1. The Cohesion Fund in Poland and the Selection System for Environmental Investments Andrzej Guła Institute of Environmental Economics – Poland CEE Bankwatch Network

2. Cohesion Fund for Environmental Investments in Poland Without the Cohesion Fund resources, Poland would face significant problems with financing necessary environmental protection investments. Implementation of environmental acquis communautaire in Poland would be endangered. It would be impossible to meet the deadlines for implementing specific environmental directives.

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

4. Financing environmental directives (wastewater/drinking water, air protection, waste management) without the resources from the Cohesion Fund Source: Institute of Environmental Economics; Ph.D. K. Berbeka; Modelling financial flows with regard to implementation of environmental AQ DEFICIT 2003 -2010 Euro 3.2 billion

5. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FUND THE STEERING COMMITTEE POTENTIAL BENEFICIARY REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FUNDS 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

6. Number of projects approved by the Steering Committee for the Cohesion Fund - environment Projects approved until April 2004

7. Approximate value of projects approved by Steering Committee for the Cohesion Fund – environment (Euro, million) Projects approved until April 2004

8. Project selection criteria  Better recognition of financial needs in specific fields would help to develop sound financial strategies (e.g. in field of waste- management, wastewater treatment, air protection),  Strategic financial management necessary  Two approaches for project selection – (1) lists of the projects included in planning documents, (2) scoring system allowing ranking of the projects,  At the moment those systems are implemented only partially,  Programmes for the specific fields (National Programme for Wastewater Treatment, National Programme for Waste Management & regional waste management programmes)  Establishing a scoring system would improve selection process and would make it more transparent.  Poland’s Framework Reference Document for the Cohesion Fund 2004-2006

9. Specific criteria - example Meeting EU standards – water/wastewater management:  Priority I - ensuring combined sewerage systems and appropriate level of sewage treatment for agglomerations of at least 100,000 p.e. (preferences given to the largest agglomerations) as well as water supply networks and appropriate level of water treatment;  Priority II - - ensuring combined sewerage systems and appropriate level of sewage treatment for agglomerations from 15,000 to 100,000 p.e. as well as water supply networks and appropriate level of water treatment;  Priority III - ensuring combined sewerage systems and appropriate level of sewage treatment for agglomerations from 2,000 to 15,000 p.e as well as water supply networks and appropriate level of water treatment. Selection criteria approved by the Minister of Environment

10. A possible system of project selection criteria 1. Dividing the resources available into priority areas (waste management, air protection, etc.) in order to ensure their maximum contribution to fulfilling AC requirements; 2. Specifying the sine qua non criteria (yes/no criteria); 3. Specifying formal and organisational criteria: a) preparing a list of criteria, b) defining the scoring system, c) attaching weight to the criteria; 4. Specifying technical and efficiency criteria: a) preparing a list of criteria, b) defining the scoring system, c) attaching weight to the criteria.

11. Problems  Project pre-selection criteria:  Criteria vary among the bodies responsible for project pre- selection,  Too general,  Publicly unavailable  Bodies responsible for project selection  Lack of holistic approach towards allocation of the CF resources  Nation-wide programmes defining priority projects in specific sectors (e.g. National Programme for Municipal Wastewater Treatment)  Project pre-selection – often a political process

12. Recommendations & conclusions  Strategic financial management - holistic approach embedded in the context of acquis implementation;  Project selection system – institutional simplifications (split of responsibilities, clear definition of the competences),  Activities: not overlapping but compatible;  Development of scoring system;  Selection criteria: not contradictory but complementary;  Public access to the information regarding evaluation process;  Next programming period – lessons learned