Towards a national strategic environmental assessment system in Lebanon

This article was downloaded by: [Washburn University]On: 18 October 2014, At: 14:25Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Impact Assessment and Project AppraisalPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tiap20

Towards a national strategic environmentalassessment system in LebanonAlissar Chaker a , Karma El-Fadl b , Lamia Chamas c , Maya Abi Zeid Daou d & Berj Hatjiane

a Service of Conservation of Nature, Directorate General of Environment , PO Box11-2727, Beirut , Lebanon Phone: +9611 976555 Fax: +9611 976555 E-mail:b UNDP , Lebanonc Ministry of Environment (MOE) , Lebanond MOE , Lebanone MOE , LebanonPublished online: 20 Feb 2012.

To cite this article: Alissar Chaker , Karma El-Fadl , Lamia Chamas , Maya Abi Zeid Daou & Berj Hatjian (2006) Towards anational strategic environmental assessment system in Lebanon, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 24:2, 103-114,DOI: 10.3152/147154606781765264

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/147154606781765264

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shallnot be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tiap20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.3152/147154606781765264

http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/147154606781765264

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2006 1461-5517/06/020103-12 US$08.00 IAIA 2006 103

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, volume 24, number 2, June 2006, pages 103–114, Beech Tree Publishing, 10 Watford Close, Guildford, Surrey GU1 2EP, UK

SEA in Lebanon

Towards a national strategic environmental assessment system in Lebanon

Alissar Chaker, Karma El-Fadl, Lamia Chamas, Maya Abi Zeid Daou and Berj Hatjian

In an effort to mainstream environmental sus-tainability in the national development agenda, the

Government of Lebanon is among the pioneers in

the Middle East to launch the development of a

national strategic environmental assessment

(SEA) system that caters to the particularities of

the Lebanese planning, regulatory and institu-tional context. This paper provides a critical over-view of the approach followed by the Ministry of

Environment for the development of an SEA sys-tem and its regulation. It also makes recommenda-tions for facilitating SEA implementation and

presents some of the early outcomes resulting from

awareness raising during consultation on the

development of the proposed system.

Keywords: strategic environmental assessment, legal framework, institutional framework, procedural framework, environmental sustainability, Lebanon

Alissar Chaker (corresponding author) is a Project Manager,

UNDP-Lebanon, responsible for the project ‘Strategic environ-mental assessment and land-use planning in Lebanon’. Contact

details: Service of Conservation of Nature, Directorate Gen- eral of Environment, PO Box 11-2727, Beirut, Lebanon; Email:

[email protected]; Tel: +9611 976555; Fax: +9611 976532. Karma

El-Fadl is Project Assistant, UNDP; Lamia Chamas is Head of the

Service of Conservation of Nature, Ministry of Environment

(MOE); Maya Abi Zeid Daou is Environmental Legal Expert,

MOE; Berj Hatjian is Director General, MOE, all in Lebanon. The authors thank the European Commission LIFE Third

Countries Programme for financial support for the project and

UNDP, Lebanon for its efforts to assist national institutions to

meet their developmental objectives. They also thank Ramez

Kayal and Ricardo Khoury (ELARD), Maria Partidário, and Sami

Aoun for their invaluable input. The views expressed are those of

the authors.

N LINE WITH its continuous quest to promote sustainable development and secure a better fu-ture for generations to come, the Government of

Lebanon (GOL) approved a grant from the European Commission (EC) LIFE Third Countries Programme to fund a three-year project entitled ‘Strategic envi-ronmental assessment and land-use planning in Lebanon’, grant approval decree number 7864 dated 21 March 2002. Accordingly, the Ministry of Envi-ronment (MOE), the executing public administra-tion, and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the managing agency, launched the project activities in December 2002.

The overall aim of the project is to mainstream environmental sustainability in public decisions and undertakings on a par with social and economic con-siderations via the application of strategic environ-mental assessment (SEA) as a planning and decision-aid tool. For this purpose, the following specific objectives were set:

• Develop a regulatory framework for the national implementation of SEA in Lebanon;

• Implement relevant institutional strengthening and capacity-building activities for the Directorate General of Environment (DGOE), the Directorate General of Urban Planning (DGUP) and other concerned public administrations and private stakeholders;

• Develop environmental guidelines to be incorpo-rated in land-use planning procedures;

• Undertake a demonstration pilot activity on the application of SEA in land-use planning.

MOE is leading the development of a national SEA system and its corresponding Implementation

I

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

25 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Towards a national SEA system in Lebanon

104 Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2006

Decree for ‘greening’ public decisions and undertak-ings, and promoting a more sustainable national de-velopment agenda.

This is in line with international orientations expressed either via international regulations or directly via development policies. These include the Kiev SEA Protocol of the Espoo Convention on en-vironmental impact assessment (EIA) in a Trans-boundary Context, which is now open to all United Nations Member States (Article 23 of the Protocol)1 and the new Mediterranean SEA initiative led by the Mediterranean Action Plan (MAP).2 On the other hand, most international development and coopera-tion agencies either have introduced, or are consider-ing introducing, SEA or SEA-like tools and requirements for promoting environmentally sound lending and development (World Bank, 2001; 2002; 2003b; ADB, 2003).

This article focuses on the first component of the SEA project and depicts the approach followed for the development of the Lebanese SEA system and its corresponding regulation. The analysis is based on the examination of planning and decision-making procedures, legal mandates of concerned public ad-ministrations, relevant consultations and the findings of a literature review on the international application of SEA (Chaker et al, 2006).

Accordingly, the ‘most appropriate’ model taking into account the Lebanese planning, regulatory and institutional context is proposed, along with a set of recommendations and proposals for mainstreaming SEA and forestalling potential pitfalls associated with financial, regulatory, institutional and participa-tory constraints. The article concludes with a brief review of some early outcomes resulting from awareness-raising during consultation on the devel-opment of the proposed SEA system.

