The Cohesion Fund in Poland and The Cohesion Fund in Poland and the Selection System for the Selection System for

Environmental InvestmentsEnvironmental Investments

Andrzej GułaAndrzej Guła

Institute of Environmental Economics – PolandInstitute of Environmental Economics – Poland

CEE Bankwatch NetworkCEE Bankwatch Network

Cohesion Fund for Environmental Cohesion Fund for Environmental Investments in PolandInvestments in Poland

Without the Cohesion Fund resources, Poland Without the Cohesion Fund resources, Poland would face significant problems with financing would face significant problems with financing

necessary environmental protection necessary environmental protection investments. Implementation of environmental investments. Implementation of environmental

acquis communautaire in Poland would be acquis communautaire in Poland would be endangered. It would be impossible to meet the endangered. It would be impossible to meet the

deadlines for implementing specific deadlines for implementing specific environmental directives. environmental directives.

Necessary financial outlays and potential sources of financing for Necessary financial outlays and potential sources of financing for environmental directives (wastewater/drinking water, air environmental directives (wastewater/drinking water, air

protection, waste management) – excl. costs of IPPC Directiveprotection, waste management) – excl. costs of IPPC Directive

Source: Institute of Environmental Economics; Ph.D. K. Berbeka; Modelling financial flows with regard to implementation of environmental AQ

20032004

20052006

20072008

20092010

-1500,0

-1000,0

-500,0

0,0

500,0

1000,0

1500,0

2000,0

2500,0

3000,0

million € 2000'

Necessary financial outlays

Available financialresourcesFinancial deficit

Financing environmental directives (wastewater/drinking water, air Financing environmental directives (wastewater/drinking water, air protection, waste management) without the resources from the protection, waste management) without the resources from the

Cohesion FundCohesion Fund

Source: Institute of Environmental Economics; Ph.D. K. Berbeka; Modelling financial flows with regard to implementation of environmental AQ

20032004

20052006

20072008

20092010

-1500,0

-1000,0

-500,0

0,0

500,0

1000,0

1500,0

2000,0

2500,0

3000,0

million € 2000'

Necessary financial outlays

Available financialresourcesFinancial deficit

DEFICIT 2003 -2010Euro 3.2 billion

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FUND

THE STEERING COMMITTEE

POTENTIAL BENEFICIARY

REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FUNDS

Verification and opinion

Verification and opinion

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT

MINISTRY OF ECONOMY AND LABOUR

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Verification and opinion

Approval

Recommendation

Analysing and submitting the application to the EC

Final decision

Number of projects approved by the Steering Number of projects approved by the Steering Committee for the Cohesion Fund - environmentCommittee for the Cohesion Fund - environment

Projects approved until April 2004

48

14

2 10

10

20

30

40

50

60

Was

tew

ater

& w

ater

qual

ity

Was

tem

anag

emen

t

Air

prot

ectio

n

Floo

dpr

even

tion

proj

ect

Approximate value of projects approved by Steering Committee Approximate value of projects approved by Steering Committee for the Cohesion Fund – environment for the Cohesion Fund – environment

(Euro, million)(Euro, million)

Projects approved until April 2004

2207

220

124

138

Wastewater & waterqualityWaste management

Air protection

Flood preventionproject

Project selection criteriaProject selection criteria Better recognition of financial needs in specific fields would help to Better recognition of financial needs in specific fields would help to

develop sound financial strategies (e.g. in field of waste-develop sound financial strategies (e.g. in field of waste-management, wastewater treatment, air protection), management, wastewater treatment, air protection),

Strategic financial management necessaryStrategic financial management necessary Two approachTwo approacheses for project selection – (1) lists of the projects for project selection – (1) lists of the projects

included in planning documents, (2) scoring system allowing ranking included in planning documents, (2) scoring system allowing ranking of the projects, of the projects,

At the moment those systems are implemented only partially,At the moment those systems are implemented only partially, Programmes for the specific fields (National Programme for Programmes for the specific fields (National Programme for

Wastewater Treatment, National Programme for Waste Management Wastewater Treatment, National Programme for Waste Management & regional waste management programmes)& regional waste management programmes)

Establishing a scoring system would improve selection process and Establishing a scoring system would improve selection process and would make it more transparent. would make it more transparent.

