Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
SEA and EU Structural Funds
Introduction
Malmö, December 17th, 2006
www.rec.org
EU Cohesion Policy
• Treaty of European Community (Article 158): …in order to strengthen its economic and social cohesion, the Community shall aim at reducing disparities between the levels of development of the various regions and the backwardness of the least favoured regions or islands, including rural areas.
• The EU Cohesion Policy is designed to address, through the channelling of structural funds, disparities in output, employment and income which exist between the European regions.
www.rec.org
EU Structural Funds
• European Rural Development Fund and European Social Fund
• One of the main ways for (re-)distributing money to EU MSs• € 308 billions during next 7 years (+ co-financing)
• 7-years programming periods (2000 – 2006, 2007 – 20013)
• Programming documents are implemented through specific projects
• The applicants might be: authorities, regions, municipalities, private companies, NGOs, non-for-profit organizations, research institutes, universities …
www.rec.org
Priorities for EU Funds
• Cohesion Policy in Support of Growth and Jobs: Community Strategic Guidelines, 2007-2013
• For ERDF, ESF and Cohesion Fund• The key objective is to identify Community priorities for support under
cohesion policy
“Europe must renew the basis of its competitiveness, increase its growth potential and its productivity and strengthen social cohesion, placing the main emphasis on knowledge, innovation and the optimisation of human capital.
To achieve these objectives, the Union must mobilise all appropriate national and Community resources – including the cohesion policy – in the Strategy’s three dimensions (economic, social and environmental) so as better to tap into their synergies in a general context of sustainable development”.
www.rec.org
Priorities for EU Funds
• improving the attractiveness of Member States, regions and cities by improving accessibility, ensuring adequate quality and level of services, and preserving their environmental potential
• encouraging innovation, entrepreneurship and the growth of the knowledge economy by research and innovation capacities, including new information and communication technologies
• creating more and better jobs by attracting more people into employment or entrepreneurial activity, improving adaptability of workers and enterprises and increasing investment in human capital
www.rec.org
Management of EU Funds
• The Regional Policy Directorate-General (DG Regio)• responsible for overall coordination on the EU level
• leads negotiation with MSs
• Council regulation 1083/2006• specifying general provision on the funds
• horizontal themes
• Other regulation on specific funds• ERDF, ESF, Cohesion Fund
• National level• 1 ministry responsible for coordination
• sectoral ministries + regions responsible for specific programmes
www.rec.org
Management of EU Funds - programming documents
EU level
• CSG
National level
• National Development Plan/National Strategic Reference Framework
• country specific priorities
• Operational Programmes
• sectoral, regional, cross-border
• Programme complements
• for each OP, detail description of activities for funding
www.rec.org
Management of EU Funds - programming documents
EU level
• CSG NO SEA, but IA + public participation
National level
• National Development Plan/National Strategic Reference Framework SEA YES
• country specific priorities
• Operational Programmes SEA YES• sectoral, regional, cross-border
• Programming complements NO SEA• for each OP, detail description of activities for funding
www.rec.org
Structure of SF programming documents
• Analysis• past trends and current situation• SWOT
• Strategy• rationale• global objective + specific objectives• priority axes + priorities• key areas of intervention
• Indicators• for entire document/specific priorities/KAIs
• Implementation• responsibilities• structure
• Financial plan
www.rec.org
General characteristics of SF programming documents
• stipulate priorities and areas for financing from EU SF
• don't contain specific project
• will be implemented
• specified time and financial frame
• specified implementing structure
www.rec.org
Programming process, SEA and ex-ante evaluation
• Ex-ante evaluation• Social and economic effects of programming documents
• Similar logic
• Mutually reinforcing tools within one robust planning system.
• Can be carried out as a joint or a parallel process.
• The leading process is the programming process and SEA and ex-
ante evaluations fit into it.
www.rec.org
Why SEA?
