STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT



Regional workshop on SEA process, tools and lessons from the energy sector

Report of the regional workshop on SEA for Mekong Governments

24-27 May 2016, Bangkok, Thailand Prepared for: Pact and the US Department of State By: ICEM – International Centre for Environmental Management May 2016



1







T A BL E O F C O N T E N T S SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................... 3 1

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 2 1.1 Workshop purpose ......................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Workshop background ................................................................................................... 2

2

WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS .................................................................................................. 3 2.1 Day 1: Tuesday 24th May ................................................................................................ 3 2.1.1 Session 1: Overview of SEA in the Mekong region and expectations ......................... 3 2.1.2 Session 2: Country experience with environmental integration into development strategies and plans .................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Day 2: Wednesday 25th May ........................................................................................... 4 2.2.1 Session 2: Country experience with environmental integration into development strategies and plans (continued) ................................................................................................. 4 2.2.2 Session 3: SEA process and tools ................................................................................ 5 2.2.3 Session 4: SEA case studies from the Mekong region to illustrate process and tools 5 2.3 Day 3: Thursday 26th May ............................................................................................... 7 2.3.1 Session 3: SEA process and tools (continued) ............................................................ 7 2.3.2 Quiz to gauge participants’ understanding of key SEA concepts ................................ 8 2.3.3 Panel session on the potential, obstacles and next steps for the use of SEAs in the Mekong region ............................................................................................................................ 8 2.4 Day 4: Friday 27th May .................................................................................................... 9 2.4.1 Session 5: Wrap up and next steps ............................................................................. 9

3

CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS ........................................................................................ 12 3.1 Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 12 3.2 Next steps ..................................................................................................................... 12

4

PHOTOS ............................................................................................................................. 13

APPENDIX 1. PARTICIPANT LIST ..................................................................................................... 14 APPENDIX 2. WORKSHOP AGENDA ............................................................................................... 16





2



SUMMARY The ‘SEA process, tools and lessons from the lower Mekong region energy sector’ workshop sought to inform the participants on key elements of strategic environmental assessments (SEAs), and to share experience on the use of SEAs in the energy sector (particularly hydropower) in the region. The workshop was convened by PACT and the US Department of State, and led by ICEM. It was attended by senior technical staff from Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Thailand and Vietnam. Conclusions from the workshop discussions include: •

•

•

•

•

•

•



The legal frameworks for SEAs – whether mandatory and/or discretionary – need to be strengthened in Myanmar, Lao PDR and Cambodia, and established in Thailand. The experience with mandatory SEAs in Vietnam needs to be reviewed. SEA baseline information: In all countries, there is a lack of systematic gathering of data from past environmental studies, EIAs and SEAs to build a well-organised and managed database accessible to all arms of government and contracted SEA consultants. Capacity building: SEA expertise needs to be improved in the region, both among government officials and consultants through (i) tertiary courses in SEA and strategic planning, (ii) special training programs for government staff and consultants on SEA and strategic planning and (iii) piloting of SEAs supported as training and capacity building exercises. There is a special need for detailed training in SEA tools. Regular evaluation of experience: The SEA experience in the region goes back more than 15 years, but there have not been regular evaluations of the experience in each country so that evolving systems can take advantage of the lessons learned. In particular, it will be important to introduce effectiveness indicators relating to SEA influence on development plans and decisions. SEA guidance: National SEA systems require generic national-level SEA guidelines or regulations supporting a legal framework which set out procedures and tools and the common requirements across government. These need to be accompanied by sector or subsector specific guidelines which can be introduced with increasing SEA experience. Climate change impact as a major strategic issue for SEAs in the Mekong region: Climate change was recognised as an issue of increasing importance for development planning in the region, particularly for water management and infrastructure in the energy, transport, water supply and urban development fields. All SEAs needed to have the capacity to bring in climate change as an underlying influence on sustainability options. Mekong SEA network: A SEA network is needed for sharing information of SEA experiences and materials, and as the basis for ongoing training and exchange.



3





1

INT RO D UC T IO N

1.1

WORKSHOP PURPOSE

Held in Bangkok on 24-27 May 2016, the ‘SEA process, tools and lessons from the lower Mekong region energy sector’ workshop was organized by Pact as part of its Lower Mekong Initiative (LMI) Environment and Water Pillar Training Program (PTP). The workshop had two objectives: • •

To impart knowledge of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) tools and practice so that officials can usefully work with or usefully engage with a SEA team; and To share experience on constraints and opportunities for use of SEA in the power development sector.

The workshop was attended by some 30 senior technical staff from Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Thailand and Vietnam, drawn from ministries of environment, economic planning, investment and energy. The complete list of attendees appears as Appendix 1. A broader range of participants from Thai organisations and the international community attended the special panel discussions which took place on the 26th May. The training program design and implementation resulted from collaboration between Pact and ICEM – the International Centre for Environmental Management – with support from Economic Consulting Associates (ECA). The workshop agenda appears as Appendix 2. 1.2

WORKSHOP BACKGROUND

Founded in 1971, Pact (www.pactworld.org) is an international non-profit organization that focuses on developing communities in regions plagued by health crises, resource dependence, and extreme poverty. Pact has worked in Thailand since 2006, creating lasting change by building the capacity of local institutions to improve people’s lives. With support from the US Department of State, Pact’s LMI and PTP programs seeks to strengthen skills and capacity of environmental ministries in Lower Mekong Countries. LMI serves as a platform to address transnational development challenges in the Mekong Region, and PTP ensures that governments in the region have the capacity and shared language to plan jointly on environment and water issues. ICEM (www.icem.com.au) is a public interest environmental management organisation with headquarters in Hanoi, Vietnam. ICEM’s services include strategic environmental assessments, integrated natural resource management, GIS and spatial analysis, climate change and hydrological modelling. ECA (www.eca-uk.com) is a UK-based consultancy with experience in regulatory economics, market design and policy planning. ECA’s experts are specialised in the sectors of electricity, renewable energies, natural gas, water and wastewater, and energy efficiency.







