Environment in Programming Structural Funds

1. Environment in Programming Structural Funds Antonio Strazzullo Pre-Accession Advisor Phare-Twinning

2. Overview • The role of environment in the EU Regional Policies and in Structural Funds • Programming and sustainable development • Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) • SEA vs EIA (plans vs projects) • What are the facts? Evidence from MS and AC • Sectors to be watched closely • Implications for project preparation Antonio Strazzullo

3. Main Acronyms en (it) • SF (FS) - Structural Funds • CSF (QCS) –Community Support Framework • ROP (POR) – Regional Operative Programs • SOP – Sectoral Operative Programs • SPD (DocUP) – Single ProgrammingDocument • ERDF (FESR) – European Regional Development Fund • SEA (VAS) – Strategic Environmental Assessment • EA (AA) - Environmental Authority • EIA (VIA) – Environmental Impact Analysis • AC (PA) - Accession countries Antonio Strazzullo

4. Integration of Environment in sector policies: increasing emphasis • 2001 adoption of the strategic document “A sustainable Europe for a better world” • Environmental sustainability, as a principle • Integrated policy, as a tool “economic growth, social cohesion and environmental protection must go hand by hand” Antonio Strazzullo

5. Integration of Environment in sector policies: increasing emphasis(continued) • adoption of the “6th Community Program for Environmental Action” • Environmental assessment of plans and programs, as a strategy • Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), as the tool Antonio Strazzullo

6. Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) • a systematic process to assess the the environmental consequences of policies, plans and programs • To ensure that environmental effects are entirely included and appropriately confronted since the earlier stages of the decision making process just as well as social and economic consequences • Implemented over the last 10 years • In Italy already in some regional legislations • Different areas of application, approaches, contents and methodologies according to sector, circumstances and level of decision making Antonio Strazzullo

7. SEA – Directive 42/2001 • Codifies at European level • Areas of application • Common methodological elements • Basic elements of management of the process • Makes SEA mandatory starting in year 2004 Antonio Strazzullo

8. Purpose of SEA • To identify, describe and assess the relevant effects that would derive from the implementation of the plan or program • The “reasonable” alternatives, given the objectives and the area of the plan or program Antonio Strazzullo

9. SEA – Scope of application • Plans and programs at National, regional, local level • Sectors: • Agricolture, • Forestry, • Fishery; • Energy; • Transports • Solid waste and water management • Telecommunications • Tourism • Territorial planning or land use • Programs that define the framework to authoise projects requiring EIA Antonio Strazzullo

10. SEA and Structural Funds • However, the largest area of application for the SEA are the Structural Funds: not just the programming phase, but the whole cycle of evaluation. Antonio Strazzullo

11. Environment: horizontal issue in SF • Article 1 of regulation 1260/99 states: “(…) In pursuing these objectives, the Community shall contribute to the harmonious, balanced and sustainable development of economic activities, the development of employment and human resources, the protection and improvement of the environment, and the elimination of inequalities, and the promotion of equality between men and women.” Antonio Strazzullo

12. A new important actor: the Environmental Agency • European, National, Regional • A powerful tool: the Network of agencies Functions of the regional agency: • Promoting the environment integration • Ensure correct implementation of norms • Horizontal function Antonio Strazzullo

13. The scope of action within SF • FESR • FEOGA • FSE Antonio Strazzullo

14. SEA/EA and SF documents Interacts on the following documents: • CSF/ROPs/SOPs (Ob.1) or SPD (Ob.2) • Evaluation documents: • Ex-ante evaluation • Intermediate evvaluation • Ex-post evaluation • Program Complements (especially in the identification of selection criteria) Antonio Strazzullo

15. SEA/EA and SF documents (2) • In many cases, the EA supports the Managing Authorities in drafting the tender documents • SEA is performed in the definition and programming phase of integrated projects Antonio Strazzullo

16. Approaches to SEA • The SEA can follow various approaches (Integrationary SEA, appraisal-inspired, EIA-Type) • These may also be considered sequential – from defining the policies toward the project – and specialised • However, SEA does assess projects: this is the realm of EIA Antonio Strazzullo

