ENFANTS TERRIBLES

Recommendations

Info

GRAPH 2: Share of European Regional Development, Social and Cohesion Funds and national co-financing in total public investment, average 2011-2013; source DG Regional and Urban Development % of total public investment 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 EU-27 20 10 SK LT HU BG LV PT EE CZ PL MT RO SI EL ES IT CY DE FI FR UK BE SE AT IR NL DK LU Central and Eastern Europe is where EU funds play a substantial role in financing public infrastructure investments (Graph 2). Between 40% (Romania) and 85% (Slovakia) of all public investment from 2011-2013 was carried out with contributions predominantly from EU funds, with a national co-financing rate of between 15% and 50% of project costs. This trend is expected to continue in the 2014-2020 period. In other words, the way EU funds are invested in infrastructure in Central and Eastern Europe significantly shapes the countries’ economic development paths. THE EU COHESION POLICY 2014-2020 PURSUES A BROAD RANGE OF OBJECTIVES 18 , PRACTICALLY SERVING ALL AREAS OF PUBLIC INVESTMENT: (1) Strengthening research, technological development and innovation. (2) Enhancing access to, and use and quality of, ICT. (3) Enhancing the competitiveness of SMEs. (4) Supporting the shift towards a low-carbon economy in all sectors. (5) Promoting climate change adaptation, risk prevention and management. (6) Preserving and protecting the environment and promoting resource efficiency. (7) Promoting sustainable transport and removing bottlenecks in key network infrastructures. (8) Promoting sustainable and quality employment and supporting labour mobility. (9) Promoting social inclusion, combating poverty and any discrimination. (10) Investing in education, training and vocational training for skills and lifelong learning. (11) Enhancing institutional capacity of public authorities and stakeholders and efficient public administration. 18 REGULATION (EU) No 1303/2013 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 12 ‘Climate’s enfants terribles: how new Member States’ misguided use of EU funds is holding back Europe’s clean energy transition’
LT RO SK HU CZ LV CEE EE PL HR 20.00% 15.75% 10.50% 5.25% 0% 29% transport 20% production and consumption 12% environment 8% energy infrastructure 7% education 7% employment 5% other 4% information and communication technology 4% social inclusion 4% social infrastructure Country Share of climate objective Contribution to on total ERDF and CF climate objective, euro LT 20,95% 1.405.384.429 RO 19,10% 4.304.922.722 SK 19,00% 2.616.516.847 HU 18,85% 4.060.003.544 CZ 18,77% 3.971.167.872 LV 17,20% 754.885.165 CEE average 17,07% 30.539.653.526 EE 16,52% 567.800.532 PL 15,14% 11.640.483.161 HR 14,40% 1.218.489.254 GRAPH 3: Investment areas of total ERDF and CF and ESF; source: our own calculations based on approved Operational Programmes according to categories of intervention according to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 215/2014 of 7 March 2014 GRAPH 4: Share of allocations dedicated to climate action of total Cohesion Policy funds. Source: our own calculations based on approved Operational Programmes according to categories of intervention and ‘Rio Marker’ values intervention according to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 215/2014 of 7 March 2014 To maximise the impact of Cohesion Policy, the more developed Member States receiving EU funds have to concentrate their EU fund interventions on a few objectives. New Member States, however, have the opportunity to spend their EU funds along all thematic objectives. Graph 3 demonstrates the distribution of the nine countries’ EU funds according to investment area. Whereas the proportions among the various intervention fields differ slightly country by country, the overarching tendency is that transport and general support for business and industry is a priority for the EU funds in CEE, receiving the largest share of EU funds. On the other hand, it becomes evident that serving multiple objectives rather leads to a piecemeal structure of EU funds’ support. Given the high share of EU funds in public investments and the multiple purposes of EU funds in CEE, Cohesion Policy funding rather serves as a second government budget. This is in contradiction to the main principles of Cohesion Policy that EU funds have to be ‘additional’ to government interventions, not replace them. Regarding the amount of investment for climate action for the 2014-2020 funding period, the rules of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) required Member States, for the first time, to allocate a mandatory minimum proportion of the available funding to finance the ‘shift towards the low-carbon economy in all sectors’. It states that Member States should allocate: • 20% of national ERDF resources in more developed regions. • 15% in transition regions. • 12% in less developed regions, or 15% in case climate action contributions from the Cohesion Fund are included. ‘Climate’s enfants terribles: how new Member States’ misguided use of EU funds is holding back Europe’s clean energy transition’ 13