Lebanese context

Governance in Lebanon

To understand the background of the proposed SEA system and set the general scene for subsequent dis-cussions, it is important to highlight the following (adapted from World Bank (2003a)):

• The Republic of Lebanon has a parliamentary re-gime: regular elections take place every four years for the Parliament and every six years for the Presidency;

• Municipal and justice-of-peace councils are elected every six years;

• Most public affairs are subject to intense political debate, since the Lebanese governing system ensures that there is no monopoly on decision-making;

• The government system is centralized, although some decentralization initiatives are currently underway;

• National authorities are at the apex of the public-sector hierarchy with the governorates at the top, cazas (districts) in the middle and municipalities at the base;

• The media and civil society are active and play a dynamic role in lobbying for more accountability and transparency in the governance process;

• The separation of powers is not very strict; some elected members of the legislative body (Parliament) are sometimes also appointed to the executive body (Council of Ministers, COM);

• Supervisory bodies are prescribed in the constitu-tion; they include the Court of Accounts, the Central Inspection Office, and the Civil Service Board;

• A Permanent Parliamentary Committee for the Environment was established in 1994 (1994 By-laws amended in 2000);

• The Ministry of Environment was maintained as an independent public administration following central government reform (Law no 247/2000).

A road map to public planning

Policies, plans and programs can be issued in Lebanon as laws, decrees or ministerial decisions. In terms of approval, a law requires endorsement by the Parliament in what is usually a longer process than the approval of a Decree by COM. Ministerial deci-sions usually require less time for adoption than ei-ther laws or decrees, and require only the approval of the concerned Minister. It should be noted that both decrees and decisions require the prior approval of the Higher Council of State (HCS), which con-trols their compatibility with current legislation.

With some simplification, the Government Statement defines the general public policy of the country,3 which constitutes the basis for more de-tailed sector policies, plans and programs. A sector policy is generally elaborated by the competent min-istry, while plans and programs are either elaborated and implemented by the competent ministry or dele-gated to other government administrations such as the Council for Development and Reconstruction (CDR).4

It is worth noting that, although it is not explicitly indicated in their establishment decrees, the Green Plan5 (GP) and the Council of the South6 (COS) un-dertake some planning on an ad hoc basis. Thus, there is an important value added to SEA implemen-tation at different planning tiers for improving the consistency, coherence, transparency and efficiency of public planning and decision-making. Figure 1 illustrates the road map to public planning in Lebanon.

In general, a central planning system is operated in the country; examples of strategic planning and policy-making tools include:

• Development and reconstruction plans and pro-grams, such as the five-year plan elaborated by

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

25 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014


Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2006 105

CDR setting out the general targets for national development and reconstruction activities, and the ten-year National Emergency Reconstruction Program (completed).

• Sector plans and programs, such as national master plans for solid-waste management, quarries and transport. The latter is currently under consid-eration by the Ministry of Public Works and Transport.

• Land-use plans, such as the national master plan setting the national policy for land-use manage-ment, the general orientations for infrastructure and economic development, and regional or local spatial master plans prepared by DGUP.

• Social and economic development plans and pro-grams addressing national and sector economic reforms and social or community development, such as those proposed by the Economic and Social Fund for Lebanon at CDR.

The integration of environmental considerations within these strategic frameworks was rather lim-ited, particularly during the first years of reconstruc-tion following the end of social strife. Yet requirements by international development partners and financial institutions has progressively pro-moted environment to the forefront. This has enhanced the application of project-level EIA, par-ticularly for large-scale infrastructure projects and the adoption of environmental assessment provi-sions in the Framework Law for Environmental Pro-tection in 2002. Accordingly, an implementation

decree for EIA application has been elaborated and submitted to COM for approval.

On another front, land-use planning is probably the first strategic framework to incorporate envi-ronmental as well as health and safety considera-tions; nevertheless, the weight and priority given to the environment in decision-making with respect to competing sector interests and political power play is as yet unclear.

Towards a workable SEA system

A number of constraints have shaped the proposed SEA system. These are described in the next para-graphs, and can be classified under the following general categories.

Based on which the Parliament accords its vote of confidence to the Government

Pending approval by the Parliament (Law) or by the Council of Ministers (Decree)

Pending the issuance of relevant permits by concerned authorities

Government statement Sets the general national public policy

Sector policies Prepared directly by concerned ministries or delegated

to other public administrations

Plans/programs elaborated by

concerned ministries and implemented by

other public administrations

Plans/programs elaborated &

implemented by other public administrations

Plans/programs elaborated and implemented by

concerned ministries

Projects

Figure 1. Road map to public planning in Lebanon

Requirements by international development partners and financial institutions has progressively promoted environment to the forefront: this has enhanced the application of project-level EIA, particularly for large-scale infrastructure projects

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

25 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014



Legal basis

International experience has shown that SEA is im-plemented either on a voluntary basis, such as in South Africa7 (Tarr, 2003), or through legal or formal provisions. The latter category may be subdivided into five general categories (Partidário, 1996; Dalal-Clayton and Sadler, 2003; Chaker et al, 2006):

• SEA provisions included in EIA law (as in the Czech Republic, the Netherlands and Hong Kong).

• Environmental protection legislation (as in Slo-venia and the United States).

• Planning or resource management law (as in New Zealand).

• Separate administrative order or policy directive (as in Canada and Denmark).

• Guidelines on policy appraisal and plan evalua-tion (as the United Kingdom).

In Lebanon, the legal basis conforms to the second group, whereby the general requirement for SEA application is provided under the Framework Law for Environmental Protection (Law 444, dated 08/08/2002). This choice has been dictated by the Lebanese legal and regulatory structure, and the fact that it confers more legitimacy and strength. Indeed, provisions stipulated in laws cannot easily be over-ridden.8 SEA implementation mechanisms and pro-cedures will be elaborated and formalized in an Implementation Decree to be approved by COM. The proposed SEA system, subject of this article, constitutes the backbone of the future SEA Decree.

Focus

There are two main trends with respect to the focus of SEA: the first maintains that the process must center largely on environmental issues, such as the European SEA Directive (CEC, 2001: 30) and the Kiev Protocol on SEA.9 The second approach holds that SEA needs to provide an integrated sustainabil-ity focus encompassing social and economic aspects along with environmental considerations, such as in the UK (ODPM, 2003; 2000a; 2000b), and South Africa (DEAT, 2000).10

Initially, the conceptual framework envisioned for the national SEA system in Lebanon was sustain-ability-led. It focused on the examination of poten-tial environmental, economic and social impacts of public decisions and undertakings (policies, plans and programs, or PPPs) in an effort to anticipate and mitigate negative impacts and enhance environ-mental opportunities. It is evident that, under such a framework, not only are analyses for examining the triple bottom lines of sustainable development ascertained but also there is the need for efficient coordination among different stakeholders.

