ENFANTS TERRIBLES

Recommendations

Info

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The process of programming European funds in Poland has from the beginning suffered long delays, with some of the Operational Programmes for the 2014 to 2020 period adopted as late as March 2015, and many regions still working on finalising implementation documents and preparing project selection criteria in October 2015. Even before the disbursement of funds begins in earnest, Polish Managing Authorities must keep in mind the fast approaching mid-term review of 2017 and 2018. The review represents an opportunity to revise and improve the overall system for the implementation of EU funds – and it will be up to the European Commission to ensure the best possible climate performance of Polish OPs. Cohesion Policy 2014-2020, in many ways a flagship initiative aiming to deliver the green goals of the EU, has the potential to help shift Poland onto a more sustainable development path and contribute to broad action to curb climate change. But without an underlying vision, even a lot of money is not enough to bring about real system change. Despite promising signs, a lot of the transformative potential of EU funds will be lost in Poland. Looking at the big picture, when it comes to planned investments, the prevailing model still favours high-emissions transport over low-carbon solutions, hard infrastructure over natural methods of climate adaptation, tourism over biodiversity protection and, finally, traditional energy systems over innovative, decentralised solutions where energy efficiency is always put first and citizens can actively participate in shaping the energy market. Will European money help build the right infrastructure, develop renewables and improve energy efficiency in Poland? Yes. But it will not transform the economy. For that, Poland needs a better understanding of what climate change is and long-term commitments and focused strategies to fight it. EU funds have been sustaining Poland for more than a decade and will continue to do so for at least another seven years. They are regarded by decision-makers as a resource to use to respond to current needs, and not as fuel for innovation and transformation. Without better guidance and closer oversight, Poland will continue to use EU money to realise its vision of development. And this future that Polish decision-makers envision is not carbon-neutral and climate friendly, but one where GDP growth continues to be axiomatic and external costs – both local and global – are mostly ignored. TO DELIVER BETTER CLIMATE MAINSTREAMING ACROSS ALL EU FUNDS IN POLAND, WE RECOMMEND: • Ensure that no investments are financed which would have an adverse impact on European GHG emissions reduction targets and strengthen the monitoring of climate performance of all projects. • Ensure that energy efficiency is always prioritised over new energy generation and transmission projects, both on the national scale as well as locally. • Reform the implementation system, so that all project selection criteria are adopted centrally and applied across all regions, in order to create a more equal investment environment. • Stop directly and indirectly financing all fossil fuels and ensure the sustainability of energy use of biomass. • Channel more investment into energy efficiency and renewables and away from non-transformational infrastructure which would result in a high-carbon lock-in of the Polish economy for decades to come. • Insist on better progress indicators – energy saved or generated from renewables is a better illustration of low-carbon transformation than the length of constructed cycle and footpaths. • Move allocations for low-carbon public transport outside the obligatory 15% earmarking for low-carbon transformation. • Finally, insist on high quality partnerships, including adequate financial and technical support for civil society partners involved in the monitoring and implementation of EU funds. 40 ‘Climate’s enfants terribles: how new Member States’ misguided use of EU funds is holding back Europe’s clean energy transition’
The long and rocky path away from shale oil towards green energy Climate action in EU Cohesion Policy funding for Estonia, 2014-2020 ‘Climate’s enfants terribles: how new Member States’ misguided use of EU funds is holding back Europe’s clean energy transition’ 41
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: aimed at modernising and building n
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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?