|
|
 |
|
From: Jernej Stritih, Executive
Director of the Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe Dear Minister, I am writing to you ahead of the
informal meeting of the EU Council of Environment Ministers with Environment
Ministers from Candidate Countries on March 7, 2001 in Brussels. The
discussion at the meeting will focus on the 6th Environmental Action
Programme of the EU that was adopted by the Commission in January, and is
now being discussed by the Council and the Parliament. As you most probably remember, the first
Ministerial discussion between EU and Candidate Countries about this
Programme took place on June 19, 2000 at the Regional Environmental Center
for CEE in Szentendre. Along with that discussion the REC was asked by the
DG Environment to facilitate the Candidate Countries input into the drafting
of the Programme. You can find more about this process at http://www.rec.org/REC/Programs/6thEAP/Default.html At the REC we believe that the 6th EAP
is a very good document in the given context of difficulty with achieving
the environmental objectives that had been set already with the 5th
Programme in 1992, the need to deepen the implementation of the existing
Acquis, the forthcoming enlargement of the EU and the newly established
co-decision procedure for such documents in the EU. Most of the Programme
relates to both current and new Member States, in particular the strategic
approach, tackling climate change, nature and biodiversity, environment and
health and the sustainable use of natural resources. Already during our work
with DG Environment we realized that the differences, as to how these issues
will be dealt with, between the current and new Member States, wouldn’t be
larger than they would be among the current Member States themselves. This
is also the main reason why the EU enlargement is specifically dealt with in
a very short chapter. But even if Enlargement related points
are very limited in the 6th EAP, they are more or less directly derived form
the discussion in Szentendre last June, and as such represent very good
priorities for action by the EU and the Candidate Countries in the process
of accession. In the further text , I would like to
point out some topics that would require particular political attention in
the enlargement process, and could provide good opportunities for taking
initiative at the Brussels meeting. Climate change There is scope for tremendous synergies
between the accession related investments (new technologies, large
combustion plants, energy efficiency) and the greenhouse gas (GHG)
reductions. But because of the stalemate on Kyoto protocol, valuable time is
being lost in the candidate countries, who are focusing on the compliance
with existing EU directives in the mean time. Most Candidate Countries
haven't developed internal strategies how to achieve Kyoto targets or move
beyond them. At the same time the EU support instruments such as PHARE, ISPA
or EIB loans don't specify GHG reduction as their objectives and don’t
systematically take into account the climate impact of their projects. There
is a clear opportunity to start taking action for GHG in the Candidate
Countries linked with EU Enlargement. First steps could include o
harmonization and set-up of national monitoring systems, o
inclusion of climate impact in the Environmental Impact Assessment and
Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment procedure, o
inclusion of GHG emissions into the permits under the IPPC Directive, and o
making climate change a specific objective of community assistance
programmes. These actions would have no prejudice to
the Kyoto negotiations, in fact they would make the subsequent
implementation of Kyoto and 6th EAP targets easier. Agriculture There is reference in the 6th EAP (p.33)
related to exploring the possibility of designating a significant part of
the candidate countries' land as agri-environment area. In some way, this is
what Sweden, Finland and Austria did in the process of their accession in
1995. Such action on a large scale in the Candidate Countries would avoid
negative impacts on the environment, landscape, rural employment and the
community budget. It might actually reduce the political risk to enlargement
posed by full integration of Candidate Countries’ agriculture sector into
the traditional CAP. There is also a cross reference with climate change in
the area of promoting sustainable forestry and energy crops instead of
increasing food production. The next step might be to commission a study
about the feasibility and impacts (environmental, social and economic) of
large scale designation of land in Candidate Countries under the agri-environment
objective. Sustainable economic development There are many initiatives under way,
such as Baltic Agenda 21 and especially the EU Sustainable Development
Strategy. The Candidate Countries have a tremendous opportunity to learn
from the Member States and to leap-frog towards a more sustainable model of
economy and society. A good step the Commission has been to require
Strategic Impact Assessment of the Development Plans in the Candidate
Countries, but the awareness among other sectors is still very low. Next
step might be to better coordinate the policy messages, such as about the
Cardiff Process, and to include a strong reference to the opportunity for
sustainability in EU Enlargement into the conclusions of the Gothenburg
Council. Protecting and promoting
public transport Public transport is the key to halting
the increasing trend of CO2 emissions from cars and the urban sprawl, both
in the EU and the Candidate Countries. The Candidate Countries have the
advantage that the share of public transport is still higher than in the EU,
but there are currently very few national and Community policies focusing on
the support to public transport. ISPA for example supports the
railways but stops short of specifically targeting urban public transport in
the environment and in the transport window. The public transport in the
Candidate Countries clearly needs a political boost from EU, national
government and city authorities. Some of it may come from the proposed work
on an international instrument on Environment Health and Transport, that
will be discussed at a high level meeting in Geneva on May 4. Other steps
may include specifying public transport as a specific objective of ISPA,
based on the reference in the 6th EAP and starting a process of cooperation
among the CEE cities to share experience and promote the development of
public transport projects. Urban Planning Most new economic development in the
Candidate Countries (commerce, industry, housing) is now trying to move to
the “greenfields” - the outskirts of the cities. At the same time,
significant inner city areas remain derelict. Even if most Candidate
Countries have dealt with the past environmental liabilities within the
privatization process, the preference among investors to build on new land
is impossible to overcome, partly because of competition to attract
investments between cities and between countries. This requires policy
coordination at the EU level to avoid “environmental dumping” in the
market of industrial sites. Possibilities include harmonization of zoning
standards, clear preference for site redevelopment in Community assistance
programmes and International Financial Institutions, and even options
such as establishing a liability guarantee scheme at the EU level that would
enable the “brownfields” to be reactivated. Awareness Raising The involvement of the public is one of
the important preconditions for any successful environmental policy. The
Candidate Countries have been very active in the development of the Aarhus
Convention and are now in the process of ratifying and implementing it along
with the Member States. There has been a good experience with the dialogue
with environmental NGOs in the framework of the Szentendre meeting in June,
and the Commission has engaged in a direct dialogue with CEE NGOs related to
enlargement. We believe that these processes should be continued and that
adequate support should be provided nationally and internationally for the
NGOs to be able to fulfill their role. In addition to them, ways of
involving local communities and schools should be explored and utilized
further. Financing There was a strong request in Szentendre,
that environmental financing, in particular ISPA , should have an approach
tailored to specific country conditions. This is connected with the in
country capacity to prepare and implement projects as well as with cost
effectiveness of project preparation and investments themselves. Focus only
on large projects and donor funding runs the risk of ineffective spending of
public money. There should be more emphasis on mobilization of domestic
resources and the appropriate role of private sector in the investments and
operation of infrastructure. The meeting in Brussels can serve to discuss
the actual experience with the first round of the ISPA projects and to draw
lessons for the next rounds. Dear Minister, I hope that you will find the above
thoughts useful for the discussion that will take place in Brussels next
week. At the REC we will be very happy to provide any kind of assistance in
implementing the 6th EAP and the decisions you might take in your meeting.
Please accept the assurances of my highest consideration. Yours sincerely, Jernej Stritih, Executive Director of the Regional
Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe
|
|
Follow the project implementation
|
    
|
|||
|
