ENVIRONMENTAL
ISSUES
95. Much of the written
evidence which the Committee received relates to environmental
issues. This is, perhaps, unsurprising. At the time of the last
(1993) major reform of the Structural Funds[18]
it was anticipated that environmental authorities would play a
major role in connection with the Funds. The Royal Society for
the Protection of Birds (RSPB) said that its main concern about
the new draft Structural Funds regulation was "the unexpected
lack of reference to the environmental authorities as key members
of the partnership. All previous drafts and working documents
of the Commission included them in what is now Article 8 on "Complementarity
and Partnership". What is more, they were introduced in the
1993 reform and have been playing an important role ever since."
96. The RSPB called
for environmental authorities to be re-introduced into the system
as core partners in the Structural Funds at all stages, and for
them to be included in the management authorities for Community
Support Frameworks, Operational Programmes and Single Programming
Documents. It also recommended that the high biodiversity value
of some rural areas should be included as an eligibility criterion
for receiving Structural Funds support, and that regions which
had nature conservation areas forming part of the Natura 2000
network should qualify for funding. The RSPB also suggested a
specific linking of environmental protection and improvement activities
with employment creation programmes, pointing out that nature
conservation is a significant and growing sector of the economy,
providing up to 20,000 full time equivalent jobs in the United
Kingdom alone (p 121).
97. The Institute for
European Environmental Policy (IEEP) also called for the draft
General Regulation to be amended to make it a requirement to include
environmental authorities both in the partnerships[19]
and as formal members of Programme Monitoring Committees (PMCs).
It also recommended the publication of Commission Guidelines,
setting out the criteria Member States should adopt in designating
environmental authorities; the role such authorities should play
in the development and implementation of regional development
plans and Single Programming Documents (SPDs); the required content
of ex ante environmental evaluations; and how sustainable
development considerations should be reflected in project selection
criteria (p 115).
98. The Committee's
report on the last proposals for reform said that policies designed
to strengthen economic and social cohesion in the Community could
only be lasting if "environmental considerations are taken
into account and seen as an essential part of economic and social
development." The Committee warned that "it would clearly
be wrong for Community funds to be spent on programmes that conflict
with the agreed policies of the Community."[20]
99. English Nature was
concerned about the damaging effects, actual and potential, that
Structural Funds projects and programmes might have on the natural
environment. It cited cases in the Marches 5b area where projects
had been approved but were actively damaging the natural environment,
and were even more concerned about damage which might be occurring
under programmes in other areas which was not being monitored.
To remedy this, English Nature recommended that:
(i) all programmes benefiting
from EU Structural Funds should not allow projects which damaged
the natural environment to be proposed;
(ii) selection/scoring criteria
should be amended to ensure that projects which potentially caused
damage to the natural environment could be identified and amended
so that any projects likely to cause irreversible damage were
not funded;
(iii) all projects should
meet environmental quality standards in their implementation (eg
for the protection of water resources); and
(iv) projects should report
their effect on the natural environment, including any enhancements
(p 105).
100. The IEEP said that
the Cohesion Fund presented considerable opportunities for environmental
improvement, but in some cases it had resulted in significant
harm to the environment. For example, the majority of transport
projects supported by the Cohesion Fund had favoured road infrastructure.[21]
Apart from the direct impact on particularly sensitive areas such
as those designated under national and international nature conservation
legislation, the provision of extra road space was likely to lead
to an increase in road traffic, contrary to objectives in the
EC's Fifth Environmental Action Programme. The IEEP also said
that experience of the Cohesion Fund indicated that inadequate
institutional capacity and/or political will within the recipient
countries could result in insufficient attention being given to
the proper administration of the Fund. This danger had been exacerbated
by the failure to require the participation of environmental authorities
and non-governmental organisations, particularly within Monitoring
Committees.
101. The Instrument
for Structural Policies for Pre-Accession (ISPA) is designed to
provide financial assistance for applicant countries as they prepare
to join the EU. The IEEP was concerned that the proposed approach
to ISPA in the transport and environment spheres mirrored in most
respects the approach applied under the Cohesion Fund and called
for the ISPA proposal to be amended to avoid the repetition of
many of the "failures associated with the Cohesion Fund"
(p 116).
15 