2





2

W O R K SH O P P R O C EED ING S

2.1

DAY 1: TUESDAY 24 T H MAY

2.1.1

Session 1: Overview of SEA in the Mekong region and expectations

The objective of the session was to establish a common understanding on workshop outcomes, and introduce basic SEA concepts. Welcome addresses were delivered by Jeremy Carew-Reid (Director General, ICEM) and Tahra Vose (Environment, Science, Technology and Health Officer, US Embassy). The participants introduced themselves by describing their experiences with SEAs and/or EIAs. Kipp Efinger (Project Director, Pact) outlined the objectives of the workshop, pointing out that training in SEAs was requested by participants of Pact’s previous workshop in Hanoi in December 2015. SEAs are becoming more important in the region as connectivity and transboundary linkages grow and cumulative effects of multiple development projects within sectors and geographic areas become evident – especially in shared river basins. Participants introduced themselves and contributed their views on what they were hoping to get out of the workshop. The following ideas were expressed: • • • • •

establishing a network group for SEA exchange and capacity building collect new information and understanding from other countries’ experience in SEA and case studies (including tools and processes) enhanced understanding of the SEA process and how it is integrated with development planning learning how to conduct rapid SEAs with limited resources (time, budget) adapting the SEA process to the country context

Dr Carew-Reid delivered an introductory training module on the SEA process and methods. SEA is a development planning tool aiming to ensure that sustainability aspects are considered systematically in policies and plans (as opposed to EIA, which focuses on individual projects). Unlike EIAs, which follow a prescriptive process, SEAs are flexible in terms of their design, cost and length. Due to their strategic nature, SEAs also tend to rely more on expert and stakeholder judgements and less on site specific survey and studies compared to EIAs. SEAs are most effective when carried out as part of plan or policy formulation, and least effective when they are a “stand-alone” procedure. During a Q&A session, it was pointed out that ideally SEAs should be carried out by the agency proposing the development plan/policy in question (i.e. the plan proponent). There is no optimal duration of a SEA; rather, it often depends on the level of public concern and political interest, the number of people affected and the significance for national and regional economic development. 2.1.2

Session 2: Country experience with environmental integration into development strategies and plans

The objective of session was to share status and lessons in integrating environmental concerns in development planning in participating countries. Government participants delivered presentations on the situation in their respective countries, followed by Q&A sessions. Thailand has been implementing EIAs since 1975, and these are mandatory for 35 types of projects. A SEA guideline was developed in 2009 and contains 10 steps for carrying out a SEA. SEAs and the use of the guideline are not mandatory, but are called for at the discretion of the National Environment Board or Cabinet when considering large government projects or when projects have become controversial. Over 20 SEAs have been conducted to date along sectoral (e.g. energy sector, watershed management, waste management), area-based (e.g. tourism development in the



3



Andaman Islands) and issue-based lines. Key challenges for SEAs in Thailand are the lack of a legislative framework, limited evaluation and learning from SEA experience, very limited uptake by government of SEAs’ recommendations, lack of understanding of SEAs among stakeholders, lack of capacity in consultants carry out SEAs, and lack of quality data. In Vietnam, SEAs are mandatory under Article 12 of the Law on Environmental Protection (LEP) 2014. Specifically, Decree No 18/2015/ND-CP lists types of strategies and plans that require SEAs; these include plans for river basins, power development, and all sector and provincial socioeconomic plans. Article 15 of LEP 2014 prescribes the content of the SEA report, while Article 16 stipulates the SEA review process by at the national and provincial levels by review councils. The findings and recommendations of the SEA must be considered by plan makers and integrated into the plan. Key challenges for SEAs in Vietnam are: (i) the large number of SEAs that must be prepared and are passing through the government system, and the limited capacity to assimilate them effectively into development planning; (ii) the poor quality of the SEA reports and a sense they have become a “rubber stamp” to allow plans to be approved; (iii) inconsistent and ad hoc allocation of funding within national and provincial government departments and agencies responsible for conducting SEAs; and (iv) government-supported SEAs receiving only around USD 20,000-30,000 in funding. In Cambodia, there is limited experience with SEAs, apart from a pilot SEA of the tourism sector. An EIA law has been drafted, and an Environmental Code is being developed; both are due in December 2016. SEA would be a useful tool, especially now that the National Council for Sustainable Development has been established, but government and consulting capacity needs to be improved if the tool is to work effectively. Establishing a regional SEA network would assist in building that expertise, as would conducting more SEA pilots on strategic development issues in country. Other challenges include lack of integrated spatial planning and a widespread lack of credible data. In Lao PDR, the 2012 revision of the Environmental Protection Law stipulated that SEAs should be used for assessing environmental impacts of sectoral policies, strategies and programs. A supporting SEA decree has been drafted and is currently awaiting government approval; it is not yet clear whether SEAs will be mandatory for certain categories of development plans. Integrated spatial planning has been carried out in 12 provinces, and SEAs will be conducted in the remaining 6 provinces as an integrated spatial planning tool (starting with the mining and hydropower sectors). In December 2015, Myanmar introduced a provision for discretionary SEA through a decision of the Ministry of Environment Conservation and Forestry. Myanmar does not have SEA regulations or guidance in place. Key constraints include limited human and financial resources in relevant sectors, limited environmental awareness within the private sector, and weak law enforcement. MECF’s EIA Department has only 14 staff responsible for reviewing dozens of project proposals. The government plans to collaborate with the Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA) in developing SEA guidelines for the mining sector, and an IFC-funded SEA of the hydropower sector is set to commence in 2016. The latter will be an important opportunity to showcase the benefits of SEA as a strategic planning and priority-setting tool. 2.2