Poland’s Framework Reference Document for the Cohesion Fund Poland’s Framework Reference Document for the Cohesion Fund 2004-20062004-2006

Specific criteria - exampleSpecific criteria - example

Meeting EU Meeting EU ssttandardsandards – water/wastewater management – water/wastewater management::

Priority IPriority I - ensuring combined sewerage systems and appropriate level of - ensuring combined sewerage systems and appropriate level of sewage treatment for agglomerations of at least 100,000 p.e. (preferences sewage treatment for agglomerations of at least 100,000 p.e. (preferences given to the largest agglomerations) as well as water supply networks and given to the largest agglomerations) as well as water supply networks and appropriate level of water treatment;appropriate level of water treatment;

Priority II Priority II - - ensuring combined sewerage systems and appropriate level of - - ensuring combined sewerage systems and appropriate level of sewage treatment for agglomerations from 15,000 to 100,000 p.e. as well as sewage treatment for agglomerations from 15,000 to 100,000 p.e. as well as water supply networks and appropriate level of water treatment;water supply networks and appropriate level of water treatment;

Priority III Priority III - ensuring combined sewerage systems and appropriate level of - ensuring combined sewerage systems and appropriate level of sewage treatment for agglomerations from 2,000 to 15,000 p.e as well as sewage treatment for agglomerations from 2,000 to 15,000 p.e as well as water supply networks and appropriate level of water treatment.water supply networks and appropriate level of water treatment.

Selection criteria approved by the Minister of Environment

A possible system of project A possible system of project selection criteriaselection criteria

1. Dividing the resources available into priority areas (waste 1. Dividing the resources available into priority areas (waste management, air protection, etc.) in order to ensure their management, air protection, etc.) in order to ensure their maximum contribution to fulfilling AC requirementsmaximum contribution to fulfilling AC requirements;;

2. Specifying the sine qua non criteria (yes/no criteria); 2. Specifying the sine qua non criteria (yes/no criteria); 3. Specifying formal and organisational criteria: 3. Specifying formal and organisational criteria:

a) preparing a list of criteria,a) preparing a list of criteria,b) defining the b) defining the scoringscoring system, system,c) attaching weight to the criteria; c) attaching weight to the criteria;

4. Specifying technical and efficiency criteria:4. Specifying technical and efficiency criteria:a) preparing a list of criteria,a) preparing a list of criteria,b) defining the b) defining the scoringscoring system, system,c) attaching weight to the criteriac) attaching weight to the criteria..

ProblemsProblems

Project Project pre-pre-selection criteria:selection criteria: Criteria vary among the bodies responsible for project pre-Criteria vary among the bodies responsible for project pre-

selection,selection, Too general,Too general, Publicly unavailablePublicly unavailable

Bodies responsible for project selectionBodies responsible for project selection Lack of holistLack of holistiic approach towards allocation of the CF c approach towards allocation of the CF

resourcesresources Nation-wide programmes defining priority projects in Nation-wide programmes defining priority projects in

specific sectors (e.g. National Programme for Municipal specific sectors (e.g. National Programme for Municipal Wastewater Treatment)Wastewater Treatment)

Project pre-selecProject pre-selecttion – often a political procession – often a political process

Recommendations & conclusionsRecommendations & conclusions

Strategic financial management - holistic approach Strategic financial management - holistic approach embedded in the context of embedded in the context of acquisacquis implementation; implementation;

Project selection system – institutional simplifications Project selection system – institutional simplifications (split of responsibilities, clear definition of the (split of responsibilities, clear definition of the competencecompetencess), ),

Activities: not overlapping but compatible;Activities: not overlapping but compatible; Development of scoring system;Development of scoring system; Selection criteria: not contradictory but complementary;Selection criteria: not contradictory but complementary; Public access to the information regarding evaluation Public access to the information regarding evaluation

process;process; Next programming period – lessons learnNext programming period – lessons learneedd