Nevertheless, given the legal basis for SEA, that is, the Framework Law for Environmental Protection

(Law no 444/2002), the scope of the proposed SEA system was constrained to the examination of envi-ronmental impacts and only those socio-economic factors likely to affect environmental sustainability. Indeed, Law no 444/2002 sets the coverage of SEA in the definition of the term “project”, as inter alia, “[a]ny study or program or investment or planning proposal targeting a complete area or sector of activ-ity (Article 22c) … likely to affect the environment due to its size, nature, impacts or type of activities (Article 21)”.

The amendment in focus was further prompted by the fact that socio-economic issues are not covered by the mandate of MOE, which, therefore, cannot strategically assess them or impinge on the jurisdic-tion of other concerned public administrations. Fur-thermore, the definition has potentially limited SEA to plans and programs; the examination of policies hence remains optional.

Lastly, although the Framework Law for Envi-ronmental Protection requires explicitly the applica-tion of SEA to plans and programs, there is no clear legal definition of different policy documents in-cluding policies, strategies, plans and programs. Hence, there is an obvious need for such a definition to avoid diverse interpretations and preserve the in-tegrity of screening, that is, the decision whether a particular strategic proposal requires an SEA or not.

Institutional Framework

There are five foreseen groups of actors to be in-volved in the SEA process:

1. The decision-making body responsible for adopt-ing policies, plans and programs;

2. The proponent public administration submitting the strategic proposal;

3. The competent administration responsible for re-viewing the quality of the SEA;

4. Outsourced SEA experts (optional) contracted by the proponent administration to conduct SEA studies and/or by the competent administration to review the submitted report;

5. Other stakeholders, such as affected groups and/or interest groups including non-governmental org-anizations (NGOs), professional groups and syn-dicates with a vested interest in the proposed policy, plan or program, that should be involved in the public participation process.

Accordingly, several institutional models for SEA application were assessed; the different variations fall within the following three general categories:

• SEA as a separate process: SEA is distinct from the planning process; it follows the EIA approach and procedures (Bass and Herson, 1999; Tonk and Verheem, 1998; and Sadler and Verheem, 1996).

• Decision-centered: the planning and policy-making process determines the SEA framework,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

25 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014



which is adapted and customized accordingly to ensure a close fit with the requirements of strategic decision-making (Partidário, 2003a; 2003b). The outcomes of the two processes are nonetheless distinct. A separate SEA report is produced as part of the process.

• Integrated: SEA is an integral part that cannot be differentiated from policy-making and planning (LeBlanc and Fischer, 1996; Elling, 1997; Bailey and Dixon, 1999, Tonk and Verheem, 1998; and Shuttleworth and Howell, 2000).

The decision-centered model was recommended for SEA application in Lebanon because it offers the following added-values:

• It can be easily embedded in existing planning and decision-making processes;

• It aims to promote environmental sustainability; nevertheless, sustainable development concepts can eventually be introduced following regulatory developments to be proposed in collaboration with concerned ministries, namely the Ministry of Social Affairs (MOSA), the Ministry of Economy and Trade (MOET) and the Ministry of Finance (MOF);

• An SEA report is required; this will facilitate the evaluation of the process efficiency and increase the accountability of decision-making;

• It allows for stakeholder involvement and public participation at different stages of the SEA pro-cess, particularly prior to decision-making.

Based on the above, an institutional set-up was pro-posed. The main difficulty faced in this respect consisted in identifying a suitable competent ad-ministration responsible for overseeing the imple-mentation of SEA and ensuring the quality control of the process. A number of public administrations that may potentially play this role were short-listed. The main selection criteria relate to their margin of maneuver defined by their mandates, roles, respon-sibilities and organizational structure as set out in the regulation. The final choice was guided by whether to (1) create a new administrative entity with

a mandate and responsibilities catering to the SEA process; (2) empower an existing public entity or ad-ministration; (3) create a new body or entity within the framework of an existing public administration to manage and follow-up the SEA process (add-on).

Create a new entity Two medium- to long-term al-ternatives were identified under the first category. The first was the establishment of the National Council of Environment (NCE),11 which would be a multi-stakeholder forum expected to further envi-ronmental issues on the public agenda without en-tailing a significant financial burden. Indeed, it would tap on MOE expertise and networks for the process administration. Its potential shortcomings, however, include: its advisory role, which is likely to weaken the efficiency of the SEA process; the potential over-empowerment of MOE, which might cause resistance from other public administra-tions; and the absence of clear provisions for finan-cial arrangements for outsourcing consultants upon need.

The second alternative was to re-establish the Ministry of Planning (MOP),12 which would be endowed with its own budget and would include a dedicated service for strategic planning according to the draft law currently under preparation by the Of-fice of the Minister of State for Administrative re-form (OMSAR). The management of the SEA process could potentially be included in the terms of reference of the Service of Strategic Planning. None-theless, it would have to be confirmed whether MOP will actually coordinate and assist other public ad-ministrations in planning or assume full planning re-sponsibilities. In the latter case, there would be a conflict of interest that would affect the objectivity of the SEA process.

Empower an existing entity Four possible options would fit into the second category. The first would be to empower the Council of Director Generals,13 which represents all public administrations and poses little risk of sensitivity since it is chaired by the President of the Civil Service Board. Director Generals are usually well aware of the situation in their respective administrations and have the oppor-tunity to assign staff for reviewing SEA by sector upon need. However, the Council is presently inac-tive and there are no clear mechanisms for horizon-tal coordination among different public administrations. Moreover, the meetings are called by the Civil Service Board, which constitutes a pro-cedural constraint.

