B U S I N E S S

Environmental protection funds

  Securing the necessary funding for environmental projects is one of the major problems in financing environmental protection. Although available funds are limited, several possible funding sources exist in Central and Eastern Europe, including: investors' own funds; national and municipal budgets; non-budgetary special purpose funds; commercial credits; foreign environmental investment; and foreign assistance programs.

  Prominent among the non-budgetary financing sources are national environmental protection funds, set up in several countries of the region. The first to be established was the National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management in Poland. The State Environmental Fund of the Czech Republic, and what was later to become the Slovak State Environmental Protection Fund, were established in 1991. Hungary and Bulgaria followed in 1993.

  The funds, as the basic instrument for the implementation of the national environmental policy, are either directly managed, or supervised, by the Ministry of Environment. Their main purpose is to provide financial support for environmental protection investments. The resources finance national and regional public infrastructure projects, support local projects (such as the construction of wastewater treatment plants and potable water systems) whose costs exceed the capabilities of local budgets, and back projects in the fields of special concern. Recipients are municipalities, industrial enterprises, R&D institutions, and NGOs. Generally, non-commercial organizations may receive grants, while commercial enterprises may only apply for loans.

Sources of Revenue

  The funds generate revenues mainly from economic instruments for environmental protection, such as user fees, disposal charges, and non-compliance fines. Thus, the protection of the environment does not directly compete with other social programs for limited resources from national budgets.

  Air emission fees and wastewater charges tend to make up the major source of revenue, although details vary from country to country. In Hungary, for instance, taxes on fuel, car tires and batteries, and coolants are channeled to the fund, making up a substantial part of fund's budget. Additionally, since 1995, a waste packaging fee is applied to any goods where packaging is required. In the Czech Republic, a third of the 1995 funding came from the national Clean Air Program. Slovakia was the only country where a significant portion (24%) of fund revenues came from the state budget.

  Recently, interest and loan repayments account for a significant portion of funds income. In the Czech Republic, 6% of 1995 revenues came from loan servicing. The same figure in Poland and Hungary was much higher, at almost 25% in 1995.

  Finally, some funds administer foreign assistance programs. The Hungarian Fund, for instance, manages Phare funding; the Polish Fund also manages Phare programs, World Bank assistance and bilateral agreements.

Primary Disbursement Mechanisms

  The forms of financing and disbursement mechanisms vary from country to country. Grants and subsidies, and loans on preferential terms are the most common. In the Czech Republic, for instance, 52% of 1995 fund expenditures was through subsidies, while the figure in Hungary was 58%. Indirect forms of support include loan guarantees, and subsidies for interest payments on commercial bank loans. Less common forms, include funds equity involvement and participation in loan consortia to finance strategic environmental projects, as well as partial loan write-offs.

  In practice, distinctions in project financing mechanisms are made on the basis of environmental policy priorities, regional conditions, project type, and financial capabilities of the investor. In the Czech Republic, allocations covering up to 40% of the project cost are available to non-profit applicants and municipalities. Loans, covering up to 50% of the expected project cost, are an option for commercial enterprises.

Expenditures of National Environmental Protection Funds
COUNTRY CZECH REPUBLIC HUNGARY POLAND SLOVAKIA
Expenditures 191 mln USD 43 mln USD 427 mln USD 40 mln USD
Number of Projects 364 267 970 962
Expenditures by Sector
* water protection 44%
* Clean Air Program 34%
* other air protection14%
* waste 5%
* nature protection 2%
GENERAL 68%
* water protection 41%
* air protection 39%
* waste management 12%
* nature protection 8%

FUEL TAX 32%
* environment friendly transport solutions 53%
* reduction of pollution from vehicles 34%
* transport infrastructure 9%
* air 40%
* water protection 25%
* mining and geology 8%
* land protection 4%
* nature conservation 3%
* wastewater 30%
* air protection 28%
* water supply 22%
* waste management 10%
* R&D 5%
Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding errors
Figures in USD calculated by the author, based on average 1995 exchange rate

Priority Areas for Funding

  Applications received by a fund's office are first evaluated by an assessment commission, which issues an opinion on the project's funding eligibility. The final decision is issued by the Minister of Environment, or the Board of Directors. The superior criterion in allocating funds is that projects be in compliance with the national environmental policy.

  Each of the Funds publishes financing and eligibility rules, which include the list of priority funding areas. Hungary's guidelines for 1996 designate water supply and quality control, air protection, and waste treatment. In Poland, the 1996 list included 97 specific project categories, grouped in 16 topical areas. The Slovak Fund focuses on small- and medium-scale environmental investments and projects Ð 75% of support was allocated to municipalities and settlements. Slovak guidelines in 1995 listed 22 categories, grouped in nine areas.

  Another way of looking at funding priorities is to analyze expenditures by sector. As the table demonstrates, in all countries water and wastewater, and air protection are major areas. Hungary is a somewhat different case, as about a third of Fund's 1995 expenditures was allocated to projects related to transportation.

Future Developments

  National environmental protection funds are set to play a leading role in environmental project financing in the coming years. The funds are expected to decrease the share of projects financed by the state budget, and to increase the share of loans in their own expenditures. Improving the effectiveness of loans, expansion of financial consortia, and setting up of credit lines, joint ventures and trust funds appear likely directions for the future.

  One way or another, it is clear that in looking for financing for environmental projects, one should consider these funds as one of available options.


For more information contact: Pawel Kazmierczyk, E-mail: pawelk@rec.org.


REC * PUBLICATIONS * THE BULLETIN * AUTUMN 1996

PREVIOUS NEXT COVER PAGE HOME PAGE