• To provide information on environmental links and possible impacts to the programming authority during the programme preparation
• To provide inputs to preparation of the programme (identify risks and provide solutions)
• To provide information on environmental links and possible impacts to the approving authority
• To ensure public participation
• To fulfil legal requirements
www.rec.org
Key concerns
• SEA new tool – many experts try to invent very complicated schemes to meet the requirements of the SEA directive
• EIA-based approaches generally do not work
• Some experts focus on writing Env. Report (audit/critique of the programming document) but do not provide usable inputs into programming process
• There is a danger of ‘mastering the procedure and beating the purpose”
www.rec.org
SEA should be
• carried out in a very similar manner as the overall ex-ante evaluation of the programme;
• an interactive process providing judgement and recommendations by SEA experts during the programme elaboration;
• focused on analysis of the links between programming document and relevant environmental issues and objectives
• an integral part of the programming process even if, for reasons of transparency, its outcomes are reported in the separate and consolidated env. report.
www.rec.org
SEA Handbook
• Handbook on SEA for Cohesion Policy 2007 – 2013
• Developed within GRDP project
• To recommend simple and suitable approaches to applying SEA Directive within the programming of EU Structural Funds in 2007-2013.
• Based on existing guidance (EU, UK, CR, Spain), lessons from SEA practice in 2000-2006 and extensive consultations within GRDP partnership
• Endorsed by DG Regio and DG Envi as advisory - NOT an interpretative guidance for the transposition of the SEA Directive.
www.rec.org
Recommended SEA steps
1. Determination of the right focus of the SEA
2. Assessment of the environmental context
3. Assessment of development objectives and priorities of the programming document
4. Assessment of proposed measures/activities
5. Assessment of cumulative impacts of the entire programming document
6. Assessment of proposed management system for implementation
7. Assessment of proposed monitoring system
8. Compilation of environmental report
www.rec.org
Recommended SEA steps (1)
Determination of the right focus of the SEA:
• key environmental issues for the programming document
• relevant env. objectives
• focused questions/indicators to guide the assessment
• gives basic assurance to the programming team and env. authorities that SEA will focus on key issues
www.rec.org
Recommended SEA steps (2)
Assessment of the environmental context
• past trends for each guiding question/indicator;
• future evolution of these trends if the programming document is not implemented (i.e. considering already approved PPPs and any relevant future developments);
• can be done within analysis of the development context – examining future threats/constrains and opportunities from env. perspective
www.rec.org
Recommended SEA steps (3)
Assessment of development objectives and priorities of the programming document
• key conflicts and synergies with relevant env. issues and objectives
• recommendations for adjustments of proposed orientation of the programming document;
• suggestions for development of eligible measures/actions
www.rec.org
Recommended SEA steps (4)
Assessment of proposed measures/activities
• positive and negative impacts of relevant env. issues and objectives
• nature of impacts explained (direct, indirect, duration, reversibility, transboundary nature, etc.)
• recommendations for adjustments of measures/activities
• suggestions of selection criteria or preliminary ToRs for env. assessment of specific activities.
