Strategic Environmental Assessment of some strategies and of the NDP practical experience from Polan

1
Strategic Environmental Assessment of some
strategies and of the NDP practical experience
from PolandConferenceProgramming the EU funds
2007-2013Kraków, November 25-26, 2005

• Bozenna Wójcik
• Institute for Sustainable Development
• Warsaw, Poland

2
The experience on SEAs in Poland

• Not very long not very big!
• From 1994 prognosis of environmental effects of
  local land use plans are obligate.
• From 2001 prognosis of environmental effects of
  some types of strategic documents (national
  regional level strategies, policies, plans
  programs, with land use plans within it) were
  obligate but only for those which preparation
  was required by law.
• From 2005 more types of strategic documents is a
  subject of the prognosis of environmental
  effects.

3
The experience on SEAs in Poland - cont.

• SEAs prepared by the teams with ISD experts
• SEA for the National Development Plan for
  2004-2006
• SEA for the Tourism Development Strategy for
  2007-2013
• SEA for the National Strategy for Regional
  Development for 2007-2013

4
The experience on SEAs in Poland - cont.

• For programming period 2007-2013 some other SEAs
  were prepared (using different methods mostly
  then we)
• for some updated (in 2005) regional development
  strategies few of them
• Some others SEAs were discussed, but not decided
  yet if will be ordered or not
• for National Strategic Reference Framework
• For Sectoral Operation Program Environment
• There are some drafts operational programs which
  are in the consultation process but without SEAs

5
The experience on SEAs in Poland -
cont.Problem important for NGOs to monitor

• For some strategic documents some expertises
  called SEAs but being a review or opinion type
  documents were prepared also in last months
  not by team of experts but by one person, in very
  short time not using systematic list of
  criteria
• for NDP 2007-2013
• for updated (in 2005) National Spatial
  Development Policy Concept
• for some others updated (in 2005) regional
  development strategies how many is difficult to
  recognize not all are presented to the public

6
Initiation of SEAs

• SEA for NDP
• - initiated and co-financed by REC like in
  several Accession Countries before their
  accession in 2004
• - co-financed by Polish Ministry of Economy
  Labour
• SEA for Tourism DS
• - ordered by Ministry of Economy Labour
  (Tourism Department)
• SEA for NSRD
• - ordered by Ministry of Economy Labour
  (Regional Policy Department)

7
Our assessment team
8
The time for work
9
Subject of the assessment
10
Consultation process
11
Our assessment methodology

• There are not the national guidelines for SEAs in
  Poland (only for land use plans) the context
  general obligations are in Env. Prot. Act.
• The methodology which we use now was elaborated
  by our team during the assessment of the NDP for
  2004-2006 some other teams are using also.
• The methodology is adapted to each next document
  list of criteria the way how results we are
  presenting.

12
The aim of assessment

• The place and significance of environmental
  issues of sustainable development issues in
  document as a whole.
• Assessment of the possibilities for sustainable
  development of the environmental consequences
  of proposed actions.
• Formulation of recommendations which would
  improve the document (greening it making it
  more sustainable).

13
Content of the assessment report

• Is closely connected with those 3 aims
  include- results of general document assessment
  - results of priorities and measures assessment
  (from sustainable development environmental
  point of view)- general and detailed
  recommendations to whole document to each
  priority line
• Information about methods applied, uncertainties
  encountered, sources of information used are also
  aided.

14
Main stages of the assessment team work
15
First selection of the assessment criteria (for
NDP 2004-2006)

• General review of major legal acts policy
  documents (national and international) a total
  of over 100
• Selection of acts and documents to be used for
  formulation of criteria 14 of them was chosen
• Formulation of the first list of criteria 250
  detailed criteria
• Joining of criteria 52 grouped criteria
• Building of the final list of criteria
  formulation of 23 mega-criteria

16
Main groups of criteria (1)

• Sustainable resources management
• General and horizontal issues
• Transport
• Energy
• Agriculture
• Nature and landscape
• Forestry
• Water management and fisheries

17
Main groups of criteria (2)

• Changes in the environment
• Air
• Noise and radiation
• Soil and wastes
• Water
• Nature
• Other if appropriate

18
Formal/procedural criteria (1)

• Were diagnosis and SWOT prepared taking into
  account sustainable development?
• Were environmental aims and goals suggested?
• Are proposed actions in accordance with
  environmental policy documents?
• Were negative environmental impacts quantified?
• Is publicly accountable EIA envisaged for
  proposed activities?
• Are sustainability indicators taken into account?