DAY 2: WEDNESDAY 25 T H MAY

2.2.1

Session 2: Country experience with environmental integration into development strategies and plans (continued)

A country working group session was held, with participants asked to identify five lessons from their experience in integration of ecological sustainability into development planning in their respective countries (particularly in relation to use of EIAs and SEAs). Lessons reported included:



4



•

• •

•

•

2.2.2

Uncertainties over the influence on development plans of SEAs which have been conducted, i.e. on integrating sustainability into objectives, orientations and activities of development plans. Lack of relevant and reliable data, and lack of national systems for managing the data are the most serious constraints to SEAs in the region. Other constraints include the lack of inter-agency collaboration in SEA implementation, lack of technical capacity among government officials, and lack of consistent financial resources for SEA which are allocated through government budgets on an annual basis. Governments and the private sector in the region are not fully appreciative of the benefits of SEA. This may reflect a limited commitment to ecological sustainability and social equity in development planning. EIAs (and now SEAs) are often seen as delaying important development decisions. It takes very high level commitment and leadership to convince agencies and private sector that sustainability and tools which promote it are in the best interests of national and local development and result in cost savings in the medium to long term. Making SEAs mandatory through legislation is just a first step. Adequate resources, capacities and commitment to quality in the process and reports are needed to make the national SEA system work effectively. Session 3: SEA process and tools

The objective of this session was to improve participant familiarity with key stages and methods in the SEA process, their purpose and the tools accompanying them. Jeremy Carew-Reid delivered a training module on the steps entailed in the SEA process. SEAs usually contain the following steps, although these can be amalgamated: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5)

6) 7) 8) 9)

Decision to prepare a development plan Screening – deciding whether or not the proposed strategy, plan or policy requires a SEA Scoping – identifying key issues to be considered and boundaries for assessment Baseline assessment – developing a projected baseline (the ‘without policy’ scenario) Impact assessment (i) defining the impacts – overlaying the proposed strategy/plan/policy onto the baseline, using trend analysis (among other tools) (ii) defining the significance – determining the significance of impacts Avoidance, enhancement and mitigation – identifying ways to avoid or mitigate risks, and enhance benefits; this involves looking at alternative scenarios SEA reporting (best preparing and released at each stage of the SEA) and recommendations SEA report review SEA implementation, and monitoring and evaluation of recommendations

Two important components of SEA – the consideration of alternatives and the assessment of cumulative impacts of a proposed strategy or plan – are the most challenging requirements in the SEA process. The assessment of alternatives was discussed later in the workshop. Stakeholder consultation at regular stages in the process is also critical for SEA credibility and authority. However, SEAs have a broad scope and it is seldom possible (or even desirable) to involve all affected groups. SEAs need to be strategic in identifying the most important stakeholders and seek to engage the “gate keepers” who can represent their communities’ voice and interests. 2.2.3

Session 4: SEA case studies from the Mekong region to illustrate process and tools

The objective of the session was to bring the SEA process to life by introducing a number of important case studies which have been conducted in the region.



5



William Derbyshire (Director, Economic Consulting Associates) delivered a presentation on the SEA of the Greater Mekong Subregion Power Development Plan. Conducted in 2012-13 with funding from the Asian Development Bank, the SEA covered Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam and the Guangxi Autonomous Region and Yunnan Province of People’s Republic of China. The presentation explained how a baseline was defined and how alternative power development paths were identified and modelled. It also described how impacts were quantified and compared across the baseline, as well as the alternatives and conclusions reached. Emphasis was placed on the need for conclusions and recommendations to be provided in a format suitable for actions by policymakers if such large-scale studies are to achieve results The SEA was a major initiative in terms of both geographical scope and the level of analysis undertaken, and can be seen as illustrating the upper bounds of what is achievable. The analysis and conclusions of the SEA are publicly available as Asian Development Bank Knowledge Products.1 Jeremy Carew-Reid presented a case study of the SEA of hydropower on the mainstream Mekong, conducted by ICEM in 2010 for the Mekong River Commission (MRC). The SEA assessed potential economic, social and environmental impacts of 12 proposed hydropower projects up to 2030 on 6 countries in question. Its key recommendation was to defer the development of proposed dams for 10 years to allow time for needed capacity building, and for further studies to better understand impacts and to build a knowledge base. The SEA was influential in the ongoing debate, with its recommendations adopted by Cambodia and Vietnam, and with Vietnam funding a major follow-up study on the impacts of mainstream hydropower on the Mekong delta in Cambodia and Vietnam – effectively a more focussed SEA. However, Lao PDR did not accept the SEA’s recommendations and has since gone ahead with mainstream development. A working group session was the held to develop guidance to Myanmar for conducting the planned SEA of the hydropower sector. Participants were provided with background information on the planned SEA, and were split up into cross-country groups to respond to a serious of questions. The questions and the most frequent answers are provided in Table 1. Table 1: Guidance for the Myanmar SEA of hydropower development Who are the key stakeholders?

