There is a big long list of technical jargon attached to the programming documents of the EU funds for the 2014-2020 funding period – enough to fill an entire blog post on its own. But you will be relieved to read that, in the context of Latvia’s ongoing negotiations as to how we will spend our future EU budget money, I will focus on only one of these items. It may be a bit of a mouthful, but it is what it says it is – only in Latvia, as environmental NGOs are discovering, what should be a safeguard for the environment appears to have gone missing.
A so-called ‘strategic environmental assessment’ (SEA) of EU funds programming documents is supposed to explain to stakeholders and the wider public the likely impacts – both positive and negative – on the environment as a result of the implementation of the Latvian funding programme for 2014-2020. Around EUR 4.5 billion is at stake in Latvia over the seven year period. If certain projects or initiatives are likely to bring about detrimental impacts, then an SEA is supposed to lay out the necessary steps to prevent, reduce or offset such impacts.
An SEA for future EU funds spending, it should be noted, is a requirement under both national and EU legislation.
Yet the recently published SEA report produced by international consultants KPMG for Latvia’s one over-arching operational programme – called, in the jargon, OP Growth and Employment – is the reverse of what it should be. Instead of the SEA process serving as a safeguard mechanism for the environment, what KPMG has recently produced for Latvia views environmental protection as a hurdle.
For example, the SEA report describes how in some cases nature protection measures have turned out to be damaging for economic activities, and also stipulates that any new EU directives in the field of environment may undermine economic development.
On page 60 of the report, we learn that: “It is likely that in the period 2014-2020 in the EU there will be new environmental directives adopted and there are no resources foreseen for implementation of these new requirements. It would cause additional costs and restrictions to economic activities. […] Already now designation of nature protected areas in the bay of Riga has caused serious economic problems and burden to ports and sea freight transport, whereas there is no adequate protection of these areas ensured”. The report also suggests that before deciding on the protection of nature, we should calculate the costs and assess whether we can afford to sustain that.
Perhaps more concerning is that the SEA report seems to be oblivious to the fact that infrastructure or development projects, by their very nature, do have an impact on the environment. Pages 55 and 59 seek to downplay environmental impacts because, according to the authors, there is not enough detail in the OP itself about planned activities: “the OP doesn’t contain any specific measures or activities that could lead to negative impacts on environment in medium and longer term, threaten biodiversity or such.”
But let’s look at one example from the OP, a specific objective that aims to “facilitate the development of the major ports, increasing their carry capacity and safety level”. Indicative activities intended for support in this regard include: the reconstruction and construction of access roads for road transport and railway as well as the relevant infrastructure, and; the reconstruction and construction of moles and breakwaters, aquatorium deepening”.
It is clear that these kind of measures will have some environmental impact and risks, and that, therefore, these ought to have been assessed and described in KMPG’s report.
Similarly, the report also fails to give any environmental assessment of the likely impacts of such activities as: “reconstruction of the main highways within TEN-T network and connection of city infrastructures to TEN-T network”, and; “investments in development of Riga and Pieriga transport infrastructure ensuring the multimodality of Riga as a metropolis”. Among other things, the latter plans envisage an increase of transit freight movement on the left bank of the Daugava. Once again, at least the likely environmental impacts of such large infrastructure projects should have received attention in the SEA report.
Moreover, and despite national regulations requiring it, the SEA report also fails to look at alternatives, even not assessing whether the implementation of the OP might lead to the improvement or worsening of environmental quality compared to the status quo.
Environmental NGOs such as my own, the Latvian Green Movement, have been actively involved in the process of developing Latvia’s EU programming documents, and we have been striving to increase allocations for environment related activities.
At the same time NGO analysis and assessment of the future EU funding programme has led to concerns that certain programmed measures could be environmentally controversial. We have repeatedly expressed concerns about the use of public funds for activities that are damaging to biodiversity and that would further worsen the status of habitats of EU importance – an EU level report from this year found that only 11 percent of habitats of EU importance in Latvia have a good conservation status.
Yet, for instance, the planned measure of drainage system reconstruction without environmental safeguards would cause adverse impacts on the following habitats of EU importance: Northern boreal alluvial meadows (6450), Fennoscandian lowland species-rich dry to mesic grasslands (6270*), Hydrophilous tall herb fringe communities of plains and of the montane levels (6430), Molinia meadows (6510).
These drainage measures in fact fall under a specific OP objective that does sound good: “adapt to climate change by reducing the threat of floods, to ensure quality of living of people and promote business competitiveness and continued business activities”. Yet, without mitigation measures, the risk of damage is high: ‘improved’ drainage will in fact increase nutrient run-off to the Baltic Sea and decrease the water quality; eutrophication is already a major threat to wetland ecosystems in Latvia, and the proposed measures will further worsen the status of the habitats of EU importance.
Environmental NGOs have proposed the inclusion of mitigation measures in the above measures, such as the use of ecosystem services to mitigate floods – for example, through the creation of wetlands and ponds to minimise run-off. These proposals, though, were rejected by the Ministry of Agriculture in the first public hearing phase – yet it’s precisely these types of environmental concerns that should have been picked up and described in the SEA report.
The report completely fails to recognise numerous comments made by environmental NGOs and the Ministry of Environment and Regional Development during the elaboration of OP and related programming documents. When looking (or not looking) at alternatives, at least some mention ought to have been made of the sustainable solutions proposed for the drainage issue.
As page 22 of the SEA report blithely deadpans, however: “All suggestions and comments have been considered when preparing the final version of environmental report and those have helped to prepare more balanced and better suggestions for those who elaborate the OP”.
It is unclear if KPMG expected this report to receive wide public scrutiny, but certainly it has provoked both mirth and frustration among the NGO community – and, too, from certain national officials. The same company has also carried out an ‘ex-ante evaluation’ of the draft programming documents for the period 2014–2020 and it can only be hoped that a better job has been done there. That evaluation, however, is not made public, and only a half page summary of conclusions and recommendations will be included in Latvia’s draft Partnership Agreement.
Where now, and will the European Commission step in?
This highly dubious SEA report is now out for public consultation. A public hearing meeting is scheduled for August 29 and environmental NGOs and other players will raise various issues and make comments. The Ministry of Environment and Regional Development is planning to do the same.
But should it be the task of NGOs to attempt to rewrite the whole report, to point to potential – and pretty self-evident – environmental problems and propose mitigation measures?
And anyway, if the Ministry of Finance that is responsible for the OP does not want to listen, won’t we be wasting our time?
Our abiding motivation and interest in continuing to engage boils down to two things: this is significant new investment money for Latvia, and with continuing economic hardships across the country, it deserves – now as never before – to be deployed well; moreover, the European Commission has sought to frame the 2014-2020 spending period as one that has climate and biodiversity considerations as part of its DNA.
In these circumstances, and given the overall shoddy quality of the SEA report, it seems inevitable at this stage that Latvian NGOs will have little option but to petition the Latvian supervisory body responsible for oversight of the SEA process.
We hope that the European Commission will do the same.