19
Formal/procedural criteria (2)

• Is green purchasing promoted?
• Did the document undergo public consultations and
  were the results taken into account?
• Are sustainability aims in different sectors
  coherent?
• Are environmental criteria for the choice of
  project suggested?
• Are diagnosis, aims, proposed activities and
  monitoring indications coherent and sustainable?
• Is the role of environmental protection
  authorities made clear?

20
Issue oriented criteria (1)

• Will proposed activities result in effective use
  of resources (production, consumption,
  management)?
• Will proposed activities result in decreased use
  of non-renewable resources?
• Is eco-innovation promoted?
• Do proposed activities promote sustainability
  (including mitigation measures and monitoring)?
• Will proposed activities improve state of the
  environment?
• Is nature and landscape protection taken into
  account (in particular NATURA 2000)?

21
Issue oriented criteria (2)

• Do proposed activities reduce environment-related
  health risks?
• Do proposed activities maintain cultural values?
• Do proposed activities create conditions for fair
  competition in the use of the environment?
• Do proposed activities raise environmental
  awareness?
• Do proposed activities improve spatial management
  structure?

22
Main fields of uncertainties when a strategic
document is assessed

• Not clear structure of goals priorities
  related measures
• Types and location of action uncertain locally
  both strong and weaker effects are possible
• Problems with assessment of long-term and
  multi-sectoral effects of activities proposed
  of those which will result of them in future
• Lack of some important information in document
  important when document is assess within SEA

23
Environment in most of strategic documents

• Environment perceived as liability and cost
• Environmental protection activities not
  considered as separate issue, no cross sectoral
  approach (e.g. Flood control)
• Lack of environmental criteria for project
  selection of environmental sustainable
  development indicators

24
Environment in most of strategic documents (2)

• Sustainable development sometime declared but not
  really included
• Sustainability not considered
• Lack of long term perspective
• Lack of integration of aims between sectors
• ex. transport
• ex. agriculture

25
Main recommendations

• Sustainability rather than end-of pipe
  solutions
• Environmental aims/goals
• Clear environmental limitations in sectors
• Sometimes new priorities or measures
  environmentally oriented proposed
• Sometime some priorities or measures proposed to
  cut

26
Possible changes in strategic documents after
SEAs????

• Broader approach to environment to
  sustainability
• Better structure and coherence of document
• Changes in diagnosis ex.
• Some environmentally friendly activity (ex.
  organic farming) seen as a chance
• Polish environment considered as asset
• Environmental aspects of competitive economy
• New priorities or measures promoting the
  sustainable development (limited )

27
Some other changes expected

• A number of detailed provisions ex.
• Environmental impact assessment
• Environmental requirements in project
  implementation
• Environmental issues more considered by sectors
  ex..
• green jobs perceived (not everywhere)
• Support for renewable energy sources
  (insufficient)

28
What could be even greener

• Aims overall and sectoral
• Monitoring of implementation lack of
  sustainable/sustainability indicators
• Innovation promoting increase effectiveness of
  resources use, reduce impacts

29
Conclusions

• We need to have a SEA which is a real process
  like in its definition
• purposeful
• flexible
• relative
• Iterative
• Preparation of the SEA report can not be the only
  one element of the process but in many cases
  is.

30
Conclusions - cont.

• For good quality SEA process the proper time is
  needed to start earlier for assessment of the
  assumptions and aims as a first step.
• We need real SEA not something what is called a
  SEA but is in many cases only the kind of
  environmental review or opinion.

31
Conclusions - cont.

• Assessment Team need to be interdisciplinary
• Assessment Team need to be in relation to the
  programming team as
• co-operative (to co-operate with programming
  teams)
• Independent

32
Conclusions - cont.

• Criteria
• no problem to generate
• Lack of a set of politically approved
• Need to limit the number
• Choice will always be controversial
• Need for active consultations