Page 1 and 2: CLIMATE’S ENFANTS TERRIBLES HOW N
Page 3 and 4: TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page 5 and 6: safeguard mechanism, the Strategic
Page 7 and 8: SLOVAKIA HUNGARY ROMANIA CROATIA Sl
Page 9 and 10: INTRODUCTION PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY
Page 11: EU FUNDS IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUR
Page 15 and 16: GRAPH 7: Comparison of energy effic
Page 17 and 18: GRAPH 10: Different types of energy
Page 19 and 20: GRAPH 12: Member States’ GHG emis
Page 21 and 22: TABLE 2: Criteria for renewable ene
Page 23 and 24: What EU money can’t buy: the gree
Page 25 and 26: 25% of production respectively 30 .
Page 27 and 28: are implemented through six Nationa
Page 29 and 30: track to carbon-neutral development
Page 31 and 32: It is also worth noting, that all O
Page 33 and 34: very specific - although mostly sil
Page 35 and 36: 110 billion in the optimal renovati
Page 37 and 38: whose ROP clearly prioritises commu
Page 39 and 40: aimed at modernising and building n
Page 41 and 42: The long and rocky path away from s
Page 43 and 44: GRAPH 21: Production of electricity
Page 45 and 46: CLIMATE ACTION: THE CASE FOR EU FUN
Page 47 and 48: GRAPH 23: Investment areas of Cohes
Page 49 and 50: could play a major role in replacin
Page 51 and 52: The missing pathway to long-term de
Page 53 and 54: intensity has decreased over the la
Page 55 and 56: achieving policy objectives. Such i
Page 57 and 58: change. Nevertheless, no specific c
Page 59 and 60: Considering the fact that renewable
Page 61 and 62: equires a more comprehensive assess
Page 63 and 64:
A ‘green’ veneer, but at what c
Page 65 and 66:
NATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS The transiti
Page 67 and 68:
monopoly (which imports Russia`s ga
Page 69 and 70:
GRAPH 36: Cargo traffic by mode of
Page 71 and 72:
than that of deforestation, some ex
Page 73 and 74:
GRAPH 41: Energy efficiency allocat
Page 75 and 76:
Bring on the money, don’t ask for
Page 77 and 78:
GRAPH 43: Energy mix of the Czech R
Page 79 and 80:
Regarding the Europe 2020 emissions
Page 81 and 82:
the renewables share to 35%, the Cz
Page 83 and 84:
of commitment of public authorities
Page 85 and 86:
GRAPH 53: Share of transport modes
Page 87 and 88:
TABLE 12: Renewable energy output i
Page 89 and 90:
2007-2013 2014-2020 In the Enterpri
Page 91 and 92:
GRAPH 55: The different types of en
Page 93 and 94:
Finance for the energy transition -
Page 95 and 96:
ENERGY SECTOR OF SLOVAKIA: STEADY W
Page 97 and 98:
strategy until 2030, in 2012, but t
Page 99 and 100:
This support is very welcome as it
Page 101 and 102:
environmentally-friendly production
Page 103 and 104:
participation in assessment procedu
Page 105 and 106:
The Integrated Infrastructure OP se
Page 107 and 108:
THE DARK SIDE IS IN THE DETAILS Cli
Page 109 and 110:
GRAPH 60: Climate targets, scenario
Page 111 and 112:
GRAPH 64: Total climate allocations
Page 113 and 114:
EXPECTED COMPLEMENTARY FINANCING MO
Page 115 and 116:
Recommendations for the mid-term re
Page 117 and 118:
Notwithstanding a few exceptions, t
Page 119 and 120:
c) Renewable energy sources Eligibl
Page 121 and 122:
enewables in transport, as this tas
Page 123 and 124:
Annex II - Complementary financing
Page 125 and 126:
Going ‘super-green’, but not ri
Page 127 and 128:
GRAPH 67: Energy mix 2013 - Gross i
Page 129 and 130:
OVERVIEW OF EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND
Page 131 and 132:
cogeneration systems, monitoring sy
Page 133 and 134:
pollution levels and poor air quali
Page 135 and 136:
line with the Europe 2020 targets a
Page 137 and 138:
esidential sector and the usage of
Page 139 and 140:
In the preparation phase, the mains
Page 141 and 142:
of the Thematic Objective or progra
Page 143 and 144:
Land of unfulfilled clean energy po
Page 145 and 146:
hydropower plants (94%), and the ot
Page 147 and 148:
points to a need for the developmen
Page 149 and 150:
and adaptation, disaster resilience
Page 151 and 152:
significant biomass growing fields.
Page 153 and 154:
ports (EUR 140 million), new and im
Page 155 and 156:
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PLANNING, MONIT
show all

ENFANTS TERRIBLES

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?