BZB no. 30 - With or without Union. Polish environmental NGOs'attitude towards European integration
The term "non-governmental organisations" is quite wide, due to the fact it covers different form of social activities, from informal groups, to associations, foundations, networks of organisations and supporting institutions. Almost all these forms are presented in the survey. Ten of the organisations are foundations, one is a service institution (Biuro Lobbyingu Ekologicznego - Bureau for Ecological Lobbying), one is a non-profit publishing house (Zielone Brygady - the Green Brigades) - publishing previously monthly and nowadays bi-weekly ecologist's paper "Zielone Brygady" - one of the most important and influential periodicals within the ecological movement. Partia Zielonych Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej (The Green Party of the Republic of Poland) was also included to the research as a member of the wider "ecological community", although usually a party cannot be regard as a non-governmental organisation.
The number of members in the organisations ranges from 6 to 3000. Because of the specific Polish situation, the number of members does not necessarily reflect the importance of the organisations. In contrast to most of the Western organisations, Polish NGOs are mainly supported not by the membership fees but by different internal and external sponsors or foundations. Therefore, the organisations with fewer members may have in this situation much higher financial resources than the larger ones. A separate case are the foundations which do not have members, yet are still active members of the non-governmental community.
The annual budgets of the organisation also differ significantly. Some of them dispose of budgets of more then 100 000 USD (in one case even 300 000 USD) annually while others have budgets on the level of 500 USD. However, funding level is either not a good marker of their activity, because the annual budget does not include the input of voluntary work or in kind contribution. Nevertheless, there is some minimal amount of money necessary for organisations to build a basis for their activity - to rent an office space, pay the telephone bills, purchase an equipment. In present Polish circumstances this required amount of money can be estimated on the level of 1000 - 3000 USD.
Tab 1. Different ranges of surveyed NGOs annual budgets
| Range (in USD) | Number of organisations* |
|---|---|
| 0 - 500 | 3 |
| 500- 1500 | 6 |
| 1500-3000 | 0 |
| 3000-15 000 | 8 |
| 15 000 - 30 000 | 8 |
| 30 000- 300 000 | 11 |
| TOTAL NUMBER | 36 |
*the total number of organisations in the table is less than 41 because not all of them answered the question.
As the main field of interest, most of the organisations mentioned environmental education. This is a very general term including publication of books and brochures, preparation of seminars and conferences, out-of-school education and so on. Some organisations lead campaigns focused on transport or waste management. Among the respondents there are relatively many organisations dealing with eco-agriculture (supporting production of health food, agro-tourism, natural methods of cultivation). This can be explained by the fact that these organisations are particularly interested in the consequences of European integration, because of its impact on the agricultural sector. Other fields of interest were as follows: legislation and public advocacy, clearinghouse activity, environmental lobbying, water protection, clean technologies, recycling, birds protection, animal rights, consumerism, vegetarianism, public health, humans' rights, unemployment, pacifism, problems of youth and art.
Regarding the range of activity, seven respondents regards their organisations as local, thirteen as regional, eighteen as national and ten as international (more then one option was possible).
The majority of the respondents support Polish integration with European Union (see Fig. 1.). This number (66%) is a bit higher than the average for the rest of the population according to a public opinion poll (PBS 1998). However, 12 respondents (28%) think that Poland should not become a member of EU at all or not in the next 10 years. Only two organisations have no opinion on the issue. According to their attitude towards accession, organisations were divided in four groups - pro-accession, anti-accession, "postpone the accession", and "no opinion" group.
Fig. 1. Opinion on Polish integration with European Union.
In the next question, the respondents had to list the main reasons why, in their opinion, Poland should join the European Union (more than one answer was possible). Most of the answers (44%) pointed out economical reasons. Environmental reasons and socio-cultural ones were mentioned respectively by 30 and 26% of the respondents.
Fig. 2. Main reason for Polish accession to European Union.
Forty respondents answered the question whether the problems of environmental problems might be overlooked in the accession process because Poland will not be able to afford the proper investment in that sector. As many as 15 (36%) of the answers recognised this as probable and additional 8 (19%) as highly probable. Only 2 respondents were sure that environmental issues will be a very important point in the agenda of negotiations. Another 16 (38%) supported this point of view, however they were not so much convinced about it. Generally the groups supporting the Polish accession to the EU was more optimistic about the rank of environmental issues in the negotiations.
