dg env-ngo dialogue group - rec...

DG ENV-NGO Dialogue GroupSummary of the Seventh Meeting

THE REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CENTERfor Central and Eastern Europe

About the REC

The Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe (REC) is anon-partisan, non-advocacy, not-for-profit organisation with a mission to assist insolving environmental problems in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). The Centerfulfils this mission by encouraging cooperation among non-governmental organi-sations, governments, businesses and other environmental stakeholders, by sup-porting the free exchange of information and by promoting public participation inenvironmental decision-making.

The REC was established in 1990 by the United States, the European Commissionand Hungary. Today, the REC is legally based on a Charter signed by the governmentsof 27 countries and the European Commission, and on an International Agreement withthe Government of Hungary. The REC has its headquarters in Szentendre, Hungary, andlocal offices in each of its 15 beneficiary CEE countries which are: Albania, Bosnia andHerzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania,FYR Macedonia, Poland, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia and Slovenia.

Recent donors are the European Commission and the governments of Albania,Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech Republic,Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, theNetherlands, Poland, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, theUnited Kingdom and the United States, as well as other inter-governmental and private institutions.

The entire contents of this publication are copyright©2003 The Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe

No part of this publication may be sold in any form or reproduced for salewithout prior written permission of the copyright holder

ISBN: 963 9424 25 0

Published by:The Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe

Ady Endre ut 9-11, 2000 Szentendre, HungaryTel: (36-26) 504-000, Fax: (36-26) 311-294,

E-mail: [email protected], Website: http://www.rec.org/

Editing: Steven Graning, Design: Patricia Barna and Sylvia Magyar, Photography: Robert Atkinson

Printed in Hungary by TypoNova

This and all REC publications are printed on recycled paper or paper produced without the use of chlorine or chlorine-based chemicals.

Brussels, BelgiumNOVEMBER 17-19, 2002

Prepared by the NGO Support Programme,

The Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe

Supported by the European Commission Directorate-General Environment

THE REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CENTERfor Central and Eastern Europe

DG ENV-NGO Dialogue GroupSummary of the Seventh Meeting

D G E N V- N G O D I A L O G U E G R O U P 3

TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S

Introduction 5

Summary of the Sessions

Outcomes of the World Summit on Sustainable Development 9

Environmental Enlargement Process and Cooperation in the Balkans 11

Speech by Commissioner Wallström 17

Natura 2000: State of Affairs and the Challenge of Enlargement 23

Structural and Cohesion Funds 25

European Commission’s Response to the NGO Position Paper 33

Conclusion and Future of the Dialogue Process 43

Annexes

Annex I: NGO Position Paper on Structural and Cohesion Funds 49

Annex II: Agenda 55

Annex III: List of Participants 59

D G E N V- N G O D I A L O G U E G R O U P4

AC R O N Y M S A N D A B B R E V I AT I O N S

CAP Common Agricultural Policy

CARDS Community Assistance for Reconstruction, Democratisation and Stabilisation

CC Candidate Country

CEE Central and Eastern Europe

DG ELARG European Commission Directorate-General Enlargement

DG ENV European Commission Directorate-General Environment

DG REGIO European Commission Directorate-General Regional Policy

EAP Environmental Action Programme

EC European Commission

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EIB European Investment Bank

EU European Union

GMO Genetically modified organism

IPPC Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control

ISPA Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-accession

NGO Non-governmental organisation

OLAF European Commission European Anti-fraud Office

REC The Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe

REReP Regional Environmental Reconstruction Programme for South Eastern Europe

SAA Stabilisation and Accession Agreement

SAPARD Special Accession Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development

SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment

SEE South Eastern Europe

SOP Sectoral Operational Programme

TA Technical Assistance

TAIEX Technical Assistance Information Exchange

The DG ENV-NGO DialogueIn 1999 a dialogue on the environmental enlargement process and the overall

European Union environmental policy was initiated between DG Environment and environmental NGOs from candidate and Balkan countries and the EU. The RegionalEnvironmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe (REC) has facilitated the Dialogueprocess from its beginning.

Seven dialogue meetings and five preparatory NGO seminars have taken place in thethree years since the DG ENV-NGO Dialogue started. More than 60 organisations from13 accession countries and the Balkans as well as member states have been involved inthe process and have brought in their input and experience.

The main goals of this dialogue are to:

• provide current information and help NGOs from candidate and Balkan countries toimprove their understanding of EU environmental policy and the enlargementprocess;

• enable a platform for discussion and exchange of opinions between Commission offi-cials and NGOs; and

• foster cooperation among environmental NGOs and improve their position in front oftheir own country governments.

The Dialogue represents one answer to the need for increased public debate andaccess to information about the accession process — particularly EU environmental pol-icy developments. It has allowed discussions and debates over these key issues, andNGOs have had unique opportunities to voice their opinions directly to policy developers.