Relevant government agencies at national and local level, CSOs, NGOs, local communities, especially ethnic minorities, and China where the upper reaches of the Salween is located. A transparent and open process with reporting at each stage for review and comment.

How will you engage the stakeholders?

Consultative meetings, interviews, surveys, focus group discussions, dissemination of project information via mass media (newspapers and television) – a communications and knowledge sharing program important.

What are the key environmental issues?

Deforestation and forest degradation in watersheds, biodiversity loss, fisheries, water and air pollution, floods, droughts, landslides, hydrology – flow, sediment and nutrient transport, changes to river hydrodynamics and morphology

How would you prioritize the key environmental issues?

Expert judgement, scientific analysis, consultations and ranking exercises with stakeholders, multi-criteria analysis, GIS and spatial analysis, priorities identified in development plans.

What are the key socioeconomic issues?

Land-use change, community displacement, food security (particularly for fisheries), employment opportunities, health and poverty impacts, loss of cultural values and diversity, need for special attention to the impacts on ethnic minorities, impacts on other development sectors, such as fisheries,

1

Available at: http://www.adb.org/projects/43293-012/main#project-documents (under ‘Related Publications’).





6



tourism, navigation and agriculture. How would you prioritize the key socio-economic issues?

Expert judgement, consultations with stakeholders, priorities identified in development plans, macro-economic analysis and monetization of impacts.

What kinds of cumulative impacts need to be considered?

Impacts of one hydropower plant on the others in cascades, impacts of many hydro projects within one river basin – i.e. mainstream and tributaries, impacts of many sector developments in one basin, climate change, effects of many developments over time, impacts on flooding, and drought, impacts on minority groups.

What are alternatives to medium/large hydro-power and how should they be considered?

Energy efficiency measures (e.g. efficient cooking stoves), small-scale hydropower, options for hydro which do not involve full channel dams, other renewable energy sources where appropriate (wind, solar, biomass), biogas, LNG. Need to consider mixes of power development options, especially in meeting decentralised power supply in the more isolated rural areas.

Any comments/suggestions on the SEA process?

Allocate sufficient budget and timeframe for consultations with a wide range of stakeholders, and for adequate baseline assessment to facilitate data collection and synthesis, standardise data collection. Critical to establish good working relations across a range of government sectors so that the SEA process and team is respected and so sector expert working groups can be established.

What tools can be used to prioritize strategic issues?

Multiple criteria analysis, workshops, consultations, trend analysis, GIS and special analysis, macro economic analysis and monetization of impacts (costbenefit analysis), long-term national development plans

2.3

DAY 3: THURSDAY 26 T H MAY

2.3.1

Session 3: SEA process and tools (continued)

Jeremy Carew-Read gave a presentation on dealing with alternatives (or “options”) within an SEA. Alternatives are different ways of achieving the planned goals and objectives (e.g. delivering electricity to rural areas), resulting in different economic, social and environmental impacts. It is best to define alternatives (which can be grouped as development scenarios) and to subject them to intensive consultations as early as possible. Ideally, alternatives should be identified jointly by the plan makers and the SEA team. The methodology for developing alternatives should be as objective and transparent as possible. It is the job of the SEA to define the combination of alternatives which lead to the most ecologically sustainable outcomes. William Derbyshire delivered a presentation on consideration of alternatives in SEAs of power development plans, using SEA for the Greater Mekong Subregion Power Development Plan as a case study. He described how a set of alternatives for power development plans can be defined early in the SEA process. The presentation reviewed the characteristics of alternative clean energy technologies (including renewables and energy efficiency measures), the positive and negative impacts on each, and the need to arrive at realistic scenarios if alternative development paths are to be credible. The trade-off between basing alternatives on what is seen as credible and offering more radical alternatives was raised during the discussions on the presentation and it was noted that the definition of alternatives needs to be stakeholder driven and tailored to meet the objectives and scope for the SEA as defined by the commissioning agency. A scoping exercise on SEAs for a national power development plan (PDP) was then conducted. Working in country groups, participants were asked a series of questions relating to a hypothetical SEA of the PDP in their respective countries. Participants were provided with background data on



7



the energy sector in their respective countries to make the exercise of direct practical relevance. The questions and most frequent answers are provided in Table 2. Table 2: Responses to scoping exercise What are the SEA steps?

Screening, scoping, baseline assessment, impact assessment, assessment of opportunities and risks, assessment of avoidance, enhancement and mitigation options, preparation of SEA report, review of SEA report, PDP revision based on SEA recommendations

What are the key concerns for the PDP?

Power security, sustainability, energy exports and imports, energy cost and price, capacity factors, employment opportunities

What are the scenarios?

