ENFANTS TERRIBLES

Recommendations

Info

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Both Romania’s energy strategies and the EU funds‘ planning regarding climate change action are closely related to Europe 2020 targets. The strategy for climate change mitigation is in effect mostly EU-led, in the sense that climate mitigation objectives are driven by EU targets and funded by EU funds, and the government does not envision additional or complementary policies to address climate change. Moreover, the national strategies and the EU funds‘ allocation show an approach that aims at reaching 2020 targets, but without significant structural change and investment in a transition towards a new energy system that would eventually exclude the use of nuclear energy or fossil fuels. Looking at the EU funds allocation, climate change mitigation is not effectively mainstreamed across operational programmes and Thematic Objectives. With the exception of the OPs that have allocations for directly climate-related objectives, the other OPs barely discuss the topic, and if they do mention climate change, it is either to describe complementarity with other funds or to discuss the application of the horizontal principle of sustainable development. If the previous programming period is any indication, the implementation of the principle of sustainable development in non-specific projects is mostly a formality fulfilled by applicants to obtain an (otherwise very small) number of points in the selection process. The EU funds allocated for Romania for 2014-2020 contribute to financing the ‘business-as-usual scenario’ with reaching the 2020 targets, but they do not contribute or aim to contribute to financing greener scenarios, which would actually require mainstreaming of climate actions and measures. That is not to say that EU funds will not impact the energy efficiency overall or investments in energy infrastructure. However, such impact will be rather limited and will not necessarily lead to further transformation of the energy system. • Bearing in mind the experience with the 2007- 2013 EU funds, which Romania had difficulty spending, it is understandable why the authorities are very much concerned to attain as high as possible absorption rates as well as a well-needed effort to improve funds management. However, the previous experience has also been tainted by many examples of projects lacking in quality that spent millions of the allocations without producing the desired results and with no longer-term impact. The spending of the 2014-2020 funds should be much more results-oriented, and the focus should not be absorption rates, but more importantly the quality of implementation, real impact and sustainability. • Mainstreaming: each EU funded investment should contribute to decreasing GHG emissions, regardless 140 ‘Climate’s enfants terribles: how new Member States’ misguided use of EU funds is holding back Europe’s clean energy transition’
of the Thematic Objective or programme. • The project selection criteria should involve, with infrastructure related projects, energy efficiency measures and emissions monitoring. • If the goal is to eventually head towards a ‘supergreen’ scenario, the investments in fossil fuels infrastructure should be stopped. • A better coordination between national funding and EU funding in relation to climate change action. Transport infrastructure • Throughout the analysis of the roads infrastructure challenge, the general focus is on transport efficiency rather than sustainability.The general purpose of investments in the transport system should not be simply to make the existing networks more effective, but such investments should seek to identify the most sustainable options and prioritise them. For instance, investments in the railway network should aim not only to make the system more efficient and viable from an economic standpoint, but also to position rail and other clean modes as alternatives to an already upward trending road transport system. Horizontal principles • Sustainable development as a horizontal principle is not effectively mainstreamed across the Operational Programmes. While the documents state that EU environmental rules and regulations will be respected, no policy measures are put forward to address climate change mitigation, other than in the programmes with direct allocations to TO4 and TO5. • The projects to be funded by all OPs should respect the horizontal principles, but in order to make this effective, sustainable development indicators should be included in all implementing guides (i.e., concerning green procurement, use of resources, prioritisation of clean transport, etc.) and be given a significant weight in the project selection process. Energy • In the evaluation of projects for biomass energy generation, the relevant authorities should aim to obtain a general perspective concerning the availability and sustainability of the biomass resource, not purely on a project-by-project basis, using a set of comprehensive sustainability criteria. • Investments in public buildings should include RES, thus creating demand for RES on the market. • Building insulation investments should aim at sustainability and potentially be able to transit towards RES, setting standards in regard to building insulation projects. ‘Climate’s enfants terribles: how new Member States’ misguided use of EU funds is holding back Europe’s clean energy transition’ 141
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 and 12:
EU FUNDS IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUR
Page 13 and 14:
LT RO SK HU CZ LV CEE EE PL HR 20.0
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: In the preparation phase, the mains
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?