. When we make the offer, the [assigning authority] ask every department to calculate the approximate cost. We say maybe two million SEK. But then [the assigning authority] pay only 1,5 million. So we make the offer for 1,5 million. That means we lack money [for the EIA] from the very beginning.” (EIA-practitioner)

5. “Mostly generation is a problem since some of projects leaders are old. It’s not that they don’t want to take care about the environment. They just don’t have the knowledge really. They [did their professional training] years ago – many things have been changed in the last thirty years.” (EIA-practitioner) b) Norms, perspectives and power-relations

6. c) Tools do not produce outputs that can be used in the strategic process a) Environmental knowledge gets filtered out…. “Ten years ago when I was working with [an EIA-report] [...] the project leader told me he had to follow some [informal] requirements [and that] we should cut off [several things] from the report. [...] At the end we produced an EIA report which was not so good.” (EIA-practitioner)

7. b) …or is integrated too late in the process: “Issues regarding landscape, climate change and other comprehensive [environmental] issues aren’t addressed sufficiently good at the [initial stage].For example, when you read EIA reports for single road projects, you can find discussions about how a single road will affect climatechange. I think […] it should be discussed at a strategic level in planning. It is the same with landscape issues.” (NHB-practitioner)

8. Poor integration of environmental concern= a common feature of many policy- and planning areas Environmental concern is potentially very challenging – so how could it ever be easy? If there is a solution – it lies not only in the development of new tools and checklists …there is also a need for capacity-building in the organisations concerned and an enhanced capacity for ”strategic thinking and action” 2. Solutions?

9. The need for strategic thinking and action • Strategic thinking • is not the same as “having a strategy or a plan” • shall have a function to encourage the shaping of actions for a certain purpose. • shall ”challenge practices that are justified in terms of ‘following established procedures’ or ‘this is what we have always done’” (Healey 2007:30).

10. not instrumental! ”A strategy co-evolves with the knowledge, values and politics that will give it authority, legitimacy and framing power.” (Healey 2007:31)

11. strategic thinking and action could be enhanced at all stages in the infrastructure planning process will certainly require new institutional design, new routines,new ways of talking, new processes and new professions exactly what the potentials are at each stage in the current system is still a question to explore

12. Thank you! Karolina.isaksson@vti.se