17. Differences between SEA and EIA • May be schematised in: • Level of analysis (plan vs project) • Objective (sustainability vs compatibility) • Metodologies (probable impacts & scenarios vs identifiable impacts) • Approach (evaluation internalised by the proponent vs third party evaluator) Antonio Strazzullo

18. Projects and Plans 1 • Closer to the policy side (plans) increase: • The complexity of relations • The scale (territory, popultion and economic impact) • Projects have: • Defined life cycle , that can be assessed • Limited individual impact on the whole economy and territory (although local impact may be sizeable) Antonio Strazzullo

19. Project and Plans 2 • Policies, plans and programs: • More undefined life cycle (and so the impacts) • May have larger and more pervasive effects • May have wider ndirect and side effects • Partial accomplishment of the expected results, may spell failure, or even negative overall effects Antonio Strazzullo

20. Integration between SEA and EIA • SEA does not substitute EIA • SEA examins alternatives that cannot be considered in EIA • SEA may help in fine-tuning evaluation at project level • SEA includes additional impacts (typical of the large scale, not considered in EIA • SEA increases the transparency of the whole process pf programming and evaluating Antonio Strazzullo

21. What are the facts? The MS • Recent survey analysis of experiences in the MS, show common critical elements (see Spaziante, 2000; and Icon (2001). • Here the Italian case is used as a guide • Lack of basic knowledge • Lack of effective reporting and monitoring indicators • Inconsistent set of indicators proposed by various referents • Sustainability criteria and environment protection objectives to assess priorities and measures missing or insufficient • No quantitative techniques used; no forecast tools; • insufficient motivation of opinion expressed; • Missing assessment of the integration of sustainability objectives; • Limited involvement of stakeholder Antonio Strazzullo

22. What are the facts? The MS (2) • In Objective 1 regions: • Modest effectivenes of SEA as tool to support programming • SEA performed mostly for compliance to regulations • Novelty of procedure, late definition of specific aspects led to poor quality and limited relevance of SEA. • (A partial exception, Puglia’s ROP SEA) • In Objective 2 regions, under less time pressure and better empowerment of technical structures, results are more respondent to expectations. (e.g.: Tuscany) Antonio Strazzullo

23. What are the facts? The AC • Most countries have major environmental projects under Cohesion Fund (inherits ISPA mission) • Some, like Hungary, have also Infrastructure and Environment OP • Small environment projects are not covered or left to regional OPs • Ex ante evaluation often unsatisfactory or straitforwardly poor Antonio Strazzullo

24. What are the facts? The AC (2) • Quality of integration of environmental sustainability objectives needs cnsiderable improvement and an effort to consistency • Assessment of pertinence and impact, quality of indicators hampered by lack of information and, generally, time shortage • Alternative and scenario analysis poor r generally underdeveloped Antonio Strazzullo

25. What is to be expected? • EIA of projects in a weaker framework • A considerable effort has to be put in in the successive SEA applications: indicators and reporting systems have to be properly developed • Technical skills and expertise for EIA still weak: technical assistance for capacity building still needed. Antonio Strazzullo

26. A comment • After all, findings are not a surprise. • For AC a reasonable start, though. • Co-financing for small scale, local environmental infrastructures (esp.: water & wastewater, solid waste, etc.) scarse or missing. • PF operations an option, desirable even to enhance transfer of skills? Antonio Strazzullo

27. Main sources and references • Directive 42/2001 CE (SEA) • Directive 337/1985 EEC (EIA) • Icon et al. (2001) “Sea et integration of the environment into stratgic decision making”, DG Enlargement, (survey experiences with SEA) • “Manuale per la valutazione ambientale dei piani di sviluppo regionale e dei Fndi Strutturali per lUnione Europea”, (1998) DG XI • Spaziante (2000) “La valutazione ambientale di piani e programmi, Regione Piemonte, Quad. 8 Antonio Strazzullo

28. Speaker’s contacts Antonio Strazzullo Mladost 3, blk 307, vh. 8, ap. 41 Sofia 1712 BULGARIA astrazzullo@unior.it Antonio Strazzullo

29. Thank you for the attention Good Bye. Antonio Strazzullo