Promoting renewable energy, promoting energy efficiency, following the existing (unrevised) PDP

How should the scenarios be defined?

Consultations with energy sector plans and existing programs (e.g. rural electrification program in Cambodia), consultations with national- and provincial-level development plans

What are the key impacts to be assessed?

Energy security, economic security, food security, impacts on ecosystem services and biodiversity, impacts on climate, impacts on cultural heritage

How can the impacts be measured?

Use of scientific data, public consultations, expert opinion, monitoring, GIS and spatial analysis and modelling, trend analysis, MCA

What are the conclusions and recommendations?

Develop a database of relevant data, incorporate SEA recommendations into the PDP, conduct the necessary capacity building, establish a SEA review body

2.3.2

Quiz to gauge participants’ understanding of key SEA concepts

Halfway through the workshop, participants completed an 8-question multiple-choice quiz to assess their understanding of key SEA concepts presented and discussed to that point in the program. The results showed that participants had a strong understanding of SEA objectives, impacts assessed, the purpose of mitigation and avoidance, as well as information provided in SEA case studies. In comparison, their understanding of the levels of consultation required, the purpose of screening, and the extent to which the SEA team must be united in its views needed improvement. 2.3.3

Panel session on the potential, obstacles and next steps for the use of SEAs in the Mekong region

A panel session of SEA experts was assembled and guided a discussion on the use of SEAs in the Mekong region. The discussion was open to outside participants. The panel consisted of the following members: • • • •

Ms. Ladawan Kumpa – Deputy Secretary-General, Thailand National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB) Dr. Wolfhart Pohl – Lead Environmental Specialist, World Bank Dr. John Dore – Senior Water Resources Specialist, Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) Dr. Robert Mather – former head of IUCN Southeast Asia Technical Program and of WWF Thailand

Each panel member gave a 15 minutes key issues briefing followed by 2 hours of plenary discussion. The full audio recording of the panel session is available here. Key points raised during the discussion included:



8



•

•

•

•

•

SEAs meeting expectations. SEAs need to reflect reality on the ground – there is no point in recommending large-scale changes if they are unlikely to be implemented because of lack of political will or resources). There was not full agreement on this point – some participants felt that a SEA team should not try and second-guess what will or will not be acceptable to decision makers. Instead, it should draw conclusions based on the information and sustainability options before it in an objective and transparent manner, and provide the best technical advice to decision makers. SEAs integrating with development planning. The integration of SEAs as a necessary component into development planning is essential if they are to be of value as a strategic planning tool for achieving sustainability. The experience with SEAs in the region has not been systematically evaluated, so their influence on the tide of opinion and on development planning is difficult to assess. There is a sense that their recommendations have not often been implemented. Monitoring of implementation is generally absent. Legal framework needed for transboundary SEAs. To ensure that findings of SEAs covering multiple countries are implemented, inter-governmental agreements are needed which embrace the use of the tool as an essential ingredient in basin wide strategy planning. At this stage in the Mekong region, SEAs are not recognized within the framework of the MRC agreement, and only one has been conducted through the MRC. Participants felt that SEAs could be a very useful tool in the region but recognized that some form of protocol would be required for their systematic use. MRC countries have been in discussions on a system of transboundary EIA for more than a decade but have failed to reach agreement; consequently, a SEA and EIA protocol will require very high level commitment from all member countries. SEA guidelines are needed to support legislative frameworks for SEA. They should include a set of generic guidance for application by all arms of government and sector-specific guidance dealing with the specific needs and issues of sectors. Formation of a Mekong SEA network for learning, exchange and collaboration in experiences and guidelines. In the coming months, the Asian Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Network (AECEN) is establishing an Asia-wide EIA network, with funding from the Japanese government. The network could be a useful platform for sharing EIA and SEA experiences. The organizers will connect with all workshop participants to link them into the network.

2.4

DAY 4: FRIDAY 27 T H MAY

2.4.1

Session 5: Wrap up and next steps

Jeremy Carew-Reid summed up key messages delivered by the workshop, including: 1. SEAs are not EIAs • EIAs review individual projects, while SEAs review strategies and plans for development • SEAs provide guidance and information for EIAs of specific projects • However, it is challenging to “lift” SEAs into strategic thinking, because the tools and capacities required are not always in place • Consequently, there is potential for SEA fatigue and quality problems 2. Effective SEAs need a committed mother agency or government, i.e.: • 100% commitment and backing by their commissioning agency • An agency with the authority to promote implementation of recommendations across government • A clear entry point into established planning and decision-making processes



9



3. SEAs are a journey, not a destination • The SEA process is critical to the success of the SEA • Key stakeholders need to be involved at each phase of the SEA, and contribute to reports and decisions as they evolve • A sense of openness, objectivity and trust should be built at each phase before moving on 4. Need to embrace expert judgment if SEAs are to be effective • Often data is scarce and available information is poor • The more strategic the decision, the more value-laden information becomes • SEAs need to embrace expert judgment but should do so in an open and critical manner 5.

6.

7.

8.