Among the specific key issues discussed have been the pre-accession funding instru-ments (Phare, ISPA and SAPARD), the 6th Environmental Action Plan, ratification of theAarhus Convention, the European Parliament’s view on enlargement and environment,Structural and Cohesion Funds assistance, the Regional Environmental ReconstructionProgramme for South Eastern Europe, etc. The NGOs have stated that through thisprocess they had received answers to specific questions, understood better the prioritiesof the EU policy, and exercised pressure on and changed the attitude of the Commissiontowards them.

I N T R O D U C T I O N


Introduction

Dialogue Meeting SevenThis publication contains the main presentations and discussions from the seventh

Dialogue meeting, held on November 17-19, 2002 in Brussels. The main feature of thesession was a focus on the future of the Structural and Cohesion Funds in the accessioncountries. In early October the Dialogue NGOs had met in Szentendre, Hungary to prepare for the Dialogue meeting. At that preparatory seminar they prepared several discussion points in the form of a paper to be used and presented at the November meeting. In this publication the response from the Environment Commissioner to thesepoints can be found along with other discussions and points on the planning of the Structural and Cohesion Funds. Other elements of the session looked at the outcomes ofthe Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development, Natura 2000 and the current status of the accession process.

More information on this and other Dialogue Meetings can be found on the REC’sNGO Support Programme webpages under Networking at <www.rec.org>.

Cerasela StancuProject Manager

NGO Support Programme

I N T R O D U C T I O N


The long awaited follow-up to the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, the WorldSummit on Sustainable Development took place in Johannesburg, South Africa fromAugust 26 to September 4, 2002. The (WSSD) European Commission invited the NGODialogue group to choose a representative for the European Civil Society and PrivateSector Steering Group, which provided input for defining the EU position for the event.

The NGO Dialogue group met at the REC’s head office in Szentendre, Hungary onMarch 10, 2002, to prepare its input into the Steering Group as well as to decide whowould represent them at its monthly meetings. Richard Filcak from Initiative-Develop-ment Alternatives Slovakia was chosen as the representative. The group’s main messagesto the Steering Group can be seen in Box 1.

During the first meeting of the European Civil Society and Private Sector Steering Group,the following three sets of issues were identified as most relevant for the World Summit:

• tackling poverty — community-based development,sensitive to the natural environment dependency ofthe local community;

• changing consumption and production patterns andsustainable management and conservation of naturalresources; and

• strengthening governance — good governance (atinternational, national, regional and local levels) is apre-condition for sustainable development.

During the Seventh Dialogue Meeting, Jos Delbeke, Head of DG-Environment’s WSSD TaskForce, related the main outcomes and achievementsof the Summit to the Dialogue members:

At the Summit, the EU worked hard for an ambitious,action-oriented outcome with clear and measurable objec-tives, directed at achieving the Millennium DevelopmentGoals. The Implementation Plan and the Political Declara-tion that were developed in Johannesburg, together withthe Doha Development Agenda and the Monterey Con-sensus, have shaped a global partnership for sustainabledevelopment. This partnership includes commitments toincreased development assistance and market access for

S U M M A RY O F T H E S E S S I O N S : O U T C O M E S O F T H E W O R L D S U M M I T F O R S U S TA I N A B L E D E V E L O P M E N T



Outcomes of the World Summit on Sustainable Development

JOS DELBEKEDG Environment

developing countries, good governance and better protection of the environment. Box 2below gives some specific commitments and outcomes from the Summit.

The EU is now focusing its attention on implementing the targets and actions set outin Johannesburg. It has pledged to continue to take the lead in the follow-up process bytranslating its political ambitions into concrete actions. Water and energy are two keyareas for material action, with further progress on the EU initiatives, the promotion of theCoalition of Like-Minded counties on renewable energy, and the development of the 10-year programme framework on sustainable consumption and production. Otheractions will be taken in the field of poverty eradication, agriculture and rural development, fisheries, forest management, chemicals, globalisation and trade. For moreinformation on the EU and the World Summit on Sustainable Development, visit<europa.eu.int/comm/environment/wssd>.

S U M M A RY O F T H E S E S S I O N S : O U T C O M E S O F T H E W O R L D S U M M I T F O R S U S TA I N A B L E D E V E L O P M E N T


BOX 2

• A number of new targets were set, including halving the num-ber of people who lack access to basic sanitation by 2015, andminimising the harm to human health and the environmentfrom the production and use of all chemicals by 2020.

• A commitment was made to reduce the loss of biodiversitysignificantly by 2010.

• There was a recommitment to begin the implementation ofnational strategies on sustainable development by 2005.

• A commitment was made to halt the decline of fish stocksand restore them to sustainable levels no later than 2015.

• There was an agreement to increase urgently and substantially the global share of renewable energy sources. In addition, the EU has launched a coalition of governmentswho are willing to set themselves targets and timeframes forthe increase of renewables in the energy mix.

• There was an agreement, based on the EU proposal, for thedevelopment of a 10-year framework for programmes on sus-tainable consumption and production. Industrialised coun-tries have agreed to take the lead in this global effort to cor-rect current unsustainable patterns and help developingcountries put in place policies and tools to this end.