Twenty-two respondents, out of 39 (56%) who answered the question, believe that the problem of achieving the required standards in environmental protection will not influence the deadline of Polish accession to EU. Sixteen (41%) think that it could happen
and one person is convinced about it. Nobody expressed an opinion that the environmental standards will certainly influence the deadline of Polish accession. Again the group which was in favour of accession tends to think that the problems of the approximation to the European standards in environmental field will not significantly postpone Polish membership in the EU.
Only 3 respondents might accept the solution "membership in the EU now-environmental standards later". Two of them were from the pro-accession group while one from the group supporting at least ten year transition period. Twenty-one of the respondents would rather not accept it and nine would not accept it in any case. More radical approach was observed in the anti-accession group, where almost half of the respondents chose the latter answer.
Very interesting responses were received for the question whether the environmental issues will be one of the priorities during the negotiations for the European Union (Fig. 3a) and for the Polish authorities (Fig. 3b). Twenty-two respondents out of 40 (55%) believe that it will be an important issue for the European Union while only 4 out of 38 (11%) thinks the environmental issues will be a priority for Polish authorities (they all are from the pro-accession group), whereas twenty-eight (78%) of the respondents do not believe this. Fourteen persons claim that the European Union will not care about environmental issues during the negotiations (more than half of the representatives of the anti-accession group supports this point of view). None from the anti-accession group thinks that the environmental issues will be a priority for the Polish authorities.
Fig. 3a Will environmental issues have a priority for the European Union during the negotiations?
Fig. 3b Will environmental issues have a priority for the Polish authorities during the negotiations?
Twenty-two of the respondents (out of 39 who answered the question) would agree with the opinion that the Polish government will use the opportunity connected with the harmonisation for promoting sustainable development (not surprisingly most of the pro-accession group supports this opinion), thirteen of them doubt and four had no opinion on the issue.
Eleven respondents out of 36 think that the sum of 1 billion ECU declared by the EU as the aid for environmental restoration for 10 countries in Central and Eastern Europe for the period 2000-2006 (EC DG XI 1997a) is much too low (question 8). More than half of such answers comes from the anti-accession group. Twenty-two respondents are convinced that it is too low. Five, mainly from the pro-accession group, consider this amount of money as "reasonable" but nobody thinks that it is sufficient in comparison with the needs.
Six of the respondents (out of 39) expressed their opinion that some of the Polish regulations and standards higher then the ones recommended by European Union can be lowered in exchange for overall better environmental standards (question 9). Five of them came from the pro-accession group. Thirty-one of the respondents were convinced that such a solution is not acceptable. Two, both from the pro-accession group, had no opinion on that issue.
As the main positive aspect of Polish accession to EU from the environmental point of view (question 10) in the agriculture the respondents mentioned wider market for the products of the ecological farming and better legal regulation concerning the eco-agriculture which follow from better circumstances for development of this kind of agriculture. They believe that the high competition in the EU market will halt the cultivation on the land of the lowest quality. This area could be used for forest plantations and therefore it will cause the increase of the forest area in Poland. Higher standards in the agricultural production might have a beneficial effect on the quality of food produced in Poland The structural funds from the EU can be a trigger for the development of the manufacture of agricultural production which will assure higher efficiency in the use of agricultural products. Many negative consequences of accession were mentioned. The main threat pointed out by the respondents was the vanishing of small, family farms caused by the competition of the big, semi-industrial and highly specialised western farms. This would have a profound effect on such issues as higher unemployment in rural areas, possible negative changes of the social structure, decreasing role of traditional values and folklore. The necessity of increasing effectiveness of production implies the development of monocultures which will lower biodiversity in the countryside. The farm, in order to survive, will have to evolve, increasing production by the use of high amounts of fertilisers, intensive irrigation and the application of a higher number of heavy machines, and generally technical equipment instead of manpower. The industrialisation of agriculture will result in deeper dependence of the farmers upon the financial institutions and external resources (energy, chemicals, water). The greater use of pesticides and fertiliser will have a negative impact on the environment. The respondents are also afraid of eco dumping - import of western agricultural goods highly subsided by the EU, which cost of production does not include external costs, i.e. degradation of the environment. Very controversial is a problem of genetically manipulated food admitted to the EU market. The import of food from the other EU countries will probably result in limitation in food production in Poland and therefore higher dependence on international co-operation. The respondents emphasis as well that the Common Agricultural Policy, in force in future in Poland, overlooks the interconnection between agricultural production and the environment Nevertheless, 4 organisations out of 5, which deals with the agriculture issues, declared their support for the accession.
