The way environmental policy is financed clearly reflects the socio-political priorities, the mere fulfillment of the form in the process of European integration and classification of environmental care as irrelevant and something that is postponed for "better times".
The Environmental Protection Fund was abolished in 2012 with the explanation that it does not fulfill its role, but only creates a space for corruption and misuse of public funds. That was how the previous government referred to it, while the new government, simply said, tightened its belt. Since then, revenues collected from the environmental protection taxes were not spent through the Fund, but kept away from the eyes in a shared register to be distributed in a table of planned expenditures by socio-political priorities. Within these priorities there is no place for public policy in the field of environment. Injustice towards environment, and somewhat towards the process of taking over the EU acquis communautaire which we have voluntarily started, was corrected in 2015 when amendments to the Law on Environmental Protection were added, and when the Fund for Environmental Protection returned to legislative frameworks. There has been no more detailed regulation, however the space had been left so that by-laws can closer determine type of the fund, mechanisms and way of functioning. Of course there is room for manipulation.
At the same time, changes of the Budget System Law have created opportunities for allocating funds from environmental taxes to other users, as well as to unrelated activities at the national and local level. So now, the funds are allocated to the Environmental Protection Fund - which is defined as a budget line managed by the Ministry of Finance - in an amount not necessarily equal to the income from the environmental protection taxes. And given its limited features, the amount is divided into only two items. Practically speaking, the Fund does not fulfill its role. This story of financing the environmental policy clearly reflects socio-political priorities, the mere fulfillment of the form in the process of European integration and the classification of environmental care as irrelevant and something that is postponed for some better times.
Environmental protection - from deratization to catching stray dogs
For environmental protection in year 2017, 2.29 billion dinars (approximately 19.3 million euros) were allocated. Of the total amount, 2.19 billion dinars (approximately 18.4 million euros) were allocated for subsidies to the recycling industry and 100 million (approximately 842 000 euros) to finance measures in states of emergency. In 2015, EU member states have on average allocated somewhat more than 2.1% of GDP for environmental policy implementation, and this percentage has been steadily increasing since 2006. Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia, in its latest report from October 2017, reports that the Republic of Serbia allocated 0.8% of the GDP for environmental protection in 2016.
Regarding the implementation of environmental protection policies, towns and municipalities have significant roles and obligations. Local self-government is obliged to make an annual environmental protection program with a plan for spending the resources. Then, this program, and especially the spending plan, is approved annually by the Ministry of Environmental Protection. Some of the funds from the environmental protection taxes belong to local budgets, and local authorities may impose additional pollution taxes. The cycle is closed with an annual report.
Institute of Industrial Relations published its research findings in November, observing, among other things, transparency of local self-governments and availability of programs and reports in the field of environmental protection. The results show that 102 municipalities did not have any of the requested documents on their site. Less than a fifth of the documents are available on local self-government sites, only 94 out of 513. Mostly, they are strategic documents in the field of environmental protection, while the reports are rarely published.
Civil Society Organizations Habitat and European Policy Centre (CEP) have published detailed information on the spending of funds intended for the protection of the environment. According to them, over the past six years, 6.5 billion dinars have been allocated to environmental protection but were not spent for that purpose. Tthese funds are not available but have been already spent through the shared register on other priorities. In addition, plans and programs of towns and municipalities include a much wider range of activities and projects than just the environment, i.e. provisions of the Ordinance on the Standard Classification Framework and Accounting Plan for the Budget System. According to the findings of Habitat and CEP, the funds were used for: the construction of rural roads, maintenance of the canal network, anti-hail service, construction of sport facilities, asphalting of streets, mosquitoes control, deratization, zoos, catching of strays, winter maintenance, asbestos pipes replacement and water supply maintenance, subsidies for water, gas debt, heat dissipation, boilers, elimination of flood effects, payment of fines to people bitten by dogs due to the court ruling etc.
While resources disappear ...
In its alternative annual report on Serbia's progress in the European integration process, Coalition 27 has devoted a special section to financing environmental protection under Chapter 27. In addition to all the aforementioned aspects, the issues of air quality control, or to say lack of resources for this purpose and maintenance of the system were also highlighted. It is important to note that funds for inspection of water management are less than 1% of the total budget for water management, while construction works and facilities within watercourses regulation and protection against water damage account for about 50% of the total funds. Lack of resources for nature protection and protected areas is also mentioned, as well as the lack of harmonization of financing methods and mechanisms with the standards of the European Union. It should be noted that the climate change mitigation policy and adaptation to climate change implies high costs that are not yet reflected in budgets.
It is a clear conclusion that care for the environment is not a priority of the Government of the Republic of Serbia. If we look at the priorities of the opposition, as well as the way in which local communities behave, it seems that for us, citizens, quality of air, water, land and the overall conditions in which we live are not of great importance either. On the contrary. Even from an economic perspective, improving quality of the environment is not seen as a direct or indirect investment in increasing the resources and conditions for economic growth. In our society, environment is an uncomfortable burden and a big cost. We prefer to cut a forest down rather than to strategically manage it. Using waste as a resource is too complicated, it requires a regulated system, so it is far easier just to dispose the waste where one can't see it.
The longer we keep postponing to systematically deal with the environment, or to make a systematic relationship towards organization and way of life, the more costs grow and certain resources irretrievably get lost. Investing in the environment is not a secondary activity we are supposed to do because we are nice and well-educated not to litter, but the quality of the environment is a precondition for the development of society and the economy.
Stevan Petrovic, Belgrade Open School
This text was published in the XXXII issue of the "Let's talk about negotiations" newsletter, which you can access here.
Photo sourece: Freepik