Shared Project for Environmental Evaluation with Dynamic Governance.
- Priority and Measure
Measure 3.3 – Communication Networks
Priority 3 – Accessibility and Networks
- EUSAIR Pillars
- Sustainable tourism, environmental quality, blue growth
- Type of Project
- Achille Aratari
- Interviewee role
- Project Manager
- Abruzzo Region
- +39 0862 363481
- Project website
- Budget in euros
|Role||Name||City||Country||Contact Person||Email / website|
|Lead Partner||Abruzzo Region – Directorate for Bureau Affairs, Legislative and EC Policies, External Affairs, Parks, Land, Enviroment, Energy||L’Aquila||Italy||Giovanni Savini Achille Aratarifirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Partner 1||National Territorial Planning Agency||Tirana||Albania||Enerieta Murataj Blerinda Danoemail@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Partner 2 partner excluded from the project||Region of Ionian Islands/Regional Unit of Corfu||Corfu||Greece||Aggeliki Rouvaemail@example.com|
|Partner 3||Centre for Research and Development||Tirana||Albania||Mirlinda Rusi Florian Bilalifirstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com|
|Partner 4||Dubrovnik Neretva County Regional Development Agency DUNEA||Dubrovnik||Croatia||Helena Kangjera Iva Pozniakfirstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Partner 5||Municipality of Rakovica||Rakovica||Serbia||Zoran Andjelkovic Žaklina Stepanovicemail@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com|
|Partner 6||”G. d’ Annunzio” University||Chieti||Italy||Valter Fabiettifirstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com|
|Partner 7||Molise Region||Campobasso||Italy||Michela Palmierifirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Partner 8||Marche Region, Infrastructures, Transport and Energy Department||Ancona||Italy||Velia Cremonesi 0039 071 806 email@example.com|
|Partner 9||Fi.R.A. S.p.A.||Pescara||Italy||Gabriella Pagano firstname.lastname@example.org|
The SPEEDY overall objective to favour transnational cooperation between Public Administrations fitted very well with the Candidate Countries/Potential Candidate Countries (CC/CCPs) efforts to transpose the EU acquis in order to approximate their legislation and policies with European Standards in the environmental topic. The project was carried out in four years, and produced a large number of national and international meetings which allowed the comparison among the beneficiaries on issues of SEA (Strategic Environmental Assessment). SPEEDY project was coherent with IPA Programme / Priority 3. In particular, it fitted very well into Measure 3.3 as it aimed to create a tool for sharing experiences related to governance processes and procedures related to the institutional activities of the environmental assessment. At strategic level, project activities were in line with IPA’s purpose to compare and align the legislation of Member State on relevant issues like environmental and territorial resources.
What has been done during the project in order to achieve its main goal(s)?
The project objectives were achieved through the development of the SEA web platform aimed to promote and extend knowledge and share information about SEA (dir 42/2001/CE).
The main outputs of the project were:
• Building-up of a Shared Knowledge Platform (SKP) (http://www.speedyproject.eu/)
• Operational Guideline to EU (available in the Shared Knowledge Platform)
The project combined theoretical work with practical application and was based on the collaboration of Public Administrations and Scientific Institutions, which aimed at technical-scientific and institutional validation, technical and political guidance, consolidation of the institutional relationships between the Adriatic countries.
In WP3 the analysis of local and national regulations of the different participants allowed the realization of a Comparative Dynamics Analysis in order to evaluate the state of the art and compare the current procedures of SEA (Strategic Environmental Assessment), better identifying gaps and critical issues that influenced the achievement of the EU objectives.
WP4 was focused on the definition of a method for identifying and discussing shared items that should be taken into account in the phase of web advanced platform SKP (Shared Knowledge Platform) development.
WP5 started simultaneously with WP4 in order to coordinate and validate the elaboration phase of the model with the implementation of the web tool. In WP5 the SKP (Shared Knowledge Platform) was realized: the web platform was an advanced online tool, with different accessibility levels, that allowed working on documents in assisted revision and in streaming.
WP6 finalized the use of the platform (SKP) including the activation and management of working groups that worked on the preparation of documents that had been published online.
WP7’s objective was a contribution in setting-up operative suggestions on processes providing some clear information on how to face and solve some critical issues of the Environmental Assessment Procedure, in order to reach the objectives set by EU legislation.
Which are the project main results/impacts?
BUILDING-UP OF A SHARED KNOWLEDGE PLATFORM (SKP)
The SKP Platform (Shared Knowledge Platform) was essential for the development of SPEEDY project; it was an advanced online tool, with different accessibility levels, that allowed working on documents in assisted revision and in streaming and aimed to share knowledge about Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). The SKP included regulatory standards and best practices, so as to identify gaps and strengths, and the possibility to embark on thematic e-learning training pathways and to use thematic forums.
OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES TO EU
The Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) is a systematic decision support process, aiming to ensure that environmental and other sustainability aspects are considered in policy, plan and programme making. Whilst the concept of strategic environmental assessment is relatively simple, the implementation of the Directive sets Member States in a hard challenge. SPEEDY project set up Operational Guidelines about possible updates and improvements of the European Directive 42/2001/EC. These Guidelines highlighted critical issues about its application, mainly related to differences in its transposition and the partners planning/programming models involved, as well as the lack of information and physical or virtual places where to carry out the assessment and planning/programming to make it a continuous and “light” practice. Therefore, they constitute an important contribution to the European debate in the framework of the revision process of the Directive.