The respondents believe that EU accession will mean better enforcement of environmental law, regulations and standards in the Polish industry which will result in lower emission, implementation of new, more environmental friendly or clean technologies and in higher energy efficiency. The closer co-operation between the scientists from the EU and Poland will cause better exchange of know-how and easier access to the best available technologies.
The accession might, according to the respondents, increase the pressure on development of nuclear energy in Poland and export of "dirty technologies". The removal of the "protection umbrella" kept by the Polish government over heavy industry will probably cause higher unemployment in some branches of national industry. Some respondents think that Poland might become a provider of natural resources for the EU, which will put a heavy burden on the environment. The problem of the limitation of Polish economic independence was also mentioned.
The biggest differentiation in opinions appeared in the question concerning the influence of EU accession on the life style and the social structure in Poland. Some of the respondents emphasised the benefits of living in the multicultural environment, higher public awareness on environmental protection, more responsible attitudes towards the environment, advancement in public participation in decision making process, easier access to better education, and development of more tolerant and open-minded society, aware of taking part in historical process of European integration. For some, access to EU means the right to abortion, while for others "higher moral standards".
As the worst negative consequence of European integration the respondents underlined the fast growth of consumptionism, materialism and cosmopolitanism in Polish society, decay of local social structure, diminishing role of the tradition, national culture and values ("death of culture and traditional customs"). For one of the respondents the EU represents the threat of supporting "the left wing liberalism". Others mentioned lower standard of living for people who will not cope with the new situation, difficulties for the rural societies to adapt to the new, European standards, and the fierce competition on the labour market connected with the inflow of managerial staff from the West. The more frequent contacts with foreigners may cause development of xenophobia among Poles. Another important issue was creation of "the wall on the eastern border" - weakening of the contacts with the neighbouring countries which will not become members of the EU in the foreseeable future.
The surveyed group had to list also the positive and negative influence of integration on Polish economy. As the positives they mentioned development of poor regions, new ways of successful career for youth, economic growth, common monetary market, unification of standards, development of trade, inflow of foreign investments. Some believe also that thanks to the integration with European Union, economic planning will be more focused on sustainable development.
On the other hand they mentioned the negative consequences like development of highways network, bankruptcy of small entrepreneurs in the service sector, dependency on EU economic development, increase of low income work places in the big companies from the service sector ("mcdonaldisation of work"), monopolisation of the market by multinational companies, development of over-consumption and higher unemployment due to decay of some sectors of industry, market flooded by "rubbish for single use". One of the respondents expressed his concern about supporting inefficient branches of the EU economy by sending their products to Poland. Others pointed out the problems with enforcement of EU regulation in Poland which might be a heavy burden upon Polish entrepreneurs or just the contrary, might not be enforced at all. They expressed also a concern about mass purchase of land by westerners (mainly Germans) in Poland.
Better law enforcement is the pro-EU argument in the question concerning the environmental protection regulations. The others are: higher standards, donations from EU for environmental protection, more coherent environmental law, better regulations concerning the valuable natural areas. On the other hand, the cons included possible lack of adjustment of EU law to the local circumstances, compromises in the creation of law (national standards versus European ones), high cost of EU environmental law implementation, repeating the EU mistakes in that field. Not all of the respondents believe either in appropriate law enforcement. They pointed out that faster privatisation of the industry and land will limit the possibility of control over the polluters, natural resources and ecologically valuable areas. Generally the members of the pro-accession group more often listed positive aspects of accession. The anti-accession group listed almost equal number of positive and negative sides of integration.
As the main threat connected with the EU accession (question 11) was mentioned little competence of European parliament and undemocratic appointment of the European commission, as well as the fact that lack of knowledge on EU structures and methods of work may result in weak influence of the local communities on the EU policy. Centralisation of power in Brussels might also create a convenient environment for the rich lobbying groups, working for multinational corporations. The decision process may become longer and the local administration may try to hide their own incompetence or bad will by groundless appealing to the supreme EU decisions. One respondent raised also a weakness of the Polish strategy of integration, which is not a "document prepared to face the challenges of the 21st century".