The second option would be to involve the Eco-nomic and Social Council (EcoSoc)14 encompassing the three pillars of sustainable development: eco-nomic, social and environmental, the latter being represented by the Environmental Committee. It would be a good forum for exchange between repre-sentatives from the public and private sectors and the civil society, with the possibility of outsourcing

The final choice of institutional framework for SEA was guided by whether to create a new administrativeentity, empower an existing public entity or administration or create a new body or entity within the framework of an existing public administration

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

25 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014



experts upon need. This arrangement would not en-tail significant administrative costs apart from the activation and strengthening of the Environmental Committee. One shortcoming of EcoSoc is that it does not act automatically upon the submission of a proposal but upon either the government’s demand or as deemed necessary by its board. Its activities are currently stalled because of institutional considera-tions and budget constraints.

The third option was CDR,15 which would be a short-term option, since it possesses in-house multi-disciplinary expertise and its own budget. Moreover, the new organizational structure foresees a Planning and Programming Administration composed of the Departments of Social and Economic Planning, Land-use Planning, Sector Planning and Program-ming and the Coordination Unit of Regional Devel-opment. However, there might be a potential conflict of interest given the actual role of CDR as both plan-ning and executing agency on behalf of other public administrations, in addition there would be a poten-tial risk of economic and physical development bias at the expense of social and environmental issues as per its mandate and government priorities. Moreover, this additional empowerment of CDR would increase antagonism and resistance from other public administrations vis-à-vis its ever-increasing prominent role and influence in public planning.

The last option considered in this category was MOE.16 This Ministry has the general mandate of protecting the environment and managing natural re-sources. It possesses in-house expertise with experi-ence in reviewing and approving project-level EIAs, which could be capitalized upon. Moreover, it has good contact and exchange channels with NGOs and the private sector, which would offer a window of opportunity for public participation. The administra-tion of the SEA process could be readily grafted onto its existing structures to avoid significant cost increment associated with the process administra-tion. However, MOE is relatively young and strained for human resources and budget. The risk of resis-tance is also valid in this case; it should be antici-pated and dealt with early on at the onset of the system development.

Create a new entity within an existing administration The last category of options explored the establish-ment of an ad hoc inter-ministerial committee affili-ated directly to the Secretariat General of COM17 or to the Office of the Vice President of COM. The Secretariat General is the hub where almost all legis-lative and regulatory proposals are sent with the exception of emergency laws, and where feedback by concerned public administrations is compiled. The administration of the SEA process can be grafted onto its current structure, so there is no need to establish a new entity. This would cut down on potential costs associated with the process administration.

In parallel, an ad hoc inter-ministerial committee with a permanent representation of MOE, MOF, MOET and MOSA would be formed for reviewing and evaluating SEA results and recommendations. The main shortcomings of this alternative include potential constraints to the level of public participa-tion because of the confidential nature of policy-making, the high level of representation, which is expected to slow down the process, and the need for regulatory development to elaborate on the org-anizational structure and bylaws of COM and the mandate of the Office of the Vice President of the Council.

In light of the above discussion, and following consultations with independent legal consultants and MOE in-house legal experts, it was acknowledged that the only viable option from a regulatory and in-stitutional perspective is to delegate the responsibil-ity of overseeing the SEA process to MOE. Hence, options were narrowed down to the scenario whereby the proponent administration submits its proposed plan or program and corresponding SEA report to MOE for review. Subsequently, MOE will submit its feedback in the form of a ministerial brief to COM in order to guide its final decision.

Procedural framework

The short-listed institutional option discussed previ-ously dictated the following procedural framework. The public administration proposing the plan or program (that is, the proponent) will be responsible for the initiation of SEA. Articles 21 and 22 of Law no 444/2002 stipulate that “any program, study, invest-ment or planning proposal likely to affect the envi-ronment must be assessed prior to approval”. Accordingly, plans and programs related to water and waste-water management, energy, transport, solid-waste management, land-use planning, tourism, industrial and agricultural development, as well as environmental and natural resources management are potentially concerned by SEA (screening). The only exceptions are plans and programs pertaining to national defense and civil security, emergency re-sponse to natural disasters or any other force majeure.

Exclusion or inclusion lists (such as in the SEA Protocol18 or the European SEA Directive) or set thresholds (as in the United States) are to be devel-oped at a later stage, pending the accumulation of a greater body of national experience in SEA and the availability of required data. The proponent can di-rectly enlist the help of MOE (that is, the competent administration) by submitting a screening request and/or a scoping report or, alternatively, refer to provided guidance (screening matrix and scoping requirements). However, it is always advisable to involve MOE at an early stage to sharpen the focus and avoid unnecessary work.

The proponent can rely on either in-house exper-tise or outsourced consultants for performing the assessment, which encompasses:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

25 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014



• assessment of baseline conditions to form a clear understanding of the current state of the environment;

• evaluation of alternative strategic options as per their potential impacts and benchmarking with the ‘no action’ or ‘business as usual’ option;

• identification of the ‘most suitable strategic option’ to be adopted given its potential impacts, consis-tency with pre-defined needs and priorities, avail-able resources for management and monitoring, and compatibility with legislative, institutional, technical and financial frameworks; and

• elaboration of the Environmental Management Plan (EMP), which comprises a mitigation plan comparing strategies for avoiding, remedying or reducing potential residual adverse impacts to ac-ceptable levels and identifying compensatory strategies (when mitigation is not feasible), and a monitoring plan specifying when and how moni-toring will take place, who is responsible for im-plementation and what are the expected results.

The SEA report documents results, analyses and recommendations and is submitted to MOE for review. The Ministry will comment on the results of the SEA and their integration in the proposed draft policy, plan or program. It will rely for that on its technical staff or outsourced consultants. Standard review criteria for the SEA report have been devel-oped for guidance. MOE feedback will be submitted to COM in the form of a Ministerial brief elucidating the potential impacts of the proposal on environ-mental sustainability and the adequacy of the pro-posed EMP. Feedback will be along the following main orientations:

• Approval of the SEA report and endorsement of the proposed policy, plan or program should it in-tegrate SEA findings and recommendations;

• Conditional approval of the SEA report pending completion of inadequacies or omissions, and, accordingly, conditional endorsement of the pro-posed policy, plan or program; or

• Rejection of the SEA report and challenging of the proposed policy, plan or program at COM.

Decision-making is the responsibility of COM. It will be guided by the recommendation of the propo-nent minister, MOE brief, and the discussions out-come of the competent Ministerial Committee(s). COM possesses the authority for taking the final de-cision as deemed appropriate; that is, to reject the proposal, adopt it as is or request its amendment prior to approval. COM is ultimately accountable to the Parliament for its decisions.

