Download szigeti

What Can We Learn From the New EU
Member States?
Greening Regional Development Programmes
Project Launch Conference:
“Learning from each other!”
Bath, UK, 8 December 2004
Marta Szigeti Bonifert
REC Executive Director
Purpose and Overview
• Introduction to REC
• Comparative assessment of new MS
• Challenges: integration obstacles
• Lessons and potential solutions
www.rec.org
REC
•International organization
•Established 1990
•Head Office in Hungary
•16 Country Offices
•200 staff (30 nationalities)
•Over 300 running projects
•Mission to solve
environmental problems in
Central and Eastern Europe
www.rec.org
Bridges – Across Borders
Government
Government
NGOs
NGOs
The REC
Local
Local
Governments
Governments
Business
Business
Citizens
Citizens
www.rec.org
Programmes and Funds
• REC carries out projects – through the country and field
office network – within the following programmes and
funds:
• Business and Environment
• Capacity Building
• Climate Change
• Environmental Law
• Environmental Policy
• Information
• NGO Support
• Public Participation
• Japan Special Fund
• Italian Trust Fund
www.rec.org
Bridging – Beyond 2004
• REC’s strategic program development
approach is tailored to the needs of
• (new) EU Member States
• Countries negotiating their EU Accession
(Candidate Countries)
• Balkan Stability Pact Countries (SEE, West
Balkan countries)
• Turkey
• NIS/EECCA Countries
www.rec.org
EU Development 2004 - Enlargement
• 1st of May, 2004 enlargement of the EU from 15
to 25 countries
• The area and population has increased by
approx 20%
• Economic output has increased by 5,16%
• Member states’ languages from 11 to 20
• GDP of Slovenia is close to Portugal or 70% of
German, GDP of Bulgaria is 20% of German
• Average foreign aid per country counts for
0,3% of GDP
• Around 1% to 5 % of national GDP goes for
environment now
www.rec.org
145/2004 - 3 December 2004
GDP per capita: preliminary results 2003, final data 2002
GDP per capita in the Member States ranged
from 40% to 215% of the EU25 average in 2003
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
GDP per capita1 in Luxembourg, expressed in terms of purchasing
power standards (PPS), was more than twice the EU25 average in 2003,
Ireland was about one third above average
Denmark, Austria, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and
Belgium around 20% above average
Sweden and Finland recorded figures about 15% above the EU25
average
France, Germany and Italy around 10% above average
Spain was just below the EU25 average
Cyprus, Greece and Slovenia about 20% below
Malta and Portugal were around 2 5% below average
Czech Republic about 30% below
Hungary about 40% below
Slovakia and Estonia were around half the average, while Lithuania,
Poland and Latvia recorded figures between 40% and 50% of the EU25
average.
www.rec.org
New EU member states: context
• Unprecedented political and economic changes
only within 15 years
• Huge potential for sustainable development
• Sincere commitment to the European values and
EU integration
• Impressive policy and legislative reform combined
with institutional strengthening
• Impressive capacity building at central and local
level
• Remarkable investments
• Valuable human capital, traditions, practices
www.rec.org
New EU member states: challenges
• Contribution to EU policy development
• Efficient operation versus bureaucracy, incl. on EU
level
• Enforcement and compliance, transition periods –
Acquis on environment (22) 83 environmental acts!
• Investments, efficiency in the use of EU funds
• Limited human resources, understaffed institutions
• Capacity building on local level
• Financial burden
• Competition, state aid rules
• Technical expertise and specialisation
www.rec.org
Issue of transition period (Anita Pirc Velkavrh – EEA 2004)
No of countries
Langest
period
Emissions of volatile organic compound (VOC) from
storage and distribution of petrol,
II I I I I
2008
sulphur content of certain liquid fuels
I I
2006
urban waste water treatment,
I II I I I I I I I
2015
drinking water,
I I I
2015
discharges of dangerous substances into the aquatic
environment,
I I I
2007
packaging and packaging waste,
IIII I I I I I
2007
landfill of waste,
asbestos waste,
I I I
I
2012
2004
shipments of waste,
I
2007
use of clap-nets for capture of certain bird species to
establish a captive breeding system,
I
2008
strict protection of lynx,
I
integrated pollution prevention and control,
I I I I
2011
Air pollution from large combustion plants,
I I I I I I I
2017
waste and incineration of hazardous
I I
2005
ionising radiation in relation to medical exposure.
I I
2006
www.rec.org
Regional Development and EU Cohesion Policy
at REC
• Strategic Environmental Assessment
• GRDP Partner
• ENEA member and coordinator of
capacity-building group
• Environmental Aspects of Structural
Funds and the Cohesion Fund
www.rec.org
Programming for SF & CF in 10 new MS
• € 21.7 billion total funds; € 7.6 billion for Cohesion
Fund
• Average 25% funds to “environmental projects”
• Environmental projects most likely to be financed
under OPs or Priorities for infrastructure,
agriculture & rural development, regional
development
• Options to fund environmental components in
most programmes and priorities
www.rec.org
Institutional Framework in New MS
• Programme management is centralized for
2004-2006
• Two prevailing models:
Model MAs
IBs
SPD
Ministry of finance Relevant sectoral
or special institution ministries
CSF +
OPs
Ministry for regional
development or
economy; sectoral
ministries for OPs
Various government &
independent agencies
State treasury
MAs
Regional authorities
www.rec.org
Roles of Environmental Authorities
Process or Programme
Role
Overall planning and
programming for 2004 - 2006
Weak
Participation in ex-ante
evaluation
Managers; especially in
larger countries
Environment measures
Cohesion Fund pipelines
Non-environment programmes
(economic development,
transport, etc.)
Limited and unclear
Oversee EIA procedure
www.rec.org
Challenges
• Heavy focus on “absorption” of funds + economic
“catching up”
• Lack of institutional capacity: human resources, time,
skills limits authorities to performing only absolutely
necessary tasks
• Common perception that environmental authorities’
role is limited to environmental projects
• Environmental awareness and skills in public admin
• Difficulties to apply partnership principle
www.rec.org
Lessons and Potential Solutions
• Specific capacity-building programmes using TA
funds
• TA funds to support environmental experts
responsible for horizontal priority
• Networking of environmental actors on national
and international levels
• Use of SEA as a tool for integration of environment
into planning processes
• Further decentralisation of programme
management
www.rec.org
Contact and Internet Resources
Jennifer McGuinn
Head of Environmental Policy and Local Initiatives
Programme, REC
[email protected]
The Regional Environmental Center for Central and
Eastern Europe (REC)
www.rec.org
REC work on EU Cohesion Policy
www.rec.org/REC/Programs/LocalInitiatives/Projec
ts.html
www.rec.org