• On globalisation, concrete actions were agreed upon toenhance the role of trade for sustainable development, forexample by encouraging trade in environmentally friendlyand organic products from developing countries and bystrengthening international action for corporate responsibility.

World Summit on Sustainable Development Commitments and Outcomes

BOX 1

• Clear environmental responsibilities must be set for the private sector.

• The EU should stress the use of environmental impact assess-ment as an educational tool. Adults need to be taught thatthey have a choice between the environment and profits.

• Unsustainable consumption patterns are emerging in Centraland Eastern Europe that are clearly linked to economicgrowth. It should be a priority to decouple these factors.

• There has been an increasing disparity between rich and poorin candidate countries and the Balkan region in the past 10years. It should not be forgotten that poverty issues are asimportant in transition countries as in developing nations.

• The Johannesburg summit should produce measurable,attainable and implementable targets.

NGO Dialogue group’s main messages to the Steering Group

The following is a summary of the speech delivered by Deputy Director General Jean-Francois Verstrynge, who addressed a number of current items including the state of EUenlargement, progress in environmental legislation, administrative capacity, accessionpriorities, the process of Stabilisation and Association, and the prospects for futurecooperation between the EU and regional NGOs.

Enlargement Progress in Negotiations – November 2002

As far as the 10 accession countries are concerned nearly all negotiation issues on theenvironment chapter have been settled. The only significant outstanding matter is thenew (2001) Large Combustion Plants directive, where negotiations are still ongoing withPoland, the Czech Republic and Lithuania. This directive requires important investmentsto upgrade a large number of power plants to meet air pollution targets. Limited transi-tion periods can therefore be negotiated.

Negotiations are still ongoing with Bulgaria and Romania, both of which need to pre-pare detailed justifications and implementation plans for the transition periods that theyhave requested. Technical consultations are planned over the next year. An updatedroadmap, and a revised and enhanced pre-accession strategy should be adopted at theforthcoming Copenhagen summit in December for these countries. The Commissionconsiders that as of the date of the first accessions, the financial assistance to Bulgaria andRomania should increase according to their progress in implementing the roadmaps andtheir absorption capacity.

Progress in Legislation The regular reports have generally been positive for the environment: important

progress in nearly all countries has been made in adopting legislation. For the 12 nego-tiating countries, more than 70 percent of the environmental acquis have been adopted.

The percentage is even higher if only the 10 front-runners are considered. By the endof 2002, nearly all should be on the statute books for these countries.

Romania and Bulgaria have also been busy adopting a lot of legislation. Turkey hasmade some progress on the legislative side — environmental impact assessment (EIA)and nature protection — and also strengthened its administration for inspection andprovincial government.

S U M M A RY O F T H E S E S S I O N S : E N V I R O N M E N TA L E N L A R G E M E N T P R O C E S S A N D C O O P E R AT I O N I N T H E B A L K A N S



Environmental Enlargement Process andCooperation in the Balkans

Ten candidate countries have ratified the Kyoto protocol: Bulgaria, Cyprus, the CzechRepublic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Malta, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. Lithuania hasnot ratified it yet. Poland has completed the internal process but has not deposited theinstruments of ratification in New York. Turkey is only an observer to the protocol.

Peer Review Assessments of Administrative CapacityPeer reviews have been conducted in all 10 accession countries. Similar visits are

planned to Bulgaria and Romania in the coming year.Several main weaknesses have been identified, mainly related to integrated pollution

prevention and control (IPPC) and waste management, but there have also been encour-aging developments.

IPPC permittingNearly all countries are behind schedule and have lower levels of administration that

are generally ill equipped for the tasks they have been given. Integrated permitting isoften a new concept requiring close cooperation between departments.

WasteAgain, regional and local authorities often have a key role to play, but both they and

the central authorities are understaffed. It has also been identified that hazardous wasteproblems are underestimated. Also, some countries have delays in preparing wasteplans. In conclusion, waste management needs to be given higher political priority.

Encouraging progressSeveral positive developments have also been noted. For example, improvements

have been seen in air quality management, where most countries have allocated signifi-cant resources over a relatively long period of time.

Progress has also been made in strengthening administrative capacity, particularly inthe 10 accession countries. Increases in staff in environment ministries have been madeor are planned in all countries. Responsibilities of environment ministries are generallybetter defined. However, there is still a long way to go in this area, as shown in the resultsof the peer reviews carried out this spring and summer.

ConclusionSignificant reinforcement is necessary in the fields of industrial pollution control and

waste management, particularly for local and regional administrations. The Commissionhas acknowledged this fact in its recently published strategy paper by including the envi-ronment among the limited number of policy areas (six in total)1 to be given priority bythe envisaged Transition Facility on Institution Building.

Priorities up to AccessionTechnical assistance for administrative strengthening will continue until accession and

beyond through the new transitional, institution-building instrument that the Commis-sion has proposed, which includes the environment.