Following implementation of the approved decision, the proponent is expected to undertake regu-lar monitoring to assess whether the adopted plan or program has satisfied pre-set objectives or amended observed symptoms (which have initially triggered the process of plan or program formulation);

and whether the EMP is implemented as prescribed in the approved strategic decision. On the other hand, MOE19 is in charge of quality assurance of the SEA process. The evaluation focuses on the imple-mentation and performance of the SEA system, and notably on its efficiency in shaping (‘greening’) de-cision-making and enhancing environmental sustainability.

Coordination and public consultation are crucial for enhancing the consistency of strategic decisions, planning efficiency and stakeholder access (includ-ing the public) to environmental information and de-cision-making. Public participation is an integral component of all international SEA systems and a requirement of almost all international development and cooperation agencies, although the timing and manner in which consultations take place and the in-tegration of results in the final decision vary.

Article 18(2) of the Framework Law for Envi-ronmental Protection no 444/2002 provides for pub-lic participation; however, the formal mechanism is yet to be elaborated.20 A number of government institutions are already implementing certain public participation procedures varying from simple public notification (a notice in the newspaper or Official Gazette), through a range of consultation types (cor-respondence or public meetings) depending on the relationship between the stakeholder group and the decision-making body or proponent. Given the na-ture of SEA and the decision-making process, public participation would target, as a start, professional groups and syndicates.

Consultation on proposed system

In line with MOE policy of transparency and par-ticipatory approach, consultation on the proposed SEA system and corresponding Implementation De-cree (to be submitted to the COM for approval) was undertaken with a number of public and private stakeholders including the Ministry of Public Works and Transport (MOPWT), the Ministry of Industry (MOI), the Ministry of Energy and Water (MEW), the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA), the Ministry of Finance (MOF), the Ministry of Public Health (MOPH), the Ministry of Tourism (MOT), OMSAR, CDR, EcoSoc, the Order of Engineers and Archi-tects, and the Association of Lebanese Industrialists.

Written feedback was received from approxi-mately 75% of those contacted — CDR, MOF, the three Directorates at MOPWT (DGUP, the Director-ate General of Roads and Buildings (DGRB), and the Directorate General of Land and Maritime Transport), MOA, OMSAR, the Order of Engineers in Beirut, and the Association of Lebanese Industri-alists. Relevant comments and/or suggestions were incorporated into the text where applicable and responses to queries and concerns were sent back as a follow-up to stakeholders.

The final draft was further discussed during a consultation meeting with stakeholders prior to its

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

25 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014



submission to the Higher Council of State (HCS) and eventually to COM. The meeting was attended by a variety of stakeholders including representa-tives from public administrations, professional groups, the private sector and academia. The most pertinent issues that were brought forward included:

• the need to clarify further the distinction and cross-linkages between SEA and EIA;

• the need to develop national environmental indi-cators that may be used as part of the EMP (most notably during impact monitoring);

• the importance of consolidating and centralizing environmental information in Lebanon through the development of a national database accessible to interested parties; and

• the need for a clear pre-qualification mechanism for SEA consultants.

No major resistance was observed throughout the process. However, despite a quasi-general agreement on the importance of SEA for transparent, informed and sustainable decision-making, some have ex-pressed apprehension as to its adoption because of its progressive nature. Nevertheless, most are looking forward to international developments in fi-nancing and lending requirements and local lobby-ing by the civil society to increase the chances of endorsement by COM and subsequent adoption by the public sector.

Critique of the proposed system

Potential limitations

The Lebanese SEA system potentially has a number of limitations at the institutional, legal and proce-dural levels. From an institutional point of view, MOE is perceived as a growing institution estab-lished in 1993 with horizontal responsibilities and limited resources both at the financial and technical levels (namely in terms of the number of staff and the availability of technical equipment). The latter shortcoming has been historically overcome by

outsourcing good, pre-qualified consultants to undertake specific tasks under the supervision and control of the technical staff of the Ministry.

On the legal front, Law no 444/2002 provides a strong legal basis for SEA; however, practical im-plementation depends on the adoption and enforce-ment of the SEA Implementation Decree pending approval by COM. Accordingly, this requires a high level of advocacy on behalf of the MOE.

Both legal and institutional limitations have shaped procedural shortcomings, namely:

• The coverage of SEA is limited to plans and pro-grams. Indeed, as per the definition of article 22(e) of the framework law for environmental protection, SEA is not legally binding for policies. Nevertheless, the interpretation could be extended to any ‘initiative’ likely to affect the environment. It is, thus, crucial to define legally the different types of policy, plan or program and their respec-tive hierarchy. This will also streamline the screening process, since the legal definition will clearly indicate policies, plans or programs subject to SEA and limit the grey margin of uncertainty.

• The screening process is rather generic. A number of priority sectors governed by SEA are identi-fied. A screening matrix provides orientations as to the type and character of potentially concerned strategic proposals. It is foreseen that the devel-opment of exclusion or inclusion lists will be prompted as experience and acceptability of SEA builds up in the country.

• Scoping of SEA is optional at this stage. How-ever, it is always advisable to involve MOE at an early stage of the SEA process to avoid unneces-sary work and unforeseen delays. This step can be streamlined by the development of specific sector directives or guidance. Moreover, scoping can be made compulsory following future review of the SEA Decree.

• MOE feedback or Ministerial brief is not bind-ing. The final decision regarding the proposed plan or program remains the jurisdiction of COM which is accountable for such decisions vis-à-vis the Parliament. Indeed, in case of dis-agreement with MOE, the proponent administra-tion can take the matter further to COM for settling the dispute. This might pose potential risks when national priorities do not include en-vironment. However, the situation can be over-come by proper awareness raising on SEA benefits among stakeholders and the mobilization of NGOs, professional groups, syndicates and pressure groups to assume an active role in the process.

It should be noted that the authors’ intention is not to portray a grim picture but to adopt a con- structive self-critical approach that can orient future developments.

