ENFANTS TERRIBLES

Recommendations

Info

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PLANNING, MONITORING AND REPORTING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION • EU funds’ spending plans need to be embedded into longer-term GHG reduction strategies aiming at 80% to 95% GHG emissions reduction and the construction of low energy consuming, renewables-based energy systems. • Introduce a climate performance evaluation (‘carbon footprint’ methodology) in order to assess and decrease the actual GHG emissions impact of EUfunded projects. • This ‘carbon footprint assessment’ has to include direct as well as indirect, induced GHG emissions. • The ex-ante assessment of the GHG emissions impact of all Operational Programmes should be obligatory (for example, ‘CO2MPARE’). • The annual ex-post evaluation should add together the carbon footprint of all EU-funded projects; the GHG balance of all Operational Programmes has to be negative. • MSs to carry out comprehensive evaluation for all Operational Programmes and for the Partnership Agreement (i.e., all ESIFs) during the upcoming midterm review, using Technical Assistance and JASPERS. • Adjust result, output and outcome indicators according to ‘carbon footprint’. • Reduce the overall number of investment priorities to ensure better concentration. • Climate change mitigation could be better integrated into working procedures and processes to ensure maximum uptake, introducing binding sustainability and GHG reduction criteria for project selection equally applied across all regions, in particular for the support of biomass and transport projects. • Adopt and apply horizontal guiding principles for the selection of projects and calls for proposals for all investment priorities and interventions; these should be universally valid and centrally published. • Ensure that no investments are financed which would have an adverse impact on European GHG emissions reduction targets, halt all direct and indirect financing for all fossil fuels. • Withdraw eligibility of unsustainable renewables and climate action measures which have a detrimental environmental impact. • Prioritise energy efficiency investments over new energy generation and transmission projects, both on a national scale as well as locally. • Concentrate and shift funding towards energy infrastructure which has long-term climate change mitigation impact such as new systems and modes of energy management, energy supply-demand matching, industrial symbioses, circular economy processes or smart energy distribution. • Promote projects which have multiplication potential, require eco-innovation, that create capacity to manage energy, resources and processes and that result in behaviour change. • The decentralisation of energy production should be enhanced by enabling small and emerging local energy producers. 8 ‘Climate’s enfants terribles: how new Member States’ misguided use of EU funds is holding back Europe’s clean energy transition’
INTRODUCTION PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY AND METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH ‘Mainstreaming climate action’ into the EU’s long-term budget spending is one of the European Commission’s core mechanisms 8 for combating climate change, and with its decision in February 2013 the European Council pledged that 20% of all EU spending for the programming period 2014-2020 should support climate objectives 9 . In addition, the European Regional Development Fund spending rules for 2014-2020 provide for a minimum allocation to the ‘transition to low-carbon economies’, namely 20% of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) in more developed regions, 15% in transition and in less developed regions (in this case including climate action allocations from the Cohesion Fund) mainly in the east and south of Europe. Apart from allocating the specific minimum amount dedicated to climate change mitigation and adaptation measures, the EU funds‘ regulations aim to establish sustainable development and climate protection as a socalled ‘horizontal principle’ 10 with the objective of promoting climate protection in the preparation and implementation of Member States‘ EU fund investment strategies and spending plans, their Partnership Agreements and Operational Programmes. The European Structural and Investment Funds are an important instrument for supporting climate policy-related investments, in particular in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, the main beneficiaries of EU funds. This paper assesses the level of climate mainstreaming in European Regional Development and Cohesion Funds (EU Funds) for the 2014-2020 funding period in nine CEE countries: Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Slovakia. First, we explore the governments’ commitment to fighting climate change through an analysis of key national strategy documents for European regional development policy in the shorter term (2020) and the midand longer-term (2030 and 2050). The ultimate goal of climate action in the longer-term perspective is the transformation to energy and resource efficient, sustainable, renewablesbased societies living within the planet’s boundaries. Referring to such energy system transformation scenarios, we assess the substantive commitments of CEE countries by mapping financial allocations from the EU funds related to climate change mitigation, especially in the energy infrastructure and transport sector. Parallel to this quantitative analysis, we deconstruct how climate protection is operationalised in the EU funds’ planning and programming documents (Partnership Agreements and Operational Programmes) and analyse the concrete conditions (project selection criteria, calls for project proposals) through which climate protection will be realised when rolling out investment projects. The nature of a ‘horizontal principle’ and ‘mainstreaming’ is to embrace climate protection comprehensively throughout all sectors and areas of intervention, going beyond investments directly linked to climate change mitigation. In this regard, we discuss the application of the horizontal principle, assessing guiding principles for the selection of projects, and examine coherence and consistency of planned investments under the imperative to significantly reduce GHG emissions in all sectors. Based on our findings, we develop recommendations for improvements to the climate change mitigation performance of EU funds during implementation, for the EU Budget Mid- Term Review 2016/2017 and for the future planning of the EU’s Multi-Annual Financial Framework. 8 9 10 http://ec.europa.eu/clima/publications/docs/01-climate_mainstreaming_fact_sheet-esif_introduction_en.pdf European Council, „7/8 February 2013 Conclusions Multi-Annual Financial Framework”, European Council, Bruxelles, 8th February 2013 (EUCO 37/13). Article 8 of the ‘Common Provisions Regulation’, 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 ‘Climate’s enfants terribles: how new Member States’ misguided use of EU funds is holding back Europe’s clean energy transition’ 9
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: SLOVAKIA HUNGARY ROMANIA CROATIA Sl
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 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?