Make the SEA a consensus building process • Effective SEAs build consensus amongst trans-sectoral and trans-boundary stakeholders • Attempt to identify what stakeholders agree on through participatory processes • To do so requires an open and transparent process where limitations are identified and assumptions made clear Keep the consultations and issues strategic • SEAs can be overwhelmed by: - project-specific issues and concerns - extensive consultations with the many affected stakeholders • SEAs need to maintain their strategic focus • SEAs cannot consult with all affected parties – they need to target “gate keepers” and those who can represent larger groups. Phased introduction of SEAs • A strong legal framework requiring SEAs is needed; however: • Rapid introduction of an SEA system can quickly overwhelm national and provincial capacities • Introduction of SEAs should include a phased trial period where SEAs are piloted. • Experience with pilots should be well documented and feedback used to improve the system • There is little formal evaluation of SEA experience in the region SEA as a credible process • SEA reports need to be credible and to have authority gained through the consultation process; otherwise, decisions makers will ignore them. • To be credible, the SEA report must: (i) be balanced and consider all viewpoints of stakeholders in a transparent way; (ii) describe the benefits and the risks in an objective way; (iii) indicate where there is a divergence of views on strategic issues; and (iv) give reasons for the conclusions it draws.

Dr Carew-Reid identified the key ingredients of an effective SEA system to include: 1. Policy statement explaining why the SEA system is important and how it will be applied 2. Legislative provisions setting out the legal framework of when, what, how and who 3. Administrative regulations (by sector) detailing how the law will be applied by a sector



10



4. General and sector guidance for how SEAs are conducted The legislative framework for SEA should include provisions stipulating: • • • • • • • • •

When SEAs are mandatory or discretionary What they should cover What steps they should follow What sustainability principles they should promote Who should conduct them Who should review them How they are linked to decisions making Who should pay for them How long they should last (are there various categories of SEA)

A working group session on next steps in improving the role of SEAs in development planning was held. Working in country groups, participants were asked to identify: • •

five steps for strengthening the SEA process in their respective countries the necessary follow-up capacity building activities

The findings for each country are presented in Table 3. Table 3: Next steps in country programs to introduce and strengthen their SEA systems

Steps for strengthening the SEA process

Requested capacity building

Cambodia

§ establish an information-sharing forum § establish a SEA Working Group § develop a legal framework for SEAs, including policies and guidelines § pilot SEAs in strategic sectors

§ training on multiple criteria analysis, costbenefit analysis, trend analysis, monitoring and evaluation of SEAs, and SEAs that focus on impacts of climate change § sharing of relevant materials, including sector-level SEA guidelines and international best practice

Lao PDR

§ approve the SEA Decree § develop an SEA guideline § build SEA capacity of central- and locallevel officials to understand the roles, benefits and process of SEA § establish a committee of SEA experts § conduct pilot SEAs

§ participation in relevant conferences, workshops and study tours, both within and outside the region § establishing a regional SEA forum/network in order to share relevant materials and experience

Myanmar

§ advocate the importance of SEAs to the high-level decision makers § establish a cross sector SEA task force § formulate a SEA roadmap § develop general SEA guideline § improve SEA awareness of private- and public-sector stakeholders via consultations and communications § promote coordination and cooperation among relevant agencies in conducting SEAs

§ introducing SEA concepts to relevant agencies via workshops and seminars § training on avoiding and mitigating the impacts of hydropower on environment § training on investment in alternative sources of energy investment (wind, solar, wave, biogas) and alternative technologies for hydropower § training on valuation of natural capital and consequent integration into planning and budget processes

Thailand

§ review and evaluate SEA experiences and existing studies § hold a national consultation to discuss the needs, benefits, and next steps § finalize the design of the SEA process and

§ site visits to learn about successful SEA cases § observe an SEA team at work (team meetings, consultation meetings, expert meeting, etc.)





11



Vietnam

system, including identifying the SEA ‘mother agency’ § submit a SEA system development proposal to the National Reform Steering Committee, followed by the Cabinet and/or the National Legislative Assembly § prepare the SEA Five-Year Road Map which includes capacity building plan, database development plan and follow-up

§ training on SEA methodologies (generic), and frequently used techniques § training of SEA teams prior to conducting SEAs to assist in process and methods § webinar to share SEA experiences § online information sharing: email group, chat room and/or web-board allowing network members to consult experts on SEA ToR (among other topics)

§ improving the regulatory framework so that SEA implementation and quality is regularly evaluated § conduct SEA advocacy at ministerial levels § establish sufficient budget for SEAs as a regular part of sector budget allocation § develop a roadmap to improve SEA performance and to identify and address weak points in the existing system

§ training on how strategic impacts can be assessed and measured (e.g. climate change, salinization, biodiversity, wetlands) § conduct capacity building for planners on how to integrate climate change factors into policies, plans and programs § conduct capacity building for SEA consultants on the national planning processes



3

C O NC L USIO NS A ND NEXT STEP S

3.1

CONCLUSIONS

Countries which participated in the workshop are at different stages of SEA uptake. In Vietnam, the SEA systems is well established; Thailand has had more than a decade of ad hoc SEA experience but without a legislative commitment to the process; Lao PDR, Cambodia and Myanmar are at an early stage of SEA use. Consequently, the knowledge and experience of SEA varies across governments. Nonetheless, it is clear that SEA as a policy tool is now gathering momentum in the region. Every country delegation saw substantial benefits in introducing and SEA system, and improving SEA performance as a key strategic planning tool in promoting sustainability. There was a high level of interest and willingness to continue exchange and learning through a regional SEA network and similar training events. This interest related especially to more detailed training in how best to assess issues such as climate change, biodiversity and cultural diversity, and in various assessment tools such as spatial MCA, cost benefit analysis and valuation, and trend analysis. Judging from participant feedback and results of the quiz, by the workshop end, participants had a strong general understanding of SEA concepts, steps, benefits and limitations. The need for further, more-technical training was highlighted. It is also clear that improved information sharing of SEA experiences and materials would benefit all participants, through some form of regional SEA network. 3.2

NEXT STEPS

Action

Responsibility

Deadline

1

Post all training materials delivered during the workshop online, and provide the link to the participants.