No major resistance was observed throughout the process but, despite quasi-general agreement on the importance of SEA for transparent, informed and sustainable decision-making, some have expressed apprehension because of its progressive nature

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

25 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014



Potential advantages

The proposed SEA system offers numerous advan-tages that will facilitate its integration in public planning and decision-making:

• Legal aspects: - The proposed SEA system is based mainly

on Law no 444/2002 that sets the general framework for environmental protection in the country and formalizes preventive and precau-tionary approaches in environmental manage-ment. Moreover, it stipulates environmental assessment as a guiding principle for environ-mental protection and resource management (article 4). This opens a window of opportunity for the national application and integration of SEA/EIA at different planning levels.

• Institutional aspects: MOE possesses several aspects that may well but-tress its role as competent authority for promoting sound environmental assessment and management procedures: - It has developed local capacities and acquired a

wealth of experience in EIA application that will be used as capital for securing basic im-plementation capacity for SEA;

- In 2003, MOE adopted a pre-qualification sys-tem for EIA consultants (Ministerial Decision no 7/1): this mechanism can be replicated for SEA;

- Initiatives for continuous professional devel-opment are encouraged and carried out on a regular basis;

- MOE has a good working relationship with the private sector and the civil society;

- MOE efforts for coordination and the creation of cross-linkages with other government ad-ministrations will facilitate mainstreaming SEA in other sectors.

• Procedural aspects: - The proposed system possesses an environ-

mental focus yet it allows for the consideration of economic and social aspects likely to affect the environment (environmental sustainability);

- Cumulative and transboundary effects, health impacts and impacts on biodiversity are inte-gral parts of the system;

- The consideration of alternatives, and the choice of the ‘most appropriate’ option given national priorities and constraints are firmly embedded in the process;

- It stipulates the elaboration of an EMP includ-ing a mitigation, compensation and monitoring plan;

- An entry point for public access to decision-making has been allowed: the public is represented by concerned syndicates and professional groups;

- The requirement for submitting a separate SEA report is a good mean for eventually evaluating

the efficiency of SEA in ‘greening’ or shaping decision-making and enhancing the transpar-ency and accountability of public decisions. Moreover, SEA reports will constitute impor-tant sources of data;

- MOE feedback via the ministerial brief sub-mitted to COM will constitute a basis for discussion and ultimately an important support for more ‘informed’ decision-making;

- The flexibility of the proposed system will en-hance the likelihood of SEA endorsement by COM, and its practical adoption by public ad-ministrations. Indeed, it can be dovetailed with minimum disturbance to their current practices. The system can be reviewed every four years on the request of the Ministers of Environment and Finance. The recommendation will be based on the evaluation results of the process performance (continuous improvement ap-proach). Accordingly, provisions can be made more stringent once the corresponding values of proactive planning, accountability and trans-parency are established and acknowledged by different stakeholders.

Conclusion

In summary, the main characteristics of the proposed Lebanese SEA system are:

• It can be easily embedded in existing planning and decision-making frameworks;

• It is applied to sector plans and programs with po-tential adverse environmental implications;

• It focuses on environmental sustainability, hence it allows for the consideration of environmental as well as economic and social aspects likely to af-fect the environment;

• Cumulative and transboundary effects, health and biodiversity impacts are integral parts of the system;

• It stipulates the consideration of alternatives, and the choice of the ‘most appropriate’ strategic op-tion given national priorities and constraints;

• It requires a separate SEA report including an EMP;

• It foresees process evaluation and encourages its continuous improvement;

• It allows for public access to environmental in-formation and decision-making.

Nevertheless, creating the appropriate enabling envi-ronment is crucial for the successful implementation of SEA. Hence, the authors propose the following recommendations:

• Financial: Funds earmarked for SEA application must be allocated. They can be secured in the short term from special funds or part of funds contributed by international institutions for the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

25 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014



implementation of sector plans and programs or sector reform. These financial requirements must be taken into account as early as the design and ne-gotiation phase of the loan or grant. Necessary re-sources can also be secured from local sources such as the annual budgets of public administrations.

• Regulatory: The national strategic decision framework requires some elaboration and clarifi-cation. Indeed, a clear legal definition of different policy documents including policies, strategies, plans and programs is crucial for limiting screen-ing uncertainty and avoiding potential disputes or liabilities.

• Institutional: Recommendations in this area are based on the general criteria developed by Clark (1999). These were adapted to the Lebanese con-text, and include: - Developing a National Environmental Action

Plan (NEAP) to serve as general framework for setting SEA objectives, developing indicators and benchmarking environmental performance.

- Elaborating sector-specific environmental ob-jectives to guide SEA methodology, impact as-sessment and performance appraisal.

- Strengthening planning and programming units in the public sector, and enforcing formal plan-ning processes. Indeed, current practices are often informal in nature and depend on the prevailing management style. They may vary consequently with cabinet and/or management changes. It is important to embed SEA in stan-dard planning processes to increase transpar-ency, accountability and reproducibility of results.

- Adopting internal procedures at MOE for the administration of SEA review and provision of information (screening and scoping) to assure timely feedback. A relevant proposal submitted to MOE management is pending approval.

- Strengthening horizontal and vertical coordi-nation within and among public administrations. Indeed, strengthening internal communication procedures in public administrations is impera-tive for facilitating information exchange, timely feedback and proper coordination among various departments and experts. Communica-tion can be improved by reviewing internal pro-cedures to encourage regular meetings among concerned departments, peer-review panels, open discussions and brainstorming sessions. Similarly, streamlining inter-institutional co-ordination channels and procedures is of prime importance given the multi-disciplinary and multi-stakeholder characteristics of the SEA process. Review panels should be carefully se-lected to assure good quality control. Suggested selection criteria include (adapted from Noble, 2004): practical experience in two or more of the specialty areas considered in the assessment; current or previous leadership or management role in one or more of the areas of expertise

considered; training and professional experience in impact assessment; previous experience in similar types of assessment or planning process; and good representation of a particular sector, affected group or geographical area.

- Improving access to environmental information through compiling and maintaining a readily accessible national SEA database on baseline environmental information, indicators and monitoring data. Data and information can be reused subsequently in lower-tier SEAs and/or project-level EIAs.

