A3-0361/93

Resolution on the environmental aspects of the PHARE programme in the Visegrad countries (Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary)

The European Parliament,

-having regard to the motion for a resolution by Mr Collins and others on measures to improve the environment in Poland and Hungary (B3-0468/89),

-having regard to the report of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection and the opinion of the Committee on External Economic Relations (A3-0361/93),

A.whereas the PHARE programme vests enormous power in the Commission and there is no parliamentary scrutiny of the use of Community funds,

B.whereas tackling environmental problems in the countries receiving aid under the PHARE programme is a gigantic undertaking in which the Community should play an important role, supplementing bilateral aid and aid from the EIB, EBRD, World Bank and IMF, in the interest of European solidarity and the positive effects on the environment in the Community,

C.whereas many environmental problems are international in character and European cooperation with countries receiving aid, inter alia through the European Environment Agency which is to be set up, is therefore of vital importance,

D.whereas the number of countries receiving aid under the PHARE programme has increased substantially over a short period of time, the budget for the programme has been increased several times over and the number of areas of policy in which aid is provided has expanded greatly,

General

1.Takes the view that the selection of the projects accords with the priorities set by the Polish, Czech, Slovak and Hungarian Governments;

2.Regrets the fact that the share of environmental expenditure within the PHARE programme has fallen alarmingly in recent years and calls for the originally stated intention of earmarking 25% for environmental expenditure to be complied with in the years ahead;

3.Endorses the PHARE programme's aim of reducing the most serious sources of environmental pollution in the near future and, in the longer term, aiming to secure sustainable economic development and prevent pollution;

4.Emphasizes that environmental interests should also be borne in mind in the agriculture, transport and energy sectors and stresses the importance of ecologically sound and organic farming;

5.Insists that exports of waste to non-OECD countries, including the countries receiving aid under the PHARE programme, should be banned;

6.Believes that nature conservation should be an important component of the PHARE programme and that cross-border nature parks deserve support;

7.Wishes 1 to 5% of the funds of the PHARE programme to be used for a small grants facility or 'bistro facility' on which both the Commission and recipient countries can draw;

8.Takes the view that funding of the PHARE programme should be increased substantially in the budget for 1994 and notably used for regional projects such as:

-the Integrated Environmental Programme for the Danube River Basin,

-the Regional Environmental Programme for the Black Sea,

-the Baltic Sea Integrated Programme,

-the Black Triangle,

-remote sensing and use of satellite data,

-Support for Public Participation and Awareness Building - Regional Environmental Centre in Budapest;

9.Considers that an environmental impact assessment should be compulsory for all projects above a certain size, so as to prevent investment decisions from being taken which damage the environment excessively or cause environmental damage which can subsequently be remedied only by investing many times the original amount;

10.Observes that unless there is an adequate response to criticism of the PHARE programme, bilateral aid will increasingly be advocated in preference to Community aid;

11.Supports the GLOBE-EC organization which facilitates cooperation between Members of Parliament from the PHARE countries and Members of the European Parliament who are active in the field of environmental protection, and reaffirms in this connection its desire, as expressed in its resolution of 19 November 1991 on the need for pan-European parliamentary cooperation on the environment, to form a network of Members of the European Parliament and of the national parliaments in the European continent and considers that this network (GLOBE-EUROPE) should also be able to receive financial backing from the PHARE funds;

Recipient countries

12.Considers it extremely important that recipient countries be involved from the start in the work of the European Environment Agency as soon as it becomes operational;

13.Proposes very close cooperation with the parliaments of the recipient countries in setting up and evaluating the PHARE programme;

14.Stresses that the authorities in the local area, NGOs and the project management involved in implementing projects should have a say in how a particular project is carried out;

15.Calls on the Commission to ensure that recipient countries receive proper guarantees on the capital goods supplied to them;

The Commission

16.Appreciates the difficulties experienced by the Commission in committing funds during the initial stage of PHARE, because of the as yet inadequate administrative structures in the recipient countries;

17.Is fully aware that it is better for commitments to be given and payments made later but on a sound basis rather than quickly and unsatisfactorily;

18.Calls on the Commission to streamline the internal procedures of the PHARE programme so that commitments can be entered into and payments made more quickly;

19.Regrets the fact that virtually none of the funds available under the PHARE programme can be used for environmental investment and that as a rule only preparatory studies can be funded for projects which may be carried out later by the national governments, perhaps with the support of the EIB, EBRD, World Bank or other banks;

20.Deplores the use of numerous consultants from Community countries, who are often too ignorant of situations and customs in the recipient countries; calls for the services of local consultants to be enlisted wherever possible, as they can, at a fraction of the cost of Western consultants, produce results better tailored to local conditions;

21.Expresses its dissatisfaction at the fact that the Commission is pursuing its activities outside the Community in a very autonomous fashion and hardly ever consults Parliament, so that it is very difficult to monitor its policy in any way;

22.Condemns the Commission for the lack of information and transparency of its evaluation of the first years of the PHARE programme; observes that it is unacceptable that the evaluation report for 1991 is still an internal Commission document;

23.Urges the Commission not to confine exchanges of environmental experts to officials but to extend them to industry and NGOs;

24.Condemns the Commission for spending ECU 50 million on pesticides;

25.Calls for the PHARE Operational Service to be given a staff complement adequate to its duties and compatible with its desired level of effectiveness; takes the view that the Commission should pursue a flexible personnel policy for this purpose so that staff can more readily be transferred from one Directorate-General to another;

26.Calls on the Commission to work out a legal basis for each part of the PHARE programme which provides more details of the objectives, resources and decision-making procedures than are given in the existing regulation on the PHARE programme;

27.Calls for more rapid submission to the Council and Parliament of an assessment showing what the projects hitherto initiated have achieved, and wishes Parliament to be informed more rapidly;

28.Welcomes the more programmed approach adopted by the Commission as a substitute for the original project-based approach;

29.Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission, the Council, the governments of the Member States, the European Investment Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the governments and parliaments of Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary.