Solutions

A systemic problem requires systematic solutions
This map shows that controversial projects are unfortunately not limited to a few isolated exceptions. If nothing changes, EU money will bring not only many benefits by the end of the 2007-2013 period but also substantial environmental devastation throughout the region and a significant share of the funds will be spent ineffectively. This would be a lost opportunity. Moreover, as all EU projects must be visibly marked with an EU logo, people are likely to hold the EU responsible for unpopular projects.

An unnecessary price for development: alternatives are available!
The controversial projects on this map are not the results of an “inevitable trade-off” between economic development and environmental wealth. Alternative solutions exist – be it simply a different route for a motorway or a conceptually different solution, such as separating and recycling waste instead of incinerating it. The potential devastation outlined in the map can be avoided. What’s more, many projects that harm the environment are economically irrational, while the greener alternatives are often more economic.

Prevention: alternatives require a level playing field
The way to prevent the problems highlighted by the map is simple: the different project alternatives or solutions must be impartially assessed, compared and consulted with the public in order to select the best options from economic, environmental and functional points of view. This should also be the basic condition underlying the EU’s and the EIB’s approval of money for the projects. Regrettably, time and time again this does not happen.

Why are alternatives still ignored?
EU legislation formally requires authorities to make a cost-benefit analysis and environmental impact assessment, including consideration of alternatives and a public consultation for every major project. So how is it that problems persist? Typically, the authorities pre-select a particular project variant and then push it through at any price. The results are poor quality environmental assessments, disregarding of alternatives, and merely pro-forma public consultations. The underlying reasons range from a “builder mindset” and disdain for environmental values, to the undue influence of various companies or politicians with vested interests, all the way to outright corruption.

Responsibility of the European Commission and the EIB
The Commission and the EIB are ultimately responsible for the use of EU public resources. Every time they approve a deficient project, national authorities and project promoters draw a lesson that even badly prepared projects can count on EU funding. The Commission and the EIB should not give a green light until alternative solutions are properly assessed. The new EU agency JASPERS, tasked with assisting new member states to prepare major projects for EU and EIB funding, should be used to ensure a fair and participative project preparation process from an early stage.

Ensuring smooth absorption of EU funds
Inadequate environmental assessments and the ignoring of alternatives by the authorities can lead to court challenges, project delays and higher costs, as seen for example in the cases of the D8 motorway in the Czech Republic and the Via Baltica in Poland. Careful and rigorous development planning, as opposed to reckless project preparation, is necessary to ensure that CEE countries can in fact spend the full sums of EU funding available.