Den auktoriserade redovisningskonsulten
I skuggan av revisorn?
Every plan and program decided on by an authority or municipality, where the environmental impact can be considerable, must be environmentally assessed according to Environmental Code, the Planning and Building Act (PBA) and the Regulation on Environmental Impact Assessment.The purpose of this study is to examine the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for The Region Development Plan for the Stockholm Region, RUFS 2010. The plan was approved by at that time the Regional Planning Office (Regionplanekontoret), which procured the process by consultants. RUFS 2010 includes two merged plans ie. a regional Development Plan (RUP) and the Regional Spatial Plan for Stockholm. It was necessary to establish an environmental assessment of RUP, but not for the regional plan. The merge between the two plans made the process complicated. There was need to explore the process, because it has not previously been establish before in Sweden.The EIA process followed a fairly traditional structure. The process was conducted internally at the consulting and communicated with clients from Region Planning Office. The Region Planning Office had divided the work into separate parts and the work was based on an attempt to shape the national environmental goals to the overall criteria and then make the environmental assessment.The EIA had its focus on searching for information, and initially it was a bit of a "trial and error? process for the actors. Operators did not know how the work would be organized, and two consultants were involved to manage the process. The results of the study have been established through various interviews with the actors involved. It was clear that different stakeholders had different views regarding the process. In order to complement the interviews literature studies have been made. The study is based on research in the area of urban planning and work of EIA in different forms.A vulnerable time frame was difficult for the actors as well due to stated deadlines. By that time, the process was under time pressure. The EIA was shorthanded without an iterative process between the plan and environmental assessment. The most striking discovery in this essay was the lack of transparency between the actors. That made it difficult for the actors involved to find an appropriate level and direction.It was important to examine RUFS process, because it can be the basis for the next version of RUFS. The approach to the environmental assessment of RUFS is something that needs to be further discussed and clarified, before the commencement of the plan. There are basic questions that all stakeholders need to clear out and to make a common view on the process. It may enable the process to run smoothly and that similar problems are avoided.