In addition, the Commission will continue to monitor commitments closely. Anydelays will be pointed out to the countries at an early stage. A comprehensive monitoring report looking at the progress made in implementing the commitments willbe issued six months before accession.

In 2003, preparations for the implementation of the Structural and Cohesion Funds following accession will be stepped up. The assistance available for environmentalinvestments in the new member states is likely to increase substantially (possibly a three-fold increase) compared to the pre-accession period (currently EUR 500 million from theInstrument for Structural Policies for Pre-accession [ISPA] and around EUR 100-120 million from Phare and the Special Accession Programme for Agriculture and RuralDevelopment [SAPARD] combined). Absorption of these funds is a matter of concern dueto weak programming and project preparation capacity in the field of environment.

Stabilisation and Association Process in the Balkans Political framework

The European Union’s policy towards the countries of South Eastern Europe is the Stabilisation and Association process, which covers:

• Albania;

• Bosnia and Herzegovina;

• Croatia;

• Yugoslavia; and

• FYR Macedonia.

The cornerstone of the policy is the Stabilisation andAssociation Agreements (SAAs), which form the legal basisfor dealings with each individual country. These agree-ments oblige each country to cooperate on a regional basis.

The Stabilisation and Association process is the EU’scontribution to the Stability Pact for South Eastern Europethat involves a wide range of countries and internationalfinancial institutions. The Stability Pact and the Stabilisa-tion and Association process are often confused. It isimportant to understand that the two are different.

Finance from the EU to support the Stabilisation andAssociation process is provided through the CommunityAssistance for Reconstruction, Democratisation and Stabil-isation (CARDS) financial regulation. From this source, theCommission will finance the main reconstruction efforts inthe region.

Political developments Stabilisation and Association agreements have been

negotiated with FYR Macedonia and Croatia. In October2002 the External Affairs Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations for an SAA with Albania.



JEAN-FRANCOIS VERSTRYNGEDeputy Director General DG Enironment

This decision recognises the progress that Albania has made over recent years in imple-menting reforms. Albania will be required to take measures concurrently to build up itscapacity to implement the agreement. Therefore, further progress depends on the Alban-ian government continuing the process of reform.

The environment is a key component of this process. This is reflected in the SAAs thathave already been signed. More than EUR 100 million in technical assistance for theBalkans has been secured for the period 2002-2004, which includes a regional compo-nent of EUR 8 million. The details still need to be finalised. The assistance will be usedto build administrative capacity, to support the reinforcement of civil society and toreduce or remove many of the current environmental threats to health.

Assistance is also used to promote regional cooperation. The first two years of theRegional Environmental Reconstruction Programme for South Eastern Europe (REReP)have been financed. Funding has been secured for the next two years, but will dependon successful output from the first two years.

The network of environmental enforcement agencies that was set up under RERePwill be continued, which will bring it closer to its EU equivalent, the European UnionNetwork for the Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law (IMPEL).

Supporting the aim of bringing the countries of South Eastern Europe closer to thestructures of the EU, it continues to support the participation of these countries in theactivities of the European Environment Agency. Although membership may be someway off, the aim is to develop closer ties between the Agency and the Balkans.

Regional environmental supportThree other ways of supporting environmental protection in the region have been

identified. First, there is an action programme supporting European environmental NGOs.Second, on a much smaller level, but under the umbrella of REReP, there is a project

to support the South Eastern European NGO network from the DG Environment budget.The aim of the initiative is to link a number of national NGOs across the region to helpaddress their common problems by adopting a common front.

Third, regional environmental support is provided through the LIFE-Third Countriesprogramme. Although only Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia are eligible,this programme nevertheless provides a useful source of assistance. As an example, inthe 2002 exercise, five of the 16 projects selected are from the Balkan region, and thiswill provide an extra EUR 2 million of assistance in the field of environment — a smallbut valuable contribution to environmental protection.

Future of the Dialogue and Cooperation with NGOsAs in previous years, the NGO group will be invited to the Green Week event in

Brussels on June 2-6, 2003. Apart from this event, there will be a final meeting for thegroup before the first wave of enlargement takes place in 2004. This meeting is plannedfor the end of 2003. However, this will not be the end of DG Environment’s cooperationwith the NGO group. Rather it will evolve and take on different forms.

At previous meetings we have discussed the NGOs’ wish to receive assistance for capac-ity building and to be able to participate in twinning projects, such as activities with NGOsfrom the member states. DG Environment is currently investigating the possibility of sup-



More than EUR 100 million

in technical assistance for

the Balkans has been secured

for the period 2002-2004

porting such projects involving all candidate countries through the pre-accession instru-ments, in particular Phare. If we are successful this project will be launched in late 2003.

The objective of this project would be to increase NGOs’ administrative capacity byhaving organisations from member states share their experiences with them. This willhelp the NGOs in many ways.

First, it will help the NGOs access a wider range of financial sources. It will improvetheir capacity to manage projects and, therefore, allow them to participate in other European Community programmes, such as LIFE and Activity Funding for NGOs.