ICEM

6 June 2016

2

Investigate the establishment of an Asia-wide EIA network by AECEN, and pass on the details to the participants

ICEM

30 June 2016

3

Investigate the logistics of establishing a SEA Forum among the participants (e.g. Google Drive, Trello, Facebook)

Pact and ICEM

30 June 2016





12



4

Discuss potential future capacity-building events, focusing on more technical aspects of SEA

Pact and ICEM

30 June 2016



4

P H O T O S



Country presentations on status of integrating environmental concerns in development planning

William Derbyshire explaining monetisation undertaken as part of SEA into the GMS Power Development Plan

Identifying key stakeholders in the SEA process

Jeremy Carew-Reid facilitating a working group session on improving the role of SEAs in development planning

Panel discussion

Members of the panel







13



AP P E ND IX 1. P A R TIC I PA NT L I ST Name Kesor Bovorkarona Kieng Sochinda Seng

Meng Eang Taing

Position and Organization/Institution Deputy Director of EIA, Ministry of Environment Director, Council for the Development of Cambodia (CDC) Director of Green Economy Department, Ministry of Environment

Country of Work

Gender (M/F)

[email protected] m

Cambodia

M

[email protected]

Cambodia

M

[email protected] m

Cambodia

M

E-mail address

Sereyrotha Ken

Deputy Secretary General, Ministry of Environment

[email protected]

Cambodia

M

Veasna Hean

Chief of Office, Ministry of Mines and Energy

[email protected]

Cambodia

M

p_khampaseuth@hotmail .com

Lao PDR

M

p_khampaseuth@yahoo. com

Lao PDR

M

lonkham.atsanavong@gm ail.com

Lao PDR

M

Phoupasith Phitthayaphon Khampaseuth Phanthavong Lonkham Atsanavong

Technical Officer, Department of ESIA, Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MoNRE) Techinical Officer, Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MoNRE) Technical Officer, Department of ESIA, Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MoNRE)

Vilatha Soulalay

Ministry of Planning and Investment

[email protected]

Lao PDR

M

Manivanh Lathavong

Ministry of Planning and Investment

[email protected]

Lao PDR

F

[email protected] m

Myanmar

M

khaing.thandar24@gmail. com

Myanmar

F

[email protected]

Myanmar

F

[email protected]

Myanmar

M

[email protected] m

Myanmar

F

Sa Aung Thu

Khaing Thandar Aye Sanda Lwin

Maung Maung Lwin

Win Win Kyu

Assistant Director, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Conservation Deputy Staff Officer, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Conservation Deputy Director, Ministry of Planning and Finance Deputy Director, Ministry of Planning and Finance Assistant Director, Ministry of Electricity and Energy





14



Position and

Name Indhira Eaumonlachat

Organization/Institution



Ruamporn Ngamboriruk

Nuanlaor Wongpinitwarodom

Chanakod Chasidpon

Jinna Tansaraviput

Boonchoob Songtragoolsak

Parichart Siwaraksa

Sasiluksana Khamsiri

Environmental Expert, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Policy and Plan Analyst, Senior professional level, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Director of Bureau of Mekong Management, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Planning and Policy Analyst, Professional Level, National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB) Plan and Policy Analyst, Senior Professional, National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB) Plan and Policy Analyst, Senior Professional Level, National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB) Social Science Researcher, National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB) Head of Nuclear Power Plant and Renewable Energy Environment Section, Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT)

E-mail address

Country of Work

Gender (M/F)

[email protected]

Thailand

F

[email protected]

Thailand

F

[email protected]

Thailand

F

chanakod.chasidpon@gm ail.com

Thailand

F

[email protected]

Thailand

F

[email protected]

Thailand

M

parichart_siwaraksa@yah oo.com

Thailand

F

[email protected]

Thailand

F

Ha Viet Linh

Ministry of Planning and Investment

[email protected] m

Vietnam

M

Le Minh Tuan

Ministry of Planning and Investment

[email protected]

Vietnam

M

Pham Sinh Thanh

Director, Ministry of Industry and Trade

sinhthanh_pham@ yahoo.com

Vietnam

M

Nguyen Thuy Linh

Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment

Nguyenlinh.1491@gmail. com

Vietnam

F









15





AP P E ND IX 2. W O R K SH O P A G END A Day 1: Tuesday 24th May Time

Item

Who

Session 1: Overview of SEA in the Mekong region and expectations Objective of session – common understanding on outcomes of workshop 8.30 – 8.45

Introductions



8.45 – 9.00

Welcoming Remarks

Tahra Vose, Environment, Science, Technology and Health Officer, US Embassy

9.00 - 9.15

Objectives of the training program

Kipp Efinger, Project Director, Pact

9.15 - 9.45

Discussion – what are we hoping to get out of this Plenary week’s program

9.45 - 10.15

Jeremy Carew-Reid, Director Overview of SEA in the Mekong – opportunities and General, ICEM-International constraints Centre for Environmental Management