www.rec.org
Recommended SEA steps (5)
Assessment of cumulative impacts of the entire programming document
• cumulative impacts of all measures on specific env. issue or objective
• considers the expected future baseline trends in each issue
• concluding suggestions for mitigation and enhancement measures
www.rec.org
Recommended SEA steps (6)
Assessment of proposed management system for implementation
• env. selection criteria
• env. scoring sheets (preliminary or formal) for activities that will seek funding
• roles of env. authorities during implementation of the programming document
• very important especially in new MSs
www.rec.org
Recommended SEA steps (7)
Assessment of proposed monitoring system
• whether it focuses on key env. issues, is realistic and is easy to use
• could use data from env. scoring sheets and/or formal monitoring
• env. monitoring not self-serving – should measure the actual impact of the programming document on the relevant env. issues and objectives
www.rec.org
Compilation of environmental report
• Compiles individual assessments into one report
• Outlines key outstanding issues
• Must be prepared in accordance with requirements of the national legislation
• Consultations with relevant authorities and the public – ideally through a single consultative process for the programming, SEA and ex-ante
• Numerous informal consultations between SEA and env. authorities (possibly public) suggested for earlier steps
www.rec.org
Practical use
Handbook translated into Portuguese, Polish, Romanian and Lithuanian and widely disseminated in Austria, Malta and Czech Republic
Known use:
• OP CBC Austria - CR
• Czech Republic (NDP/NSRF & OPs: Transport, Enterprise and Innovation, Prague – Competitiveness)
• Romania (4 OPs)
• Bulgaria OP CBC Bulgaria - Serbia
The handbook can be downloaded at:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/working/doc/sea_handbook_final_foreword.pdf
SEA and EU funds
Case example: SEA for OP Enterprise and Innovations
Czech Republic 2007 - 2013
Malmö, December 17th, 2006
www.rec.org
Context• Key actors:
• proponent: Ministry of Industry and Trade• programming team: internal team within the ministry• ex-ante team: external consortium• SEA competent authority: Ministry of Environment
• SEA• February – August 2006 • total budget 37,000 EUR
• SEA Team:• consortium of 3 organizations (REC + NGO + consultancy +
freelancers)• altogether 10 experts (industrial pollution, energy, wastes,
biodiversity environmental education, public health, public participation, team leader)
• approx. 180 man days
www.rec.org
Content of OPEI
• Analysis of economic development
• development of the industry sector and enterprise
• main determinants of competitiveness of the Czech Republic’s industry
• development potential of SMEs
• research, development and innovation potential in the enterprise sector
• energy demands of the Czech Republic’s industry
• performance of the regional industry
• SWOT analysis
• Results of the implementation of the Operational Programme Industry and Enterprise and support to industry from national sources in 2004 – 2006
www.rec.org
Content of OPEI - strategy
• Global objective: by the end of the programming period to increase competitiveness of the Czech economy and bring the innovation performance of the sector of industry and services closer to the level of
leading industrial European countries • Specific objectives
• To intensify the activity of SMEs
• To increase the competitiveness of enterprises by way of implementing new technologies and innovative activities
• to increase the effectiveness of the use of energy in the industry and the use of renewable and possibly secondary energy sources (except supporting incinerators)
• To encourage cooperation between the industry sector and research and development
• To increase effectiveness of human potential use in industry
• To increase quality of entrepreneurial infrastructure
www.rec.org
Content of OPEI – priority axes and key areas of intervention
• Enterprise and Innovations• Start new firms
• Development of firms
• Innovations
• Efficient energy
• Environment for Enterprise and Innovations• Cooperation
• HR development
• Infrastructure for enterprise and innovations
• Business Support Services • Services
• Trends
www.rec.org
Content of OPEI
• Expected impacts of the OPEI and their quantification• programme indicators
• indicators of priority axes
• Indicative financial plan• total budget 3,578 mil EUR
• Implementation of the OPEI
www.rec.org
Legal framework
• Act on Environmental Assessment stipulates:• procedure for SEA (including public participation)• obligation for the proponent • detail content of the SEA report
• Act on Nature and Landscape Protection stipulates:• assessment of likely effects to Natura 2000 sites
www.rec.org
Proposed approach
• Based on SEA Handbook
• Assessment (+\-) parallel to OP preparation
• Inputs to OP preparation
• Public participation beyond the legal requirements
www.rec.org
Focus of SEA and analysis
• Environmental issues
• requested by legislation (climate, air, water, biodiversity…)
• other (waste management, energy management, transport, partnership, environmental-friendly products…)
• Analysis of the status of environment
• based on the existing reports and documents
• past trends and current status
• likely future development (“zero alternative”)
• alternative SWOT
• Outputs
• recommendations for OP analysis modifications
www.rec.org
Assessment of the OP focus and strategy
• Is environmental addressed appropriately within the proposed strategy and objectives?
• Recommendations:
• to include into the OPEI strategy background a part dealing with the links between industry/business and the environment and public health.