Second, it will help them to improve communication with the public and industry, andto collaborate better with environmental authorities.

Third, it will help NGOs make effective contributions to the implementation of EUenvironmental acquis. Those NGOs coming from countries joining the EU in 2004 will behelped into the loop of activities for member state NGOs.

After accession, there will be new possibilities for NGOs from the new memberstates. NGOs can participate in a number of different expert groups and advisory com-mittees organised by DG Environment. DG Environment is organising these meetings toprovide NGOs with experience and to allow stakeholders to participate in the policy-shaping process.



MAGDA STOCZKIEWICZ,CEE Bankwatch Network andFriends of the Earth, Netherlands

NGOs from member states also participate in ad hoc meetings with DG Environmentto find opportunities for synergistic cooperation in, for example, planned informationand awareness campaigns. There is no reason why future meetings of this kind couldnot also involve participants from NGOs in candidate and Balkan countries — evenbefore accession!

For example, all members of the NGO group are already invited to participate inpreparations for the Green Week. This could be done by proposing seminars, events oractions for the Green Week conference or exhibition here in Brussels, or through launching a European Green Day locally.

For those organisations that are selected for funding under the NGO Action Programme, multilateral meetings are held with Commissioner Wallstrom. The ambitionis to hold such sessions twice a year. The meetings could touch upon anything from EUpolicies, programmes and initiatives, to NGO relations and funding. As with the NGODialogue, NGOs propose the agenda for these meetings.

Conclusion 2003 will again be a very busy year on the enlargement front, as well as for envi-

ronmental cooperation with the wider Europe. NGOs can all make a contribution toensure success:

• Accession countries must show that they are making progress in implementing thecommitments to which they have agreed.

• Preparations for the Structural Funds must be given very serious attention.

• A new impetus has been given to cooperation with the remaining candidate countriesincluding increased financial assistance for the environment.

• The future of pan-European environmental cooperation will be decided in Kiev inMay. This will also influence the Balkan cooperation agenda.

It is also necessary to begin reflecting on how to pursue NGO cooperation after the2004 wave of accession. I have presented the outline of a few ideas, which we could alsodiscuss.

Thank you for your attention.



2003 will again be a very busy

year on theenlargement front,

as well as for environmental

cooperation withthe wider Europe.

S U M M A RY O F T H E S E S S I O N S : S P E E C H B Y T H E C O M M I S S I O N E R


EU Environment Commissioner Margot Wallström is an active participant in and pro-ponent of the DG ENV-NGO Dialogue meetings. In 2002 she spoke about sustainabledevelopment, climate change and enlargement, along with other relevant environmentalmatters. She also reminded NGOs of the possibilities for funding under the Commission’sNGO programme. The following is the text of that speech.

Ladies and Gentlemen,First of all a warm welcome to Brussels for the seventh NGO Dialogue meeting. You

have a full programme and will have the opportunity to discuss both European and global issues in detail today and tomorrow. I would liketo take this opportunity to share my views with you onsome of the key environmental issues and events whichhave taken place since the last time we met. First, I wouldlike to share my views on the outcome of the World Summit in Johannesburg. And then I want to take sometime and reflect on what we have achieved so far in thecurrent enlargement process and what we can expect,post-accession.

I understand that you are particularly interested in theuse of Structural and Cohesion Funds. NGOs play animportant role in this context and I am interested to hearyour views.

Johannesburg/Sustainable Development I believe that we can be satisfied with the result of

Johannesburg. We renewed our global commitment tosustainable development. The results of the World Summit, together with the Doha Development Agenda(trade) and the Monterrey Consensus (financing fordevelopment), have shaped a global partnership. This isa partnership that commits us to increase aid and facili-tate trade for developing countries, to improve gover-nance and to work towards better protection of the environment.

Our challenge now is to convert all the positive ener-gy generated at Johannesburg into concrete, results-


Speech by Commissioner Margot Wallström

MARGOT WALLSTRÖM,Commissioner for Environ-ment, ANDRAS KROLOPP,CEEWEB, HungaryPAVLA JINDROVA,Centre for Community Organising, Czech Republic(right to left)



oriented action. The European Union intends to continue taking the lead in the follow-up. The Spring European Council next March will look at how we have started to imple-ment commitments made at the Summit.

Key areas for EU action are water and energy and the development of the 10-yearframework of programmes on sustainable consumption and production. Other actionswill be taken in the field of poverty eradication, agriculture and rural development, fish-eries, forest management, chemicals, globalisation and trade.

Climate ChangeThe World Summit in Johannesburg gave a push to efforts on climate change and the

Kyoto protocol. I was very pleased that parties to the protocol once again committedthemselves to its ratification and entry into force at the earliest possible date and urgedothers to join as soon as possible. We have to act quickly. The rise in average tempera-tures accompanied by extreme weather events — desertification and soil degradation onthe one hand, storms and heavy rainfalls accompanied by flooding on the other — hasnow become a more frequent feature of our lives. The recent floods in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia and Germany have shown that we cannot continue to pre-tend that these are single, unrelated events that we remedy and then forget about.

