For years, one of the main environmental problems in Montenegro - pollution in Pljevlje, might have been solved a long time ago if the Government had not prevented the establishment of an eco-fund for years and had an extremely rigid relationship in the public procurement system when it comes to incident situations in the area of the environment and human health. .
Two failed tenders for the procurement of briquettes and pellets in Pljevlje, which would have reduced air pollution by up to 50 percent, is an excellent example of how bureaucracy and rigid regulations can prevent the solution of a burning problem. Only after pressure from the public and other state institutions, the Municipality was allowed to negotiate that job in a direct bargain, and only in December, when the burning season was well advanced.
"Even when Milorad Katnić was the Minister of Finance, we sent an opinion that emergency purchases are being considered at three levels, without conducting a tender: when it comes to environmental accidents where a quick reaction must be made to prevent pollution, in the case of emergency medical purchases and in in the case of emergency situations, such as fires or fires. Then it was refused and I consider it unacceptable," said State Secretary of the Ministry of Sustainable Development and Tourism Daliborka Pejović.
She also believes that the existence of an eco-fund would provide sources of financing on the basis of which it would be possible to react quickly.
Loudly announced back in 2004, the fund was never established. That year, a working group was formed for the creation of an eco-fund, which did the initial analysis of environmental protection financing. They then established that one of the basic principles of the Environmental Protection Act, "the polluter pays", is not being applied, and that the state is losing tens of millions of euros as a result.
Even the Draft Law on the Eco-Fund was drafted, which envisages that its role will be the financing of programs, projects and other activities that contribute to the improvement and protection of the environment, the reduction of risks to people's lives and health, the rational use of goods and energy, as basic conditions sustainable development and realization of citizens' rights to a healthy environment.
According to that draft law, the fund would be financed from fees for emissions into the air, for products whose use or disposal at the end of their useful life have negative effects on the environment, such as fees for motor fuels, fees for ozone-depleting substances, for packaging - plastic bags, depositing hazardous waste, pollution from motor vehicles, fines collected under the Environmental Law, foreign and domestic donations and loans, financial operations of the fund, funds received based on the repayment of loans given by the Fund, funds obtained from privatization intended for protection environment and compensation for investments.
"The Eco-Fund was advocated at the same time when the Environmental Protection Agency was established. However, the Agency was established and started working, and then the Government's ban on the establishment of new institutions, i.e. on new employment, came into force. That's why it never a justification study was not even done," said Pejović.
In addition, the Ministry of Finance did not accept the initiative, because it believed that this would collapse the concept and that any sectoral policy would require the original proceeds to be returned to them.
"However, in the new Law on the Environment, appreciating that without this type of instrument we will not be able to solve all problems quickly and efficiently, we still left the fund in the Law as an idea. And in the Parliamentary Resolution on the Environment, it is imperatively requested that must form a fund," said Pejović.
She also stated that the EU accession strategy in the area of the environment envisages the establishment of an eco-fund in the economic instruments for improving the conditions and state of the environment, and that this will be one of the EU's requirements.
"It is not good to act according to the "put out the fire" system. If we had an eco-fund, we could say: this year we are giving away everything to Pljevlja and it would be easier to solve the problem. We now need 30 million for Pljevlja, and if we had it right now, we should it will take us two to three years to spend them," said Pejović.
Pejović: We don't have anyone who would urgently prevent pollution
Pejović believes that Montenegro is doomed to a situation where, when large-scale pollution occurs, more damage is done than if there was someone who could be called upon to react urgently to prevent pollution.
"In order to avoid this, in Montenegro we should have competent institutions with which the state should sign a decision on granting or transferring public powers to them, provided that these institutions have trained personnel so specialized that they can act in emergency situations when that happens. There is no such licensed house. We were thinking of giving the job to Hemosan from Bar, but they can only work in a small number of cases of environmental accidents such as stains in the sea or waste".
Bonus video:
