Summary of how environmental considerations have been integrated into the programme

A detailed and comprehensive evaluation on the development of the SROP as a result of the SEA can be found in the following report: "Társadalmi megújulás és a Társadalmi infrastruktúra operatív program környezeti vizsgálata". This document can be downloaded from the website of the NDA.

7

The main conclusions of the SEA and the position of the planners

Proposition Responses Reasons for choosing the programme as adopted, in the light of the other reasonable alternatives dealt with8

The situation assessment does not aim at an evaluation according to the horizontal priority considerations of sustainable development and it does not even contain such observations or facts.

Indeed, the situation assessment does not contain a separate chapter revealing facts regarding the horizontal elements of sustainable development, however, such statements appear at many locations in the situation assessment, along several topic areas as well as in the SWOT analysis.

For example: 1.6.6 Social participation A slow intensification of social participation can be experienced with regard to issues related to environmental sustainability. A major role is played in this process by the fact that due to governmental measures, the conditions of environmental activities are continuously improving. Only then can a significant improvement occur in the environmentally conscious attitude of citizens if governmental measures reflect a consistent environmental consciousness.

The OP includes health consciousness and maintenance and environmental consciousness appears here and there in some operations, but they do not pervade the whole document, whereas only the persons living in harmony with themselves and the environment can appear on the labour market as human resources capable of renewal.

We are in agreement with the second half of the observation. Promotion of sustainable development and an increasingly wide implementation of the relevant considerations are included among the horizontal goals of the OP. However, it is not the objective of the OP to be “pervaded” by health maintenance or by both considerations simultaneously, since it contains countless elements to which these approaches are not directly connected.

We recommend the extension of horizontal considerations, working out a more detailed specification regarding objectives and priorities, which should be implemented through the whole material.

Horizontal considerations have been worked out on the basis of EU regulations, in accordance with the ÚMFT (New Hungary Development Plan) in the course of which the controllability and monitorability were taken into account during implementation of development, as well. Thus, we do not see any opportunity to extend the current

8

consideration and we do not consider these to be necessary, and the recommendation does not contain a specific consideration.

We recommend the following text existing in the previous versions and taking into account our additions to the latter:

“That development can be regarded as sustainable which takes into consideration natural and human resources – including natural assets, areas, landscapes, biodiversity, human health, social cohesion, demographic characteristics, as well – for protection and sustainable utilization.”

The sentence appears among the horizontal objectives of the SROP:

“In order for the country not to consume its environmental and human resources acting as a foundation and long-term guarantee for development, said developments must all satisfy the principle of environmental, social and economic sustainability. That

development can be regarded as sustainable which takes into consideration natural and human resources – including natural assets, areas, landscapes, biodiversity, human health, social cohesion, demographic characteristics, as well – for protection and sustainable utilization of the built-in environment and cultural heritage. ”

Based on the October version, we have recommended working out the relevant indicators matching horizontal considerations both at the OP and the later planning level. It is likely that the quantity of waste selectively collected by the population was included at the OP level in consideration of this proposal, as well. We wish to point out that this indicator is important but the TAMOP (Social Reform Operative Program) added value is difficult to measure in an identifiable manner and that data are likely to be based on the self-declaration of institutions and municipalities, therefore, they are not certain to reflect realistic values. Moreover, they do not contain the quantity of waste which has not even been consciously bought. Therefore, we recommend as a part of assessment or monitoring the development of a general indicator which is better measurable at the OP level and to formulate indicators per individual interventions and measures.

The indicator of selectively collected waste does not appear in the OP.

Since this OP is intended to address the health status of the population, therefore, it is recommended to mention – at least in the situation analysis – that the measures planned within the framework of SROP must indirectly serve the improvement of the status of the environment.

It is not the objective of a situation analysis to manifest previously set goals or plan, nor is it the exploration of indirect effect of planned measures. Moreover, the SROP – since it does not support any investment projects – can only serve or take into consideration the improvement of the status

of the environment in the case of some measures because in most cases, it has no effect on the latter, at all.

The SEA recommends the introduction and application of integrated regional evaluations, which are based on the assessment of regional ecological systems with the help of geographic information systems, as well as the analysis of spatial and temporal patterns (e.g. based on the MÉTA5 Programme). For each operational programme, detailed assessment criteria and a monitoring plan should be developed parallel to the development of action plans, containing the programme of measures to follow the SEA.

This will be incorporated into the monitoring system and the monitoring measures.

The social partners’ and national authorities’ main comments:

Proposition Responses Reasons for choosing the programme as adopted, in the light of the other reasonable alternatives dealt with9

Among the elements of preparation for employability, the following are not manifest: information management, personality development (including career planning), development of decision-making capabilities, mentoring, provision of information related to environment. Support for informal networks and civil society, which is one of the central conditions of the welfare strategy, aimed at extending employment, has not been recognized properly or included with the proper emphasis.

A major part of the listed elements is primarily manifest within the frameworks of priority axes Adaptability, Quality

education, Social participation and receptivity, Health maintenance.

In the absence of health and environmental consciousness, people are affected by numerous harms reducing their health and working capabilities which could be otherwise avoided by caution, in the possession of suitable information. Therefore, they need to be reinforced.

We are in agreement, all this is manifest among the operations of the new priority axis: within the frameworks of Health

maintenance and the development of human resources in health care as well as the Adaptability priority axis by operations

improving the conditions of workplace health and safety.

Both authorities and NGOs emphasised the importance of monitoring, the role of civil control in implementation, and the minimum

See section on Monitoring Measures

9

sustainability criteria in the project selection. 2.8.3 Transboundary effects10

With regard to the strategic character of the OP and its detailed information content, it has been analysed in the course of the SEA process whether transboundary effects could be detected. It has been found that – according to the text of the OP – the territorial character of the planned strategic measures, and their implementation’s influence on environment could not be identified by lack of specification, thus information on specific territorial effects – including transboundary effects – is not available.

The SEA pointed out that according to Article 4, Section 3 of the Directive, within the hierarchy of strategic documents primarily those sectoral strategic programmes, concepts should be analysed from this point of view, which had been prepared before the OP. However, lower than OP level documents (action plans, tenders) should also be investigated regarding transboundary effects, when relevant data become available. With the above considered, the Hungarian Government presented the NHDP-level plans – as a strategic frame above the OPs – at bilateral meetings with neighbouring countries’ governments. We commit ourselves to investigate cross-border effects on the Action Plan level in the whole 2007–2013 planning period.