 |
EU pre-accession funds have not always been a success story for reasons
that range from misunderstanding of the local circumstances and differences
on the part of the EU to bad management and lack of ownership on the part
of local governments.
CEE Bankwatch Network and Friends of the Earth have been monitoring the
use of EU pre-accession funds in the Central and Eastern European candidate
countries since 2000. Pre-accession aid – ISPA (environment, transport),
SAPARD (agriculture, rural development) and Phare (institution building,
economic and social cohesion) – will cause profound changes in the
economies of Central and Eastern European countries and will have an enormous
impact on the environment through new strategies and projects in infrastructure,
energy, nature conservation, and agriculture. Moreover, the funds will attract
funding from other sources such as international financial institutions
(especially the European Investment Bank).
To bring the expected benefit to the countries that are still transforming
into market economies, these financial instruments should be implemented
in accordance with the principles of sustainable development and should
be managed in a transparent way that implies public involvement. Unfortunately,
experience has shown that this has not always been the case. Although the
EU has called for the integration of environmental principles into all areas
of work, to what extent this has happened in practice remains to be seen.
The EU’s environmental regulations are not always enforced in EU-funded
projects and the funds’ structure often encourages unnecessarily large
projects and favours ‘end-of-the-pipe’ solutions such as landfills
over more proactive approaches such as recycling and waste reduction.
Some examples from Bulgaria
In Bulgaria, for example, most of the wastewater plants that have been proposed
for EU pre-accession aid are oversized. They were designed 10-15 years ago,
during the communist regime, when environmental principles did not play
the role they play today. Furthermore, data describing the existing situation
have not been systematically collected, which makes it difficult to develop
new projects. This is a critical issue, since wastewater plants need to
be the right size to work properly, otherwise their effectiveness and cleaning
technology are undermined. A fragile cleaning technology is closely connected
with the price that citizens will have to pay in the future for maintenance.
Many problems related to wastewater treatment still remain to be solved.
For example, industrial and household wastewater is not separated before
treatment, which automatically makes all the sludge a hazardous waste. If
separation was carried out, household sludge could be used for agriculture.
Very often, the wastewater collection system is not completed and settled
areas are not connected to the wastewater plants. At the same time, the
plant is designed to serve the whole city, which also creates problems in
terms of the size and effectiveness. Such an example can be found in Stara
Zagora, Bulgaria, financed by ISPA, where 40% of the city wastewater system
is not directed into the main collector.
The major problem, however, is that big cities lack a strategy and planning
for wastewater collection and treatment. Therefore, projects financed by
the International Financial Institutions and ISPA funds are isolated and
lack a holistic, sustainable approach. The EU has tried to improve the situation
by introducing conditions for sustainability, but as these measures were
not integrated they are seen as an extra burden on the municipalities which,
to make things worse, are expected to fund them from their own resources.
Apart from insufficient capacity in the pre-accession countries, external
pressures driven by macroeconomic success and political cohesion among member
states push environmental needs low down on the agenda. This trend can be
very easily observed in the drive to complete the "Trans-European Network
of Motorways” at the expense of more environmentally sound modes of
transportation. On the one hand, ISPA supports environmental projects and
on the other hand the same fund is used to finance one of the most environmentally
harmful modes of transport. Combined with SAPARD, which encourages intensive
agriculture rather than organic farming, the EU funds and EU concerns for
the environment suffer from a lack of coordination and a lack of integration
of environmental principles in the actual policies and programmes.
How EU funds could be improved
Environmental principles should be integrated in all areas of pre-accession
activities to increase public participation, significantly increase the
consistency and quality of administering pre-accession assistance and build
a proper legal and institutional basis for the future management of structural
funds.
National sectoral policies, as well as national and regional strategies
and plans should be subject to strategic environmental assessment. In keeping
with the EU Directive on Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs), the
same applies to the newly prepared national development plans, single programming
documents or operational programmes. During the midterm review, guidelines
for pre-accession funds should be revised in the spirit of the EU Strategy
on Sustainable Development.
Transparency and public participation in decision-making should be among
the key requirements for funding. The public participation process should
not be treated as an obstacle to a smooth realisation of projects nor should
it be treated as a mere formality - as yet another box to tick off in the
funding process. Co-financing institutions such as the European Investment
Bank should also be required to show increased openness and transparency.
A transfer of know-how is needed, combined with resources dedicated to better
preparation of projects and more efficient use of EU funding. Technical
assistance and capacity building at all administrative levels is needed
just as much as - if not more than - investments in new highways, especially
if the accession countries are to use the structural funds wisely in the
future.
Western consultancy companies helping to prepare activities within the scope
of pre-accession funds must be closely scrutinised for their capacity, quality
of work and credibility to avoid inefficient use of resources. Bearing in
mind the importance of creating sufficient capacity in the accession countries
to enable them to use future use of structural funds, priority should be
given to involving local consultants and developing high-quality local consultancies.
Also needed are resources for increasing NGOs’ abilities to become
a strong part of the process as both contributors and watchdogs. Both the
European Commission and the governments of the accession countries must
involve the public and NGOs in the process of preparing the countries to
use the structural and cohesion funds in a timely and proactive manner.