10.15 – 10.30

Tea break



Session 2: Country experience with environmental integration into development strategies and plans Objectives of session: Sharing status and lessons in integrating environmental concerns in development planning 10.30 - 11.00

Thailand – status and lessons from experience with Thailand delegation SEA

11.00 - 11.10

Facilitated discussion

11.10 - 11.40

Vietnam – status and lessons from experience with Vietnam delegation SEA

11.40 – 12.20

Facilitated discussion

Plenary

12.20 - 13.45

Lunch



13.45 – 14.15

Cambodia – lessons from experience with integrating environmental concerns into strategies Cambodia delegation and plans

14.15 – 14.25

Facilitated discussion

14.25 – 14.55

Lao PDR – lessons from experience with integrating Lao PDR delegation environmental concerns into strategies and plans

14.55 – 15.05

Facilitated discussion

15.05 - 15.35

Myanmar – lessons from experience with integrating environmental concerns into strategies Myanmar delegation and plans

15.35 – 15.45

Facilitated discussion

Plenary

15.45 - 16.00

Tea break



16.00 -17.00

Country working group session – lessons from Working in country groups

Plenary

Plenary

Plenary





16



experience in use of SEA and in integration of ecological sustainability into development planning 17.00

Close of day 1



18.00

Welcome dinner - at the Sui Sian Chinese All participants and workshop staff th restaurant, 10 floor



Day 2: Wednesday 25th May Time

Item

Who

8.30 - 8.45

Introductions



8.45 - 9.00

Working groups reporting back to plenary Country working group Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Thailand & Vietnam

9.00 - 9.30

Facilitated discussion to define common lessons

Plenary

9.30 - 10.05

SEA process and methodology - introduction

Jeremy Carew-Reid

10.05 - 10.15

Discussion

Plenary

10.15 – 10.30

Tea break



Session 3: SEA case studies from the Mekong region to illustrate process and tools Objectives of session: Enhanced knowledge of SEAs of national Power Development Plans, including tools and processes 10.30 – 11.05

SEA into the Greater Mekong Subregion Power William Derbyshire, Director, ECA Development Plan – Economic Consulting Associates

11.05 – 11.15

Discussion

11.15 – 11.50

SEA of Mekong development

11.50 – 12.30

Discussion

Plenary

12.30 – 14.00

Lunch



14.00 – 14.35

SEA into the GMS North South Economic Corridor Jeremy Carew-Reid Strategy and Action Plan

14.35 – 14.45

Discussion

14.45 – 15.20

SEA into hydropower development in the Vu-Gia Jeremy Carew-Reid Thu Bon River Basin, Vietnam

15.20 – 15.30

Discussion

Plenary

15.30 – 15.45

Tea break



15.45 – 16.45

Working group session – Guidance to Myanmar on key approaches to conducting the planned SEA of Working groups the national hydropower development program

16.45 - 17.15

Working groups reporting back to plenary

Working group

17.15

Close of day 2



Plenary mainstream

hydropower

Jeremy Carew-Reid

Plenary









17



Day 3: Thursday 26th May Time

Item

Who Session 4: SEA process and tools

Objectives of session: Familiarity with key SEA methods and stages 8.30 –9.00

Consideration of alternatives in SEAs

Jeremy Carew-Reid

9.00 – 9.30

Consideration of alternatives in SEAs of Power William Derbyshire Development Plans

9.30 – 10.00

Facilitated discussion on approaches to alternatives Plenary in an SEA of the national Power Development Plan

10.00 – 10.15

Tea break



10.15 – 10.30

SEA methodology – scoping

Jeremy Carew-Reid

10.30 – 12.30

Country working group session – approaches to scoping for an SEA of the national Power Development Country working groups Plan

12.30 – 14.00

Lunch



14.00 – 14.30

Working groups reporting back to plenary

Country working group

14.30– 15.00

Facilitated discussion on key issues when scoping for an Plenary SEA of the national Power Development Plan

15.00 – 15.20

Tea break





Panel session



15.30 – 16.40

-Ms. Ladawan Kumpa, Thailand National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB) -Dr. Wolfhart Pohl, World Bank Potential, obstacles and next steps for use of SEA in the -Dr. John Dore, Australian Mekong region Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) -Dr. Robert Mather, former IUCN and WWF

16.40-17.30

Questions and discussion

Plenary

18.00

Networking Event – Rendezvous Bar, lobby level

Outside guests and program participants



Day 4: Friday 27th May Time

Item

Who

9.30 - 10.00

Next steps in the improving SEA performance in promoting ecological sustainability in development Jeremy Carew-Reid planning

10.00 – 10.15

Tea break

10.15 – 12.45

Country working group session – next steps in Country working groups improving the role of SEA in development planning

12.45 - 14.15

Lunch



14.15 – 14.30

Working groups reporting back to plenary

Country working group







18



14.30 – 15.00

Facilitated discussion performance

on

improving

SEA

Plenary

Session 5: Wrap up and next steps 15.00 – 15.30

Wrap up and next steps

Kipp Efinger, Project Director, Lower Mekong Initiative Pillar Training Program

15.30

Close of day 4









19