Flooding in the Czech Republic I went to the Czech Republic together with Romano Prodi during the flooding. The

damage we saw in Prague was disastrous and the costs will be substantial. Luckily theimpact on the environment has been limited, with no significant toxic impacts on theElbe River.

We need to be better placed to respond to this type of disaster in the future. Every daywe are confronted with an increasing number of natural disasters with a higher numberof victims and economic losses. At a proposal of the Commission, the Council has adopted a Solidarity Fund of EUR 1 billion to benefit member states and candidate coun-tries facing natural disasters.

But we need to do more to prevent such disasters in the future. The new water framework directive will be an important tool. In addition, the Commission has startedto work on an integrated strategy on prevention, preparedness and response to naturaland technological risks. We want to better protect citizens and the environment by iden-tifying risks, raising public awareness and adopting preventive measures. This will buildon national efforts, and we will coordinate our efforts with the resources that memberstates can provide to prevent disasters.

In this context, we are launching an extensive debate that will involve experts frommember states and candidate countries, as well as representatives of civil society. A firstmeeting with experts from the member states, European Economic Area (EEA) countriesand the candidate countries will be convened in December. Only with the contributionof all the partners is it possible to achieve better results to protect the European citizensand the environment.

Again, we have to look at the global picture. Six months ago the EU ratified the Kyotoprotocol, the only multilateral instrument to effectively tackle climate change. The

Key areas for EUaction are waterand energy and

the developmentof the 10-yearframework of

programmes onsustainable

consumption andproduction.



European Commission, together with the member states, is now in the process of implementing it, which requires us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 8 percent by2012 (from 1990 levels). So far ten candidate countries have ratified the Kyoto protocoland have all worked closely together with the EU during its negotiations.

Our recent assessment, however, shows that without additional measures we will failto reach our target. Therefore, the European Commission has set up the European Cli-mate Change Programme (ECCP). It provides the basis for policy measures that the Com-mission has already put forward and will continue to do so in the future.

And last but not least we need to look at measures that help reduce greenhouse gasemissions in a cost-effective way. A proposal for an EU-wide emissions trading schemeis now under discussion in the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. Theadoption of such an instrument could reduce the costs of implementing the Kyoto pro-tocol in the European Union by more than 30 percent.

Enlargement Let us now turn to the recent happenings at the European level. As you probably have

followed in the press, the way is now open for 10 candidate countries to join the Unionin 2004. At the Brussels EU Council, the financing issues related to enlargement have alsobeen agreed upon. The next step will be at the European Summit in Copenhagen onDecember 12-13, 2002, when negotiations should be concluded.

JON PARKER, DG Environment,MARGOT WALLSTRÖM,Commissioner for Environment, ANDRAS KROLOPP,CEEWEB, HungaryPAVLA JINDROVA,Centre for Community Organising, Czech Republic(right to left)



The journey has at times been rocky, but looking back, a lot has been achieved sincethe accession negotiations on environment were launched. At the start of the negotiations,many feared that the environment would be one of the most difficult areas for many rea-sons — the sheer amount of legislation (around 270 laws), the costs and the time factor. Ina relatively short period the candidate countries have had to pass hundreds of laws throughtheir national legislatures and foresee necessary investments — not only in infrastructurebut in their administrations to guarantee the implementation of laws.

All of the 10 accession countries have now provisionally closed the environmentchapter. We have granted some transitional periods, mainly for the directives requiringheavy investment, such as wastewater, water and industrial pollution. But in doing so,we have made sure that there are implementation plans with timetables, intermediatemilestones and financing plans in place to ensure that the laws are indeed implemented.Negotiations on new legislation are settled with most countries, except for the new 2001 Large Combustion Plants Directive with the Czech Republic, Poland and Lithuania.This directive requires important investments to upgrade a large number of power plantsto meet air pollution targets. Limited transition periods can, therefore, be negotiated.With Bulgaria and Romania, negotiations on environment are ongoing.

The recently published Regular Reports reflect the important progress in nearly all

MARGOT WALLSTRÖM,Commissioner for Environ-ment, ANDRAS KROLOPP,

CEEWEB, HungaryPAULA JINDROVA,

Centre for Community Organising, Czech Republic

(right to left)



countries on legislation adopted. For the 12 negotiating countries more than 70 percentof all environmental laws have been adopted. By the end of 2002 nearly all should be onthe statute books in the accession countries. However, the Regular Reports also empha-sise the need to strengthen administrative capacity to overcome bottlenecks in effectiveimplementation. As we all know a legal act is only as good as its implementation.

Visit to Hungary In order to get a picture myself on what is going on in the countries, I recently went to

Hungary. From what I saw, I can confirm the positive findings of the Regular Report. Somechallenges remain, however, including further strengthening of the administration, mod-ernising the waste management system, meeting water standards and improving air quality.

