 |
EU funds and controversial projects
There are a number of cases where the planned or already financed projects have negative environmental or social impacts, or are even economically unnecessary. 22 such problematic projects, altogether worth about EUR 6 billion, can be seen on a map published by Friends of the Earth Europe and CEE Bankwatch Network. |
The 22 projects include:
- ineptly routed roads and motorways which insensitively cut through residential areas or valuable protected areas (including existing or potential Natura 2000 sites), despite the availability of alternative routes (e.g. Via Baltica in Poland, Kresna motorway in Bulgaria);
- unnecessary waste incinerators promoted at the expense of cheaper recycling alternatives that would create more jobs (e.g. Opatovice incinerator in the Czech Republic, Várpalota incinerator in Hungary);
- economically unjustified dams and canals that would destroy or threaten natural or cultural heritage sites (e.g. Nieszawa dam in Poland, Slatinka dam in Slovakia).
Of the 22 projects in the map, three have already been financed by the EU. Most of the projects on the map are still in the planning phase. A lot of the damage can therefore still be prevented. The national governments still have the possibility to withdraw or revise the projects on the drawing board. Otherwise, the European Commission should exercise its authority and either reject the funding for such projects or demand major modifications.
The controversial projects are not the result of an “inexorable conflict” between economic development and the environment. Some of the identified projects are unnecessary, i.e. they cannot be justified even on economic grounds. For all the other cases, better alternatives exist such as more sensitive routes for roads.
How can such unnecessary negative impacts be prevented? Environmental assessment procedures - EIA and SEA - are the instruments that, if applied properly, can avoid many conflicts while respecting all of society’s needs. Both include public consultations and both have been inscribed in European law. However, narrow political interests favouring certain projects or variants often override a fair and open planning and decision-making process.
Read more in our publications:
EU Funds in central and eastern Europe: Cohesion or Collision? Map of controversial projects in the new member states. March 2006
Making the EU Funds Work for People and the Environment. Case Studies from Eastern and Central Europe.
June 2004
Billions for Sustainability? Lessons learned from the use of pre-accession funds. November 2002
EU funds and climate change
Until now, the record of the cohesion policy on climate change has been a complete failure. The four countries which have most benefited from EU funds (Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain) have witnessed by far the greatest increases of greenhouse gas emissions in the EU. Unless funding priorities are massively shifted towards the three areas of energy efficiency, renewable energy and sustainable transport, the trend is likely to be repeated in the new member states. Their railway and public transport systems and their unused potential for energy savings and renewable energy generation provide clear opportunities for both environmental and economic gains. If the EU is serious about reaching the Kyoto goals, the structural and cohesion funds must be changed.
Read on: How EU funds should be changed
|
