BETWEEN GOVERNANCE AND GOVERNMENT: DANISH EIA IN UNCHARTED WATERS

Abstract

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has now passed its first 25 years and looking back it becomes clear that it has changed its direction. In this article we will look closer at how different pressures have pushed it in the direction of decentralisation and deliberative democracy, while other forces have pushed it in the direction of more centralised, top-down government. Different developments during this period can thus be perceived as in accordance with a system of governance based upon framework legislation and characterised by flexibility, coordination and participation. Reflecting on some of the manifest developments encountered in Danish EIA legislation, this article shows that the development of governance structures is followed by developments in the direction of more government. By studying EIA screenings of livestock projects, which is the dominating Danish EIA practice, it becomes obvious that governance as well as government has changed its role often at one and the same time. Although there was scepticism about the efficacy of the EIA instrument at the beginning, this changed from the mid-1990s primarily because it was realised, that EIA screening could address the overwhelming problem of agricultural production, but also that it opened the door for more public participation and broader assessment of projects than found previously under environmental regulation. This can be interpreted as an example of a shift away from government to governance, but the story turns out to be more complex than that as the opposite trend is also encountered. In our empirical work on EIA screening in Denmark, we find that two major changes have taken place. These changes all relate to the problem of livestock production. In all cases, we find that the way EIA is used in Denmark is innovative, but also that pressure from the newly introduced Natura 2000 as well as the Water Framework Directive increases the pressure to return to more traditional top-down measures. Using these examples, this paper offers important insights into the dynamic between governance and government.