As in Hungary, the main focus in all candidate countries should be on implementationand strengthening administrative capacity. There is still a long way to go and significantreinforcement is necessary in the fields of industrial pollution control and waste man-agement, particularly regarding the local and regional administrations. This is why theCommission will continue to support institutional building on environment in the newmember states even after accession through a special transition facility.

Role of NGOsYour role as environmental watchdogs can help raise capacity by pointing out short-

comings and stimulating debates on solutions. We want to help you and strengthen yourrole in this respect through our NGO programme for the candidate countries and theBalkans. So far, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Slovakia and Sloveniahave signed a memorandum of understanding which fixes the detailed rules for partici-pation in the programme. Some Balkan countries — Croatia, FYR Macedonia andYugoslavia — have done the same.

Only a few NGOs applied for the programme in 2002. But for the 2003 call for pro-posals, the situation looks much brighter. A number of countries have already signed thenecessary agreements for participation, and more are in the pipeline. It is also reallyencouraging to see how many NGOs have demonstrated interest.

Structural FundsNow let us look forward to the financial resources available for environmental invest-

ments after accession. The good news is that there will possibly be a threefold increasefor the environment under the Cohesion and Structural Funds for new member countriesfor 2004-06.

The Structural and Cohesion Funds are essential instruments for promoting environ-mental protection and sustainable development across the European territory. By financ-ing a sustainable regional development, we can ensure that environmental protectiongoes hand in hand with economic growth and job creation.

The benefits of improving the environment in the new member states are enormous.Better air quality as a result of the requirement of EU directives could reduce the number of premature deaths due to air pollution by 15,000 cases, with 7,000 cases in


Poland alone. The cases of chronic bronchitis could fall by 43,000. Households in thenew member states will also have access to cleaner drinking water, and the level of treat-ment of wastewater will increase, in some cases by as much as 70 percent. Over 20 years,there could be a 50 percent reduction in waste volumes deposited in landfills, to a largeextent due to more recycling.

However, in order to achieve these goals I think it is essential to focus the Structuraland Cohesion Fund investments in urban wastewater, waste management and integrat-ed pollution prevention and control. We need to assist the new member states in imple-menting the environmental legislation in these particular areas, which are cost intensive,and for which most of the transition periods have been granted. These funds will there-fore become an essential instrument in helping new member states to honour the com-mitments made during the negotiations.

You have an important role to play in ensuring that the environment remains centralin the use of these funds. And now I look forward to listening to your ideas and concernson the Structural and Cohesion Funds and to a lively discussion.

Thank you for your attention.

The following text is a summary of the presentation given by DG Environment’sNicholas Hanley (Head of Unit B.2 [Nature and Biodiversity]). The Natura 2000 networkis a chief objective of the EU’s Habitats Directive. More information can be found at<europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature/natura>.

Progress of the Natura 2000 NetworkSetting up the network, which will cover about 15 percent of the EU’s territory, has

been delayed. The Commission is currently about to finalise the Alpine biogeographiclist, and others will follow during 2003 and 2004. The focus is already shifting from thesite selection exercise to site management. Many examples of good management havebeen financed through the LIFE-Nature programme.

What is Special about the Natura 2000 Network?

• It has clear objectives.

• By taking a pan-European approach to its objectives, the protection of natural areas,biodiversity and specific species does not stop at national boundaries.

• Annexes specify what is to be protected (e.g. habitats).

• It is based on the best available scientific research.

• It is focused on management and integration through human activities.

• Results are obligatory.

• Although the network imposes legal obligations, it does not replace national orregional conservation objectives.

Enlargement — a window of opportunityNatural values in the candidate countries are in general better preserved than in the

member states. However, pressures will increase with further economic development,and therefore a quick and complete implementation of Natura 2000 — from the verybeginning — can contribute to the protection of this natural richness. Enlargement is anexcellent opportunity for nature conservation.

S U M M A RY O F T H E S E S S I O N S : I M P L E M E N TAT I O N O F N AT U R A



Natura 2000: State of Affairs and the Challenge of Enlargement

What will be in the Accession treaty about Nature conservation?No transition periods will be awarded for Natura 2000 because:

• nature conservation directives are horizontal legislation and therefore need immedi-ate attention;

• capacity building and scientific research are needed, but not heavy investments; and

• legal clarity is important.

There is no doubt that there are challenges ahead. Preparatory efforts are under wayin all candidate countries, some of which are far along.

Annexes of the Habitats and Birds DirectiveTo be effective in an enlarged EU, the targets of conservation must be amended. A

transparent, scientific evaluation of proposals has recently taken place, and 20 newhabitat types and about 160 new species — including 13 new bird species — will join theAnnexes of Birds and Habitats Directive once the first 10 countries join the Union.

Three new biogeographic regions (Pannonia, Steppic and Black Sea) have been established. The integration of candidate countries into the work of the Commission —member state committees and working groups — has begun.

