Solutions
A systemic problem requires systematic solutions
This updated map shows that controversial projects are unfortunately not limited to a few isolated exceptions. If nothing changes, EU money will bring not only many benefits by the end of the 2007-2013 period but also substantial environmental, climate and social harm throughout the region. A significant share of the funds is at risk of being spent ineffectively. This would be a major lost opportunity for CEE countries to build a sustainable path out of the economic crisis.
Alternatives are available and up and running!
The controversial projects on this map are not the results of an “inevitable trade-off” between economic development and environmental wealth. Alternative solutions exist – be it simply a different route for a motorway or a conceptually different solution, such as separating and recycling waste instead of incinerating it. For instance, after two years of concerted campaigning from environmentalists seeking to avoid the routing of a major bypass road through the treasured Rospuda Valley (a NATURA 2000 site), the Polish government has put forward an alternative route which will not destroy valuable nature sites.
It is very possible for the potential environmental damage portrayed in this map to be avoided. In the Czech Republic, there are small municipalities which have already adopted the “Zero waste” concept and submitted small scale separate collection and recycling projects for EU funding – there are alternatives to incineration that are more cost-effective, easier to implement, create more local jobs and that are both more beneficial for the environment and resource efficient.
Prevention: alternatives require a level playing field
Avoiding and preventing the problems that recur again and again on the map is simple: the different project alternatives or solutions must be impartially assessed, compared and consulted with the public in order to select the best options from the economic, environmental and functional points of view. This should also be the basic condition that underpins the EU’s and the EIB’s approval of money for the projects. Regrettably, time and again, this is done badly – when it is even done at all.
EU legislation formally requires authorities to make a cost-benefit analysis and environmental impact assessment (EIA), including consideration of alternatives and a public consultation, for every major project. So how is it that problems persist? Typically, the authorities pre-select a particular project variant and then push it through at all costs. The inevitable results are poor quality EIAs, the disregarding of alternatives, and merely pro-forma public consultations. The underlying reasons range from a “builder mindset” and disdain for environmental values, to the undue influence of various companies or politicians with vested interests, all the way to outright corruption.
Now that the crisis response involves the acceleration of payments for major projects, it is even more important that the EU funds are planned and scrutinised with heightened attention and transparency.
European taxpayers need to know how their money is to be spent. The US has recently started an initiative (www.recovery.gov) guaranteeing the “right to know” where and how the US recovery budget is being spent. This is a good example of action that could be taken at the EU level in order to improve the transparency and accountability of valuable – never more so than now – EU funds.
Responsibility of the European Commission and the EIB
The Commission and the EIB bear the ultimate responsibility for the implementation of EU public resources from the EU budget. Every time they approve a deficient project, national authorities and project promoters draw a lesson that even badly prepared projects can count on EU funding. The Commission and the EIB should not give a green light until alternative solutions are properly assessed and should oversee more stringent enforcement of EU environmental legislation. To this end, the instrument for technical assistance, JASPERS, should include in its mandate the explicit task to conduct an assessment of alternatives prior to its role as an assistant in the technical design of an already chosen alternative. Moreover, JASPERS should provide its services in a transparent and accountable manner by publishing the documents for technical assistance for each project on its website.
Ensuring smooth absorption of EU funds
Inadequate environmental assessments and the ignoring of alternatives by the authorities can lead to court challenges, project delays and higher costs, as has been strikingly seen for example in the cases of the D8 motorway in the Czech Republic and the Via Baltica in Poland. Careful and rigorous development planning, based on methodologically sound multi-criteria assessments as opposed to reckless project preparation, is necessary to ensure that CEE countries can in fact spend the full sums of EU funding available. In other cases outlined in the map, such as the 12 major incineration projects in Poland, the fact that they are so technically complicated and expensive means that only half of the 12 planned incinerators will be ready to apply for EU funding within the present 2007-2013 financial period. The result is that these 12 behemoths are blocking most of the available EU funds for alternative waste management solutions in Poland.
Instead, providing funds for capacity building and the skills development of project applicants – namely local, regional and national authorities – for developing green alternatives or integrating environmental measures into other projects can be a driver for making the absorption of the funds more effective. This can be achieved through establishing green advisory and job creation centres that provide training, consultancy services and mentoring, along with the development of guidance tools.