- Assuring basic implementation ability through capacity development21 and technical training of public-sector representatives and private consultants on SEA application, monitoring and evaluation. A national pre-qualification system would facilitate access to skilled expertise and maintain the quality of the process. This can be complemented by advocacy among decision-makers and senior administrators focusing on SEA and its cross-linkages with environmental sustainability and sustainable development, and awareness raising among NGOs and profes-sional organizations on their potential role as pressure groups for the adoption of SEA and as ‘watchdogs’ for assuring the transparency and efficiency of the process.

• Participatory approach: Although public participa-tion is one of the underlying principles high-lighted in the Framework Law for Environmental Protection (Law no 444/2002, article 19), it is still of limited scale. Some public consultations are be-ing undertaken on an ad hoc basis for large infra-structure projects, particularly when supported by international financing institutions. It is, hence, essential to develop formal procedures and mechanisms for public participation in order to involve stakeholder groups in a timely manner and ensure their access to environmental informa-tion and decision-making. Accordingly, MOE is currently considering the adoption of the Aarhus Convention model for this purpose.

Finally, it is worth noting that, although the applica-tion of the Lebanese SEA system is still in its pre-liminary stages and despite the lack of formal SEA requirements (the SEA decree is yet to be adopted by COM), the following outcomes have been reported:

• The Higher Council for Urban Planning (HCUP) has submitted to MOE the first SEA study for re-view before approving the proposed new spatial master plan for the coastal town of Jounieh;

• DGUP has integrated additional environmental considerations in its latest version of contracts for outsourcing consultants to develop spatial master plans;

• CDR, the public administration responsible for planning, procurement and implementation of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

25 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014



infrastructure and development plans and pro-grams, has expressed its interest in evaluating its Inland Water Protection Program using SEA methodology. Accordingly, relevant terms of ref-erence were developed, and potential financial arrangements are being sought for implementation.

• MOET is currently undertaking a strategic as-sessment of the Lebanese–European Association Agreement22 and its potential impacts on selected productive sectors with the view of proposing an action plan for mainstreaming its application in Lebanon.

• The Service of Conservation of Nature at DGOE has undertaken an ex-post strategic assessment of the National Reforestation Plan, which allowed the Service to assess work progress and ap-proaches, and to reorient priorities.

• MOE is currently developing guidelines for the integration of biodiversity in SEA and EIA23 in collaboration with a local environmental NGO.

The progress observed so far is surely reassuring; however, it is yet to be seen how the new provisions will work in practice on a larger scale.

Notes

1. See: <http://www.unece.org/env/eia/documents/protocol english.pdf>, last accessed 7 January 2005.

2. The legal structure for MAP is the Barcelona System encom-passing the Barcelona Convention and its six protocols addressing specific environmental themes (<www.unepmap. org>, last accessed 7 January 2005).

3. Article 64 of the Lebanese Constitution dated 23 May 1926 and its amendments.

4. CDR is a government body affiliated to the Council of Min-isters, responsible for planning, procurement and implement-ation of infrastructure and development plans and programs. The terms of reference (TOR) of the newly established Administration of Planning and Programming includes developing and proposing national, regional, spatial and sectoral development plans and programs (part 3, chapter 1, article 14, Decree no 10941/03).

5. Established by Decree no 13785 dated 9 September 1963, and its amendments, the GP is a specialized office at the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) for studying and executing land reclamation and agricultural infrastructure projects. It enjoys special administrative and financial powers and is directly af-filiated to the Office of the Minister. Article 6 of the Decree de-fines the responsibilities of the management committee and specifies in paragraph 6(b) its right to develop and implement plans for executing and funding proposed land reclamation projects in different governorates.

6. Established in 1970 (Decree no 14649 dated 12 June), COS is affiliated to the Office of the Prime Minister. It is primarily concerned with infrastructure works and development in the southern region of Lebanon.

7. With the exception of Swaziland and Nambia where SEA is formally required.

8. As a general rule, laws override decrees, which override de-cisions. Hence, the amendment of an existing law requires ratification by the Parliament since only a law can modify or overrule another law.

9. The text of the SEA Protocol can be found online at <http:// www.unece.org/env/eia/documents/protocolenglish.pdf>, last accessed 7 January 2005.

10. Impacts considered include environmental, bio-physical, socio-economic and cultural heritage.

11. The establishment of NCE was foreseen in Law no 216 dated

02/04/1993 and its amendments, and in Law no 444 dated 08/08/2002. However, it is still pending. The Council, which will play a consultation/advisory role to COM, will be chaired by MOE with the participation of line ministries (seven mem-bers) and civil society representatives (remaining seven members).

12. Draft Law, personal communication by OMSAR. 13. Decree-Law no 111 dated 1959. 14. Law no 389 dated 12/01/1995. 15. Decree no 10941 dated 13/09/2003. CDR depends directly

on the Office of the Prime Minister. 16. Decree no 5591 dated 30/08/1994, Law no 667 dated

29/12/1997, and Law no 444 dated 29/07/2002. 17. Administrative Decree no 2552 dated 01/08/92. 18. The SEA Protocol was developed to supplement the Conven-

tion on EIA in a Transboundary Context (also known as the 1991 Espoo Convention). Once ratified, the Protocol requires the Parties to evaluate the environmental and health impacts of their draft policies, plans, programs and legislation propos-als. The Protocol emphasizes the consideration of health im-pacts as well as the explicit requirement for addressing transboundary effects. Furthermore, it stresses the need for undertaking and defining clear and transparent arrangements for public participation; it clearly provides for public consulta-tion as early as the scoping step if possible. The Protocol is open to all UN member states; its legal text is available online at: <http://www.unece.org/env/eia/documents/protocolenglish. pdf>, last accessed 7 January 2005.

19. NCE can eventually play a role in the evaluation of the SEA process upon its establishment, which was stipulated by Law no 216/1993 establishing MOE and its amendments, and Law no 444/2002 setting the Framework for Environmental Protection.

20. The EC has agreed to fund the development of the public participation mechanism within the framework of the ongoing SEA project.

21. A training manual on the application of SEA to plans and pro-grams in Lebanon is available at <http://www. energyandenvironment.undp.org/undp/index.cfm?module= Library&page=Document&DocumentID=5696>, last accessed 10 March 2006. It can be used as a reference and support document to train the trainers.

22. To mainstream the concept of SEA in sectoral ministries, namely MOET, funds were secured from UNEP-ETB to fi-nance the project entitled ‘Capacity building for integrated as-sessment and planning for sustainable development’.

