The Justice and Peace Commission of the Croatian Conference of Bishops, in the spirit of its fundamental spiritual, ethical and civic duties, welcomes activities and concern by the public authorities at all levels and their attempts to preserve jobs and, thereby, the dignity of those people and their families who must live from their work. In this respect, the Commission feels a moral duty and responsibility to express its strong reservations and grounded suspicions to the Croatian public regarding the time and manner, as well as the subjects and procedures provided in the proposed Strategic Investment Projects Act of the Republic of Croatia (SIPARC).

Former governments sold off a large part of the public assets and companies in areas of vital significance to the continued development of our country, especially in the monetary, energy and telecommunications areas. The funds received from these sales were not spent on fixed assets—e.g., schools, hospitals, public service networks or facilities—but instead on current expenditures. Therefore, Croatian governments were left with increasingly diminishing funds for “governing” to benefit the citizens and influence economic, financial, monetary and social areas. The Republic and public affairs (res publica) are of common concern to all the citizens and all generations. Croatia was left with very few public assets, including natural resources (sea and water, forests and land) as well as those vital works of human hands built by previous generations (highway/road networks, railways, information transfer, harbor traffic and various pipelines…) which, on the one hand. should guarantee the right to universal natural resources and, on the other, sustainable development for this and future generations. All Croatian citizens must have the right to discuss, propose and make sovereign decisions regarding these remaining assets, these rare niches, comparative advantages and development opportunities for the Republic of Croatia. On several occasions, our Commission has expressed its Christian and civic attitude, according to the social doctrine of the Church, which represents one of the best ethical, human, civil, social and ecological contributions by Christians to our common world. Let us not forget that the social doctrine and numerous social encyclicals from recent Popes, as well as the Pontifical Justice and Peace Commission and many national commissions of the same name, have cautioned against the danger of selling off land and water, especially in impoverished Africa and Asia, where the speculative capital of the world powers buys up or leases millions of hectares of land and sources of drinking water.

1. Time and Deadlines. The draft proposal of the SIPARC was published a week ago, i.e., on January 15, with less than ten days allotted for citizens and associations to exercise their right to comment on it. This deadline is all the more inappropriate because the subject of the law is not merely investment in new or existing production and service activities but the possible selling off of nearly all the remaining natural resources, fixed cultural goods and other public assets. This Commission considers that such an important text, which permits the denationalization and privatization of the little remaining public property, on the one hand should not see the light of day during a time of vacations and bad weather, and on the other, that it is impermissible to seek a “fast-track procedure” for such a landmark and actually fateful decision, for which citizens and associations—as well as scientists and experts—have less than a week left for discussion. Therefore, the Commission proposes that the deadlines should be revised and the proposed SIPARC should be presented to the public via television, radio and other media. The Government and public institutions should be given a period of at least a month, after which there should be at least as much time for public discussion, commentary and suggestions. Moreover, such important questions, which not only encroach upon the rights of all living citizens but also future generations—should not exclude a referendum, which would be conducted and binding upon this government and all future governments.

2. The Subject and Procedure of the Proposed SIPARC. This draft legislation relates to investment in new and existing facilities, properties and public infrastructures, and in concessions, both new and existing, of more than 150 million HRK, i.e., approximately 20 million euros. These are “large investments,” which, in our circumstances only apply to major investors. However, since this bill for the first time encroaches on the sensitive area of fixed public and natural resources and allows the selling off of “properties” owned by the Republic of Croatia—forests and forest land, agricultural land, public roads, public water resources and fixed cultural assets,” actually all the assets that the Republic of Croatia has at its disposal—including marine resources and concessions for other goods and networks, mostly transport networks—it is necessary to ask Croatian citizens whether they agree to such a permanent alienation of nearly all the last major public riches, of which the natural resources are part of the universal goods of Croatian citizens and humankind. Until now, all laws, even those from the period of the former and not at all democratic state, prevented this. Naturally, this is not, a priori, an argument to continue in this way. However, it should be admitted that such an attitude, nevertheless, expressed respect for the common, general and universal [good]. For some of the aforementioned resources, it is possible to envision and implement concession use and rights but first of all it is necessary to reach a national consensus on questions concerning which national resources must not be alienated and which can be used on a concession basis without, thereby, jeopardizing their lasting value. It is not sufficient to arrive at a national consensus in the body of representatives serving four-year terms but it should be confirmed by a binding declaration of the citizens, which ought to be explained well, honestly and thoroughly.

It would be useful to know and, therefore, ask the proponents of the SIPARC whether they have conducted market research on who in Croatia would be able to invest more than 20 million euros and has not done so until now because, actually, there were many obstacles and delays regarding various permits. Are there such investors in Croatia or are only foreign investors expected? The proposed SIPARC often mentions “protection of resources,” so the question arises (which a citizen should legitimately be able to ask and have answered) whether the proponents have measured the risk and what kind of protection do they envision regarding possible speculative financial investments of unbridled financial, real and virtual (derivative) capital without a country in the proposed and now unprotected public resources and areas of activities in the Republic of Croatia?

The provisions of the draft of the SIPARC on the approval process for these investments, purchases and concessions leave no doubt that thorough scrutiny and discussion are needed. According to this draft legislation, the procedure first of all need not always be an open and fair competition but can also be a direct award—which is contrary to Croatian and European principles and norms. Moreover, the accelerated procedure favors large investors, which means that small investors and concessionaires must endure a slow procedure and bureaucratic delays, while “large players,” domestic and foreign, are entitled to a rapid procedure. Such provisions not only introduce a discriminatory principle—quick and simple for the rich—but also increase the possibility of arbitrary decisions by the executive authorities and, at the same time, reduce the possibility for verifying and assuring legality.

It is not necessary to explain further that this proposed SIPARC cries out for the most extensive possible public debate. However, three additional questions arise. First, it is anticipated that the SIPARC would go into force on the day of its publication and all the public authorities would be required to propose strategic projects from their areas of competence in the following 30 days, so it is a question which and what kind of public administration would be able to implement the anticipated accelerated and summary procedure for the “big players” to purchase, among other things, heretofore protected public resources, so that prior to that, on the one hand, numerous laws would have to be amended, and on the other, new, effective public administration would have to be trained. Second, whose right is it and why would local communities be excluded from deciding about the areas and activities that directly concern them? Finally, is there not the obvious danger of the exclusion and permanent expropriation of all the citizens and all the generations?
We hope that these remarks provide more than sufficient reasons to determine a reasonable time in which it would be possible to inform experts who were not involved in preparing the draft legislation as well as all the relevant institutions and citizens at various levels.

In Zagreb, January 22, 2013
Msgr. Vlado Košić, Ph.D., President of the Justice and Peace Commission of the CCB
This statement is fully supported by Matica hrvatska and cosigned by its President, Prof. Igor Zidić.