One of the shortest answers for the question what is the main general advantage of the EU accession (question 12) was: "money". Other respondents also expressed the feeling that Poland needs financial aid from the EU, which will trigger economic development, resulting in lower unemployment (particularly in the service sector) and good prospects for the skilled and educated people. The other mechanism enhancing economic growth will be free trade between European countries. Membership in the EU can also give Polish citizens a feeling of participation in creating of new, so far unknown, form of state - "the homeland of homelands" which can be a first step towards a global, one state world. Being a part of this process gives a chance to influence it in the required direction. Better co-operation and policy co-ordination between countries that might result in supporting sustainable development. The integration might also bring more freedom of speech, better chances of citizen's rights enforcement, the increase of public participation and development of civic society (also by "forcing bureaucracy to deal according to the law"). For one respondent an integration with EU is an "evil we can not avoid". The members of the anti-accession group more rarely listed the advantages of accession but generally the answers in pro- ant anti-accession group were quite similar.
Most of the respondents (22 out of 40) estimated their knowledge on European Union as medium. Nine of them think it is low and almost the same number (8) that it is high. Both respondents who had no opinion on Polish accession evaluated their knowledge as low. One person thinks that his knowledge is very good.
This replies should be compared with the answers to the question: who, in the opinion of the respondents has the greatest influence on the decisions connected with the environment within the EU executive bodies. The surveyed persons should choose between commissioner Ritt Bjerregaard, General Secretary of the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) John Hontelez and chairman of the Council of Europe Xavier Solana. This was a control question because only one answer out of three might be regarded as the right one. The EEB is a federation of non-governmental organisations (NGOs), serving them mainly by providing information. Xavier Solana is a The Secretary-General of NATO and the chairman of Council of Europe is in fact Robin Cook. Also the competence of Council of Europe itself in decision making process regarding environment is highly limited. Only Ritt Bjerregaard as a European Union environment commissioner has a real influence on EU environmental policy. Though only 8 respondents pointed Ritt Bjerrgaard, in comparison with 14 who pointed John Hontelez and 9 for whom the most influential person in European environmental policy is Xavier Solana. Only one respondent from the group which estimated their own knowledge on the EU as "good" answered the question right. Ten persons from the surveyed organisations did not give any answer. It should be mentioned that because there were only three choices it might be possible that some of the respondents guessed the right answered, while others think that the real power of the Council of Europe is stronger then that of the EU environment commissioner. The were no significant differences between pro- and anti-accession group (nor two other groups).
Only one respondent (coming from the anti-accession group) out of 40 which answered the question 14 was not interested in the problem on influence of European enlargement on the environment in Poland. Twenty-two organisations have been already beneficiaries of various kinds of European financial aid. In the pro-accession group there were 15 of them in comparison with 11 which were not. In the anti-accession group there were relatively less such organisations.
Half of the surveyed organisations have contacts or co-operate with European organisations on issues related to EU enlargement. Thirty organisations have already participated (or would like to participate) in some kind of consulting meeting concerning the issue of EU enlargement. Relatively higher interest was expressed by the pro-accession group and "postpone the accession" group. However also more than a half of the respondents from the anti-accession group was willing to participate in such consultation.
The most popular source of information on the European Union(question 16) is television, on the second position there are papers and on the third information distributed by non-governmental organisations. Radio occupied the fourth position, while the internet (fifth position) is only a little worse source of information than the EU publications (sixth position). The last position - other sources - is followed by information released by the Polish government (seventh position). As other sources of information the respondents mentioned: universities, school colleagues, experts from the UN Umbrella project, and professional training. The surveyed group thinks that the Polish government should intensified their informational policy (question 17), particularly in matters concerning the environmental aspect of integration (all respondents who answered the question) and internal structure of European Union (25 answers out of 28). They were less interested in the advancement of Polish negotiations with the EU (22 answers out of 25).
The respondents scored the issues which in their opinion should be presented more detailed (question 18). On the Fig. 4. one can see the average score given by the respondents. The most important fields related to the environmental aspects of Polish accession, where the informational policy should be intensified is the influence of accession on the agricultural policy, then public participation, waste management, transport policy and environmental law. The influence of integration on the preservation of natural habitats and on the development of NGOs (presented at the graph as "others") were other topics which the respondents were concerned about. The pro-accession group and "postpone" group were slightly more interested in the agriculture and public participation, while the anti-accession group in the transport issues.