• to include into specific objectives (and subsequently into the OPEI proposal part) the research and development of eco-technologies, support to eco-efficient innovations, eco-design and cleaner production (especially for SMEs).
• independent OPEI priority axis, focusing on environmental issues (reducing energy demands, wastes, eco-efficient innovations etc.).
• effective use of all energy sources and raw materials
www.rec.org
Relevant environmental objectives
• Based on
• objectives specified in existing strategic documents
• findings from the analysis
• relevant environmental objectives proposed by SEA of NDP/NSRF
• Relevant environmental objectives represent:
• environmental issues which might be influenced by the programme
• expected positive environmental trends
• already specified objectives in other strategic documents
www.rec.org
Environmental objectives
1. After the first Protocol revision period, to reduce, till the year 2020, CO2 specific emissions per one inhabitant by 30% and the total aggregated CO2 emissions by 25% in comparison to the year 2000, and then to continue in the trend.
2. To reduce emissions in such a way so as the national emission ceilings for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds are not exceeded by the year 2010, to achieve the guideline target values for acidification in case of human health and vegetation by the year 2020, and to achieve the air quality standards within the deadlines determined.
3. To reduce discharge and releases of priority substances into groundwater and surface water and to stop and gradually remove discharge and releases of priority hazardous substances.
4. To reduce occupation of new land by supporting brownfields utilisation.
5. To secure protection and renewal of migration routes, corridors and stops for migrating species, and to reduce landscape fragmentation caused by migration barriers.
www.rec.org
Environmental objectives
6. To achieve a proportion of renewable energy sources in the gross electricity consumption equal to 8 % by the year 2010, and to increase it further.
7. To stabilise reduction of energy demands of GDP creation by 3 % a year, electricity demands by 2 % a year.
8. To improve utility values of products, including their reparability and life.
9. To reduce waste production, including hazardous wastes.
10. To increase waste utilisation, with preference for recycling, up to 55 % of all waste produced by the year 2012.
11. To protect landscape elements and quality segments of a natural character in built-up areas.
12. To reduce transit and freight road transport, especially by supporting environment-friendly forms of transport, including management measures.
13. To reduce industrial and transport noise pollution for populations in settlements.
www.rec.org
Environmental objectives
14. To encourage demand for and offer of environment-friendly products and therefore to stimulate potential for constant, market-controlled environmental improvement.
15. To support introduction of environmental management systems.
16. To involve a wide spectrum of partners into environmental protection and to establish partnership of the public, non-governmental and private sectors.
www.rec.org
Assessment of priority axes and key areas of intervention• Assessment of possible impacts on relevant environmental
objectives
• Evaluation matrixes
• numerical evaluation (+2,+1,0,-1,-2)
• verbal comments
• graphical symbols
• 2 steps:
• Identification of likely significant negative impacts
• Detail description of likely significant negative impacts
www.rec.org
Area of intervention: Effective energy
Relevant environmental objectives
Evaluation of possible impacts
Comments
After the first Protocol revision period, to reduce, by the year 2020, CO2
specific emissions per one inhabitant by 30% and the total aggregated CO2
emissions by 25% in comparison to the year 2000, and then to continue in the trend. +1
Potential positive link, due to supporting energy savings and energy generation from renewable sources, if the existing production from fossil sources is substituted in this way. On the contrary, possible support to energy utilisation of wastes would represent a negative effect.
To reduce emissions in such a way so as the national emission ceilings for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds are not exceeded by the year 2010, to achieve the target values for acidification in case of human health and vegetation by the year 2020, and to achieve the air quality standards within the deadlines determined.
-0,5
Potential negative link due to the support to energy utilisation of wastes.
To reduce discharge and releases of priority substances into groundwater and surface water and to stop and gradually remove discharge and releases of priority hazardous substances.
