Il monitoraggio Vas nei fondi strutturali

SEA monitoring and cohesion policy
Outcomes - 2012
SEA monitoring WG
Italian Network of Environmental Authorities
MATTM – PON GAT Linea 2 VIA-VAS
Mara Cossu e Bruna Kohan
Where did we start from?
ENEA WG
Cohesion Policy and
Strategic Environmental Assessment
(2008)
Monitoring the application of SEA Directive to Operational Programmes
2007-2013
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/pdf/sea.pdf
Starting issues: concerns raised by the ENEA experts
the risk to have SEA seen by non-environment experts inside and outside
Managing Authorities and Public Administration as an additional useless burdening
exercise;
the participation and effectiveness of participation of the public and other
environmental stakeholders in the SEA process;
the participation and effectiveness of participation of Environmental Authorities
themselves in the SEA process;
the methodological questions arising from the implementation of SEA to
Programmes which, by their very nature, are most of the time multi-sectorial and
multi-territorial.
Starting issues: opportunities by SEA process
the possibility to integrate environmental concerns and sustainability issues since
the programming phase;
the contribution to the EU objective of a high level of environmental protection;
a higher and strengthened cooperation
Authorities and Environmental Authorities;
among
Programming/Managing
on the capacity building side, the professional growth of development experts
and environmental experts on strategic and planning issues, both in old and new
MSs.
Scope of the survey:
28 analysed Operational Programmes:
MSs participating to the Working Group - 9 Ops
Cyprus; France; Italy; Slovakia
MSs participating to the survey (outside the Working Group) – 6 OPs
Austria; Estonia; Lithuania
Other MSs analysed by the Working Group - 9 OPs
Belgium; Ireland; Luxembourg; Portugal; Spain; Sweden; UK;
2 Cooperation Programmes (Interreg IVC; MED)
Main outputs
ASSESSMENT
Programmes setting conditions for further environmental assessment
procedures
32%
32%
32%
32%
36%
36%
Conditions set
Conditions set
Conditions not set
Conditions not set
No answer - no information available
No answer - no information available
Main outputs
ASSESSMENT
Monitoring systems of indicators chosen by analysed programmes
Comprehensive ERDF monitoring system
11%
11%
OP performance indicators
OP performance indicators + baseline indicators
29%
Other
11%
Indicators to be defined
21%
no environmental indicators
7%
no answer
11%
0%
10%
20%
30%
Margins for improvement from the application to Cohesion Fund and
Structural Funds Programmes - 1
1.
Lack of information for structuring environmental context analysis There is a need to develop a database of information sources and contacts (e.g.
across Government departments) for use in the SEA process. Some of this
information e.g. lists of publications, should be available on internet.
2.
Training and further methods and tools for participation of the public
and consultation of the environmental authorities.
3. Need continuing of integration of environmental issues all along the
implementation phase of the programmes. This calls for setting tools and
methods for integration inside SEA documents.
4.
Ineffectiveness of monitoring due to no operational monitoring system
at a national level, environmental effects are usually dealt with on a case-bycase basis.
5.
Support to cultural responsibleness of public authorities, setting aside
the compliance logic that generally characterises SEA and environmental issues
in general.
Margins for improvement from the application to Cohesion Fund and
Structural Funds Programmes - 2
6.Move towards an integrated assessment logic. Integration between ex ante
evaluation and SEA, where provided, allowed bringing SEA outputs into the
“programming table” and taking them into consideration. Ex ante evaluation
generally still seems to be a weak process not able to influence programming
activity. SEA can be considered even weaker, but not so much. The problem
becomes how to strengthen the assessment process as a whole, not depending
on specifc contents but on capability of influencing the programme. Both
processes are requested from EC and too focussed on writing documents rather
than on producing information for the participation. This leads ex ante evaluation
and SEA to be a “written procedure” much more than a process, limiting their
potential influence on Programming Authority. All processes are driven by a
compliance logic.
7.Elaboration of CP specific targeted guidelines on coordination assessment
procedures for SEA, EIA and Natura 2000 Appropriate Assessment.
…back to Italy and to our days…
Reflections on SEA’s italian regional law
Environmental
framework
Indications
for
monitoring
ABRUZZO
BASILICATA
■
■
BOLZANO
■
■
■
CALABRIA
■
CAMPANIA
EMILIA ROMAGNA
FRIULI-VENEZIA
GIULIA
LAZIO
LIGURIA
LOMBARDIA
MARCHE
MOLISE
PIEMONTE
PUGLIA
SARDEGNA
SICILIA
TOSCANA
TRENTO
UMBRIA
VALLE D'AOSTA
VENETO
Role of
Environment
al Regional
Agencies
Other
subjects’s
role
Construction
knowledge
base
■■■
■ (SIAT)
■
■■■
■■■ (CTA)
■
■
■
■
■
■
■■■
■
■■■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■■■
■
■
■
■
■
■■■
■
■
■■■
■■■
■■■
■
■■
■
■
■ (NURV)
■
■
fonte: Ricognizione della normativa regionale in materia di Vas – Mattm, Tf Pon Gat
(2010 in aggiornamento)
■
■
■ (SI-VVI)
■
■ (SISA)
■
■
La lettura della tabella consente
per ciascuno dei temi
considerati l’individuazione delle
realtà regionali che hanno
configurato disposizioni in
materia di VAS, articolandole
per rilevanza:
■ elemento presente nei
dispositivi regionali, e di
approfondimento rispetto ai
contenuti del D.Lgs. 152 e s.m.i.
■■■ elemento presente nei
dispositivi regionali, con
approfondimenti rilevanti
rispetto ai contenuti del D.Lgs.
152 e s.m.i.