23. A small grant was secured to develop practical guidelines for the integration of biodiversity in SEA and EIA. This initia-tive falls within the framework of the ‘Capacity Building for Biodiversity and Impact Assessment (CBBIA) Program’, which is administered by the IAIA and funded by the Dutch Government. It builds on work carried out in support of the biodiversity-related global conventions, including the Conven-tion on Biological Diversity, the Ramsar Convention and the Convention on Migratory Species.

References

ADB, Asian Development Bank 2003. Environmental Assessment Guidelines. Available at <www.adb.org/Documents/Guidelines/ Environmental_Assessment/default.asp>, last accessed 10 January 2005.

Bailey, J and J Dixon 1999. Policy environmental assessment. In Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment: Volume 2, ed. Petts, pp. 251–272. Oxford: Blackwells.

Bass, R and A Herson 1999. Environmental impact assessment of land-use plans: experience under the National Environ-mental Policy Act and the California Environmental Quality Act. In Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment: Volume 2, ed. Petts, pp. 273–299. Oxford: Blackwells.

CEC, Commission of the European Communities 2001. Directive 2001/4.2/EC of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programs on the environment. Official Journal, L 197, 21.7.

Chaker, A, K El-Fadl, L Chamas and B Hatjian 2006. A review of strategic environmental assessment in twelve countries. Envi-ronmental Impact Assessment Review, 26(1), January, 15–56.

Clark, B D 1999. Capacity building. In Handbook of Environmental

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

25 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014



Impact Assessment: Volume 2, ed. J Petts. Oxford: Blackwells.

Dalal-Clayton, B and B Sadler 2003. The status and potential of strategic environmental assessment (draft). Work funded by the United Nations Environment Program and the Royal Nor-wegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs as a contribution to the work of the OECD DAC ENVIRONET Task Group on SEA and the UNEP initiative on Strategic Integrated Planning, 17 Septem-ber.

DEAT, Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism 2000. Guideline document: strategic environmental assessment in South Africa. Available at <http://www.iaia.org/Publications/ sea-sa.pdf>, last accessed 9 January 2005.

Elling, B 1997. Strategic environmental assessment of national policies: the Danish experience of a full concept assessment. Project Appraisal, 12(3), September, 161–172.

LeBlanc, P and K Fischer 1996. The Canadian federal experi-ence. In Strategic Environmental Assessment: Environmental Assessment of Policies, eds. J J de Boer and B Sadler. Report no 54, The Netherlands: Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment.

Lebanese Official Gazette: Lebanese Constitution dated 1926 and its amendments Decree-Law 11 dated 1959 Decree no 13785 dated 1963 Decree no 14649 dated 1970 Decree no 7137 dated 08/02/1974 Administrative Decree no 2552 dated 01/08/92 Law no 216 dated and its amendments Decree no 5591 dated 30/08/1994 Law no 389 dated 12/01/1995 Law no 667 dated 29/12/1997 Decree no 7864 dated 21/03/2002 Law no 444 dated 08/08/2002 Decree no 10941 dated 13/09/2003

Noble, B F 2004. Strategic environmental assessment quality assurance: evaluating and improving the consistency of judgments in assessment panels. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24(1), 3–25.

ODPM, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister 2000a. Planning policy guidance 11: regional planning. Available at <http:// www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_planning/documents/ pdf/odpm_plan_pdf_606926.pdf>, last accessed 7 January 2005.

ODPM, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister 2000b. Sustainability appraisal of regional planning guidance: good practice guide. Available at <http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/ odpm_planning/documents/pdf/odpm_plan_pdf_606126.pdf>, last accessed 7 January 2005.

ODPM, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister 2003. The Strategic

Environmental Directive: guidance for planning authorities. Available at <http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/ odpm_planning/documents/page/odpm_plan_025198.pdf>, last accessed 5 January 2005.

Partidário, M R 1996. SEA regulations and guidelines worldwide. In The Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment, eds. R Therivel and M R Partidário, pp. 15–29. London: Earthscan.

Partidário, M R 2003a. Understanding SEA: what is SEA and why is it important? Presentation at the International Workshop on Strategic Environmental Assessment, 18–20 November, Thailand.

Partidário, M R 2003b. SEA: Legal, institutional and procedural models — a global view. Presentation at the International Workshop on Strategic Environmental Assessment, 18–20 November, Thailand.

Sadler, B and R Verheem 1996. Strategic Environmental Assessment — Status, Challenges and Future Directions. The Hague: Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Envi-ronment of the Netherlands.

Shuttleworth, J and J Howell 2000. Strategic environmental as-sessment within the Government of Canada and specifically within the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. In Perspectives on Strategic Environmental Assess-ment, eds. M R Partidário and R Clark, pp. 69–79. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC/Lewis Publishers.

Tarr, P 2003. Environmental Impact Assessment in Southern Africa. Ed. Sandie Flitchart, Alice Jarvis and Carole Roberts. Windhoek, Namibia: Southern African Institute for Environ-mental Assessment (SAIEA).

Tonk, J and R Verheem 1998. Integrating the environment in strategic decision-making — one concept, multiple forms. Paper presented to the 18th Annual Conference of IAIA, in Christchurch, New Zealand.

United Nations 2000. United Nations Millennium Declaration. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly, 8th Plenary Meeting, 8 September 2000. (A/55/L.2). United Nations Mil-lennium Development Goals. Available at <http://www.un. org/millenniumgoals>, last accessed 7 January 2005.

World Bank 2001. Making Sustainable Commitments: an Envi-ronmental Strategy for the World Bank. Washington DC: The World Bank.

World Bank 2002. Making Sustainable Commitments: An Environment Strategy for the World Bank — Summary (com-plete volume on CD-ROM). Washington DC: Environment Department, World Bank.

World Bank 2003a. Lebanon quarterly update: fourth quarter 2003. Republic of Lebanon: The World Bank Group.

World Bank 2003b. Country Environmental Analysis (CEA): Brief-ing Book. Washington DC: Environment Department, World Bank.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

25 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Towards a national strategic environmental assessment system in Lebanon

Documents

Transcript of Towards a national strategic environmental assessment system in Lebanon