0
Proposed reformulation:
SEA recommendation: To take into consideration the conditions mentioned in the comments as complementary criteria during evaluation and selection of the projects, i.e. not as limiting, but as motivating for the submitting entities to incorporate the relevant environmental topics into their project implementation.
www.rec.org
Area of intervention: Development of firms
Relevant environmental objectives
Evaluation of possible
impactsComments Proposed measures to minimise risks
After the first Protocol revision period, to reduce, by the year 2020, CO2 specific emissions per
one inhabitant by 30% and the total aggregated CO2 emissions
by 25% in comparison to the year 2000, and then to continue in the trend.
!-
>>N?
Development of firms does not necessarily have to result in increasing CO2 emissions –
development of some enterprises could possibly be initiated by the need to reduce energy demands.
GHG emissions (as CO2 equivalent) should always be
included in the criteria for project evaluation.
To achieve a proportion of renewable energy sources in the gross electricity consumption equal to 8 % by the year 2010, and to increase it further.
!->V?
Development of firms will contribute to increasing energy consumption and in this way, it will limit fulfilment of the indicative goal. On the other hand, development of some enterprises could possibly be initiated by the need to reduce energy demands.
Within support to concrete projects, to take into consideration the criterion of reducing energy consumption and producing renewable energy so as development of companies is always directed at reducing the overall consumption of non-renewable energy.
To reduce waste production, including hazardous wastes.
!-
>>V?
Development of firms will contribute to increasing waste production, unless low-waste processes are preferred.
Within support to concrete projects, to take into consideration the criterion of technologies producing no or low waste.
To reduce industrial and transport noise pollution for populations in settlements.
!->V?
Development of firms can result in noise pollution from industrial activities and transport.
The impact will depend on character and focus of the given project. It is necessary to inform whether the project implementation will result in increased noise pollution – if so, respective noise protection measures must be proposed within the project.
www.rec.org
Assessment of priority axes and key areas of intervention
• Assessment of possible impacts on relevant environmental objectives
• Outputs:
• Evaluation of all KAIs
• Identification of possible risks and also positive effects
• Proposed modification of priority axes and KAIs (e.g. waste incineration/recycling)
• Proposed measures to minimize risks (conditions for KAIs implementation)
www.rec.org
Assessment of the monitoring
• System for environmental monitoring and for projects’ evaluation and selection
Environmental indicators for OPEI
Environmental criteria for projects
Environmental indicators
for projects
www.rec.org
Assessment of the monitoring
• List of environmental indicators for relevant environmental objectives
• Modification into environmental selection criteria
• Enables to measure both positive and negative impacts
• Requirements for
• integration into overall monitoring and evaluation system
• selection of relevant indicators for specific KAIs and projects
• ensuring of personal and expert capacities within the implementing structure
• informing the project developers
• regular reporting of the results
• public availability
www.rec.org
Results
• Proposal of draft final statement
• part of the SEA report
• Positive statement with conditions
• environmental monitoring and project evaluation
• condition for implementation
• Formal statement• issued by MoE
• almost all SEA proposals have been used
• background document for final approval by the Government
• background document (+ SEA report) for negotiation with EC
www.rec.org
Public participation
• Legal requirements• open for public comments during screening/scoping• public hearing at the end of the process (draft OP + SEA report)
• Web page of the SEA team• draft versions of OP• results of assessment • other info (contacts, invitations for meetings etc.)
• Initial public meeting• information on process of OP preparation• information on SEA approach and procedure
• Other• email conference• press releases
www.rec.org
Key benefits
SEA influenced the entire programming document
Suggestions (not all) from SEA incorporated into the text of program
The proposed system for environmental monitoring and project selection have been accepted by MIT
SEA (hopefully) changed attitude of MIT to environmental assessment and improved understanding of this issue
www.rec.org
Key difficulties
Low public interest
Poor communication with ex-ante team
Poor communication and support from MoE
SEA and EU funds
Group work
Malmö, December 17th, 2006
www.rec.org
Scoping statement
• What environmental issues SEA should be focused on?
• Which strategic documents should be used within the assessment?
• What activities for public participation should be carried out?