Analysis boards received
16 Regions/Autonomous Provinces have sent the analysis
boards:
n° 16 boards of Regional Operative Programmes ERDF
n° 5 boards of Rural Development Programmes EARDF
n° 1 board of Interregional Energy Operative Programme
Bolzano, Calabria, Campania, Lazio , Liguria, Lombardia, Marche,
Molise, Piemonte, Puglia, Sardegna, Sicilia, Trento, Umbria, Valle
d’Aosta e Veneto
n° 1 board of Networks and Mobility National Operative
Programme
4 Regions haven’t sent the analysis boards: Abruzzo, Emilia
Romagna, Friuli Venezia Giulia e Toscana
Structure of analysis boards for the SEA
monitoring
1. Indicators
2. Governance
3. Integration
+ element present
- element not present
 important element which is state-depth
* never actually started monitoring
Results of the analysis
Of the 23 programs analyzed, only 13 have
approved the monitoring plan, or defined in
the Environmental Report, monitoring
measures such as not needing a plan later.
Monitoring Reports, effective witness to the
activity, have been published for 9 programs
of the 13 programs with approved plans.
Structure of the Monitoring - indicators
What has been monitored?
Program's ability to achieve its sustainable environmental
objectives
Environmental effects of positive/negative (sometimes
positive only)
Quality of the environmental integration process – is starting
Environmental Governance process - only in two cases
Structure of the Monitoring - indicators
Context Indicators
Data retrieval is still problematic in many regions
(Difficulty/onerous contributions Regional Environmental
Agency)
Examples of effective collaboration Regional Environmental
Agency/Region/Environmental Authority
First cases of the structure according to the methodology
MATTM-ISPRA (sustainably objectives-context indicators)
Increasing role of information systems (in trouble in the
center-south)
Structure of the Monitoring - indicators
Programme indicators (1)
Generally structured by Axes and Lines of action to which are
associated its own environmental sustainability objectives
identified in the ER
Integration of the core indicators of the Commission (in
relation to the monitoring program)
Little prediction of territorial focus where necessary (for
thematic, Major Projects, specific axis)
Embryonic use of information systems for the collection and
return of results of environmental monitoring
Structure of the Monitoring - indicators
Indicators Programme (2) - population
No difficulty if the indicators fully support the monitoring
program
Difficulties due to the recognition of the role of EA and its
ability to operate effectively (resources)
Need to plan the exchange of information throughout the
whole implementation of the programme, identifying precise
time windows (to deal with the manifestation of lack of
information provide sheets for the collection of information
ad hoc)
Integration (types and elements) (1)
Physical, procedural, financial VS environmental monitoring
system (different levels of integration)
SEA monitoring as part of a wider programme monitoring
system (EARDF specific framework) – environmental information
within annual execution report by MA
Sharing of some indicators depending on programme and axis
objectives/Programme monitoring system as source of data for
SEA monitoring
Some Regions working on “common frameworks” setting
environmental objectives and baseline indicators for Regional
policy (included cohesion policy) -> Ministry of Environment and
ISPRA preliminary activity
Integration (types and elements) (2)
Conprehensive assessment plans (elaborated by every Region)
In only few cases they comprise information or indications on
environmental monitoring.
Environmental authorities rarely participate in formulating
“assessment questions”, part of the assessment plans.
Some Regions are studying the opportunity to use the
assessment plan as an interlink between environmental
monitoring systems of different programmes (ERDF and EARDF)
In one case the assessment plan establishes a pilote assessment
committee, which includes the Environmental Authority.
Integration (types and elements) (3)
Comprehensive monitoring system
Campania Region approved a comprehensive environmental
monitoring system among all programmes (both SF and national
funds): environmental monitoring thought as a decision support
activity.
In some cases, comprehensive monitoring for shared measures
(ERDF/EARDF)
Environmental Authorities and Regional Agencies for the
Protection of the Environment as key elements for integration
(they work on all programmes)
Reflections on governance
Involved actors
- Roles (EA, ARPA, MA)
- Institutional responsabilities
Interaction among actors
- rules
- tools
Reflections on governance
Rules and tools for interaction
Operative plans for systematic collaboration (POCS): used in
several Regions to manage and rule interactions between MA and
EA
In Lombardy Region specific technical meetings have been
organized among Independent assessment , MA, EA to encourage
synergy and share both assessment methodology and useful data.
Crucial role of EA in coordinate the activity.
Reflections on governance
Umbria Region developed several tools for improving
environmental monitoring performance:
-Environmental Regional Framework and Regional Catalogue of
indicators (permanent working group)
- Regional task force for testing VAS provisions with Province and
Municipalities
- Intranet area on regional website for exchanging information and
experiences among public administrations
-Web space for publishing all monitoring documents
-Public events for disseminating information on the advancement
state of the ERDF programme and on its environmental
performance
Crucial points by experience
- difficult access to environmental data and consequent demanding
calculation of essential indicators (air, water, soil)
- fragmentariness of institutional actors holding data (heterogeneous
and uncomparable information resources: call for common regional
or national directives)
- complexity of linking performance indicators (and monitored
measure effects) to environmental baseline indicators.
- assessing negative effects of the programme (no data available)
- excessive burden lying on beneficiaries in providing information on
funded projects (no common activities in gathering information
EA/MA)
- keeping into proper account specific territorial issues
Demands for environmental monitoring
(what do we need for improving monitoring and SEA efficiency?)
- design the governance structure for environmental monitoring and
specific tools for supporting it
- establish a procedure for maximizing monitoring efficiency all along
the implementation phase of the programmes (roles,
responsibilities, itinera)
- guarantee EA and ARPA effective role
- define duty of transmitting some specific information on projects
while submitting proposals (for beneficiaries)
- temporalize monitoring activities as to allow indicators to
progressively get thorough
mara cossu
[email protected]
bruna kohan
[email protected]