1. 27-28 September, 2005, Bratislava ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE MEETING Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) – Tool for Sustainable Planning and Decision-Making UNDP Regional Centre for Europe and CIS Bratislava, Slovakia Henrieta Martonakova

2. Overview l Introduction to SEA l SEA status in our region, with emphasis on EECCA countries; l Capacity building needs in EECCA l Key entry points for SEA Application; l Potential role for UNDP???

3. What is SEA? Systematic and transparent process to ensure that significant environmental (SD) effects arising from plans, programmes, policies (legislation) are: l Identified and analysed; l Assessed; l Mitigated l Communicated to decision-makers l Monitored ….when all options in the planning and decision- making process are open; ….on par with economic, social and health issues ….providing opportunities for consultations and public involvement

4. Stages of SEA Elaboration of P/P SEA Initiation Determine need of SEA (screening) Scoping Analysis of detailed context and issues Environmental report Determine detailed context and issues Contribute to development and comparison of alternatives Review and finalize environmental report Development and comparison of alternatives Review and finalizing of the proposed P/P Decision-making

5. Difference between SEA and EIA EIA of projects SEA of strategic initiatives Technical instrument related to activities with geographic and technical specifications Political instrument related to concepts Reactive approach - at end of decision-making process Pro-active approach -at earlier stages of decision-making process Identifies specific impacts in the environment Address issues of sustainable development Limited review of cumulative effects Early warning of cumulative effects Emphasis on mitigating and minimizing impacts Prevention – in terms of identified environmental objectives

6. Why is SEA important? Enables mainstreaming of environment and sustainable development principles into planning and decision-making; l Facilitates integrated planning and decision-making process; l Encourage cross sector coordination; l Facilitates regional and transboundary co-operation l Builds public trust and confidence in decision-making l Promotes good governance l Help donors to meet their commitments with respect to sustainable development;

7. SEA Legal Framework in our Region EC SEA Directive - In force from 21 July 2004 UNECE SEA Protocol to the Espoo Convention - 37 Signatories: all EU and SEE countries, 4 EECCA countries: Armenia, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine - 2 Parties: Finland, Czech Republic

8. SEA in Countries in Transition- current status l EU countries + Bulgaria and Croatia: rapid pace of adaptation in terms of legislation and demonstration projects (EU driven process); l SEE countries: basic approaches needs to be established; l EECCA countries: use of the SEA elements in the OVOS/SER system – low level of application in practice Level of implementation varies from country to country

9. Strategic Environmental Assessment – Promotion and Capacity Building Target countries:Armenia, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, and Belarus In cooperation with the Regional Environmental Centre for Central and Eastern Europe (REC) In cooperation with the Regional Environmental Centre for Central and Eastern Europe (REC) Armenia:SEA of the Yerevan Master Plan Belarus:SEA of the National Tourism Development Plan Georgia. Moldova, Ukraine: national Capacity Building Manual for the SEA Protocol Implementation

10. SEA capacity building project in EECCA Countries Main Stages / Outcomes 1Analysis of current status in EA and identification of capacity building needs 2Demonstration of SEA in practice and SEA guidance development 3Evaluation of effectiveness, quality and lessons learned from SEA demonstration process, 4Development of national and regional capacity building strategies for the SEA Protocol implementation

11. Current SEA related EA systems - main features EA system: sub-systems and links to decision-making Initiative (strategic or project level) Assessment of Environmental impact (OVOS) Decision taking State Environmental Review (SER)

12. Current EA systems –main features SEA elements included in legislation on: - Environmental protection; - Environmental Impact Assessment; - Environmental Permitting; - Regulations on spatial and land-use planning; Low level of implementation – limited experience; Processes not aligned with internationally accepted practice

13. Current EA systems - main features + SEA elements, incl. public involvement in national env. laws +Well developed OVOS/EIA system -Legislation does not separate provisions for projects, and PPs – EA of P/P rarely applied in practice; -No clear screening procedures – too many, artificial reviews; -Scoping limited to the EIA report content (not applicable to strategic documents) -Absence of clear provisions for consultations and public participation – rarely applied in practice; -No practical experience with transboundary consultations

14. CB needs for SEA Protocol Implementation l Legal framework for SEA (incl. Terminology) l National SEA guidelines, manuals and training materials l Training and education l Pilot projects l Procedural schemes for different types of strategic documents l EIA/SEA associations/centers l Accreditation systems for SEA experts

15. CB priorities of the countries Country/Priority Priority 1 Priority 2 Armenia SEA guidelines Pilot project Belarus SEA guidelines Georgia Pilot Project Legal reform MoldovaTraining SEA guidelines Ukraine Pilot project Training

16. Phase II SEA Pilot Project Implementation

17. Objectives To test and demonstrate opportunities for practical application of the SEA Protocol To provide recommendations for environmental optimization of the strategic initiative

18. SEA pilot project process l Consultations and agreement with proponent and the environmental ministries on initiative subject to the pilot SEA l National SEA team establishment l Work plan preparation (including consultations and public participation) l SEA elaboration l SEA process evaluation + recommendations for improvement

19. Initial Lessons Learned SEA Pilot in Belarus l Too politically sensitive document selected initially l According to developer the role of SEA is to criticize – reluctance to provide documents (in time) l Short timeframe for programmes development, thus for SEA application l Good co-operation among SEA and planning team l EIA experts struggling with impacts assessment l Planning team see SEA as additional work/burden

20. Recommendations l Selection of less politically sensitive initiative for the pilot SEA; l Promotion of SEA benefits among planners l Agreement on the roles and responsibilities of the SEA team, proponent, MoE l SEA application at the early stage of planning process l Training of experts on SEA approach and methodologies l SEA recommendations easily processed by planners (form agreed between SEA team and planners) l Need for a strong, committed, and respected national SEA team leader

21. Key Entry Points for SEA l National cross-sector macro policies: e.g. direct budgetary support; l National cross-sector strategies, plans of programmes; e.g. PRS, programming documents for EU Structural Funds l Sector specific policies and P/P; e.g. transport, energy, waste management and water plans; l Integrated spatial or development plans; e.g. land-use and regional plans;

22. Key Entry Points for SEA l Transnational planning; e.g. watershed or river basin management across international boundaries; e.g. EIA of the Caspian sea l Mega projects; e.g. major infrastructure investments; l Agency specific instruments; e.g. country assistance plans or strategies l Sets of individual projects likely to have cumulative effects not well captured in project level assessment

23. Possibilities for UNDP intervention Capacity-building Knowledge management Stand-alone demonstration projects SEA component in the projects / areas we are already involved in

24. Networks OECD/DAC SEA Task Team UNDP SEA web site

25. Useful links OECD/DACREC Dutch EIA database Espoo convention Biodiversity Bary’s publication