Fig. 4. Fields where the informational policy should be intensified (0,0 - the lowest interest; 0,4 - the highest one)
The fourth part of the questionnaire included different short scenario of European Union development and its influence on different aspects of life in member countries. The respondents might express their opinion on the probability of different scenarios. Each of them could be graded from 0 (the lowest probability) to 3 (highest probability). The particular grades by different respondents were summed up and the average score was calculated. The highest score was gained by the statement that liberalisation of international trade will support the further development of big corporations and that due to economic growth the over-consumption in the EU will grow. Most of the respondents were sceptical about development of environmentally sound agriculture in Poland as a result of accession. They however do not believe that accession will cause an economic collapse in Poland
Tab. 2. Possible scenarios of influence of European integration on economy, environment and social life
| Possible scenarios | Average score |
|---|---|
| Liberalisation of international trade supports the further development of big corporations. | 2,44 |
| Due to economic growth the overconsumption in the EU grows. | 2,44 |
| "New" member countries become a source of natural resources and the market for goods from the "old" member countries. | 2,36 |
| Rapid development of road transport and the network of highways accompany the diminishing role of ship and train transport. | 2,26 |
| Aid programs support first of all economic, unsustainable growth. | 2,19 |
| EU financial aid for Poland is used inefficiently | 2,12 |
| Very rigorous environmental standards cause the improvement in the state of the environment. | 2,07 |
| The EU closes its frontiers against the immigrants from the Third World and other poor countries ("Fortress Europe") | 2,01, |
| Development of euro-bureaucracy causes less public participation in decision making | 1,95 |
| Although ambitious directives of European Commission are focused on environmental protection, there is a lack of enforcement in the member countries | 1,93 |
| EU is an efficient competitor of the American and Japan economies in the world market | 1,90 |
| There is an increase in the public participation in decision making processes on all levels. | 1,80 |
| Concept of "Europe of homelands" prevents the cultural unification of Europe. | 1,80 |
| Thanks to international co-operation, the emission of greenhouse gases is stable, the use of energy decreases, alternative sources of energy are promoted | 1,80 |
| Gradually the ideas of sustainable development are implemented in the whole EU. | 1,75 |
| Gradually the differences in living standards between the "new" and "old" countries in EU diminish | 1,63 |
| EU becomes a leader in environmental protection and an example for the rest of the world. | 1,51 |
| The economic gap between the different countries within the EU will become wider. | 1,49 |
| EU becomes a stabilisation factor in Europe, particularly in the Balkans | 1,44 |
| There is a development of biodiversity in the EU member countries | 1,40 |
| The agricultural sector in Poland focuses on production of "healthy food" | 1,34 |
| Integration causes an economic collapse in Poland | 1,22 |
At the end the attempt to define the features differentiating the four groups of attitudes towards the accession (pro-accession, anti-accession, "postpone" group and "no opinion" group) was undertaken. The results are presented in the Tab. 3. Generally, the average annual budget of the NGOs from the pro-accession group is higher than in the anti-accession one, although the range of budgets in both groups is almost the same. It suggests that the budgets of the particular organisations in the pro-accession group are higher and closer to the average for the whole group. Also the average number of members in the pro-accession group is higher than in the anti-accession group. The "postpone" group and "no opinion" group have lower budgets and less number of members in comparison with the two first groups.
The organisations from the pro-accession group relatively more often declared their involvement in the international issues. In the anti-accession .group there are NGOs active on all four levels, and the organisations from the "postpone" group deal with regional and national issues, while the "no opinion" group consists of two organisations active only on local and regional level.
Because of the differences in the number of organisations in particular groups it is difficult to withdraw any general conclusions on the characteristics of the NGOs from these groups but with some degree of uncertainty it may be said that the pro-accession NGOs are usually "richer", have higher number of members and more often are active on the regional, national or international level, while the anti-accession group is less homogenous, consisting of quite different (in terms of availability of funds, number of members and level of activity) organisations.
Tab. 3. Features characterising four groups of attitudes towards the accession
| Features | Attitudes towards the accession | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| pro-accession group | anti-accession group | "postpone accession" group | "no opinion" group | |
| Number of organisations in the group | 27 | 7 | 5 | 2 |
| Range of annual budget (in USD) | 300-100 000 | 300-130 000 | 7000-30 000 | 600-15 000 |
| Average annual budget (in USD) | 77 000 | 33 000 | 18 000 | 7800 |
| Average number of members | 380 | 150 | 73 | 26 |
| Number of organisations active on local level | 5 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| Number of organisations active on regional level | 9 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Number of organisations active on national level | 11 | 3 | 4 | 0 |
| Number of organisations active on international level | 8 | 1 | 0 | 0 |