From now to enlargementAs a general principle, all new investment in the candidate countries must comply

with the aquis communautaire. Regarding ISPA and Phare funding: in the absence ofNatura 2000 sites, important bird areas, Ramsar sites, Emerald sites and nationally pro-tected sites shall be treated as if they were Natura 2000 sites. This approach will helpensure that areas with important species and habitats are not destroyed by new devel-opment in the lead-up to accession.

In addition, the LIFE-Nature funding programme is open to candidate countries andfive are already participating.

S U M M A RY O F T H E S E S S I O N S : R E G I O N A L U P DAT E


The main focus of the seventh Dialogue meeting was the developments of EU Struc-tural and Cohesion Funds in the accession countries. During the first and second days ofthe Dialogue a number of presentations were made by DG-ENV and DG-REGIO staff onthe subject of the transition from pre-accession funding to the Structural and CohesionFunds (see agenda in Annex II). The main points presented are summarised below.

Pre-accession Assistance Three instruments were established specifically to assist the applicant countries in

their preparations for joining the European Union: Phare, the Special Accession Pro-gramme for Agriculture and Rural Development (SAPARD) and the Instruments for Struc-tural Programmes for Pre-accession (ISPA).

Summary of PhareOriginally created to assist Poland and Hungary in 1989, the Phare programme soon

came to encompass the 10 candidate countries of Central and Eastern Europe: Bulgaria,the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia andRomania, helping them through a period of massive economic restructuring and politi-cal change. In 1993, Phare support was reoriented, including a marked expansion of sup-port to infrastructure investment.

Phare funds now focus entirely on the pre-accession priorities highlighted in eachcountry’s accession partnership. In 1999, Phare’s focus shifted with the emergence of theSAPARD and ISPA programmes. The liberated Phare funds were redirected towardsissues of economic and social cohesion.

More information about the Phare programme can be found at <europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/pas/phare/intro.htm>

Summary of ISPAThe ISPA programme was established to finance large investment projects in the sec-

tors of environment and transport. The various ISPA national programmes have beenremarkably successful. For both the environment and transport sectors, the grant rate hasbeen 65 percent, with an absorption rate of 73 percent (82 percent for transport and 63percent for environment). Figure 1 indicates the percentage of the total number of ISPAgrants that were signed in 2000-2001 for each country. For the total committed during2000-2002 per country, see Figure 2.

S U M M A RY O F T H E S E S S I O N S : S T R U C T U R A L A N D C O H E S I O N F U N D S



Structural and Cohesion Funds



FIGURE 1

Romania 25.76%

Poland 35.6%

ISPA Projects 2000-2002

Country Committed in Committed in Committed in2000-2001 2002 % 2000-2002 %

Bulgaria 210,840,800 104,570,847 9.44 315,411,647 9.81

Czech Republic 136,895,725 80,534,036 7.27 217,429,761 6,76

Estonia 58,141,384 30,362,193 2.74 88,503,577 2.75

Hungary 178,766,703 94,133,200 8.50 272,899,903 8.49

Latvia 94,806,437 46,549,344 4.20 141,355,781 4.40

Lithuania 102,707,045 61,180,398 5.52 163,887,443 5.10

Poland 713,524,501 362,785,279 32.76 1,076,309,780 33.49

Romania 484,856,979 256,553,500 23.17 741,410,479 23.07

Slovakia 90,517,420 54,135,300 4.89 144,652,720 4.50

Slovenia 35,654,575 16,645,165 1.50 52,299,740 1.63

Total 2,106,711,569 1,107,449,262 3,214,160,831

FIGURE 2

Slovakia 4.38%

Slovenia 1.14%

Bulgaria 8.88%

Czech Republic 4.35%

Estonia 2.09%

Hungary 8.56%

Latvia 5.58%

Lithuania 3.65%

Total ISPA Allocation: Projects Signed 2000-2001

Percentage per country(total ISPA grant for projects signed in 2000-2001)

In an effort to balance transport development with environmental concerns, ISPAfunds the two evenly, as seen in Figure 3. Within the environmental sector, the largestshare of funding goes toward developing sewage networks and treatment plants, whiletransport funding goes almost entirely to the separate development of railways androads. See Figures 4 and 5 for the precise percentages. For more information on ISPA,visit <europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/applicants/index_en.htm>.

Financing Post-2004 All beneficiary countries will receive more funds after the anticipated accession of 10

of the candidate countries in 2004. The Cohesion Fund will likely have eight beneficiarycountries in 2004, and the European Council agreed to EUR 23 billion for structural oper-ations. According to the ISPA Regulation, funding should also increase for those coun-tries not in the first wave of enlargement.

Successful spending under ISPA and the Cohesion Fund from 2004 to 2006 will be cru-cial to a strong negotiating position for regional assistance after 2006. See Figure 6 formore details on what to expect from the Structural and Cohesion Funds in the next fewyears. Figure 7 lists some critical and strategic issues regarding Structural Fundprogramming.



ISPA Sector Distribution 2002

Committed in 2002Country Decentralisation Environment Transport

Bulgaria 0.68 49.59 49.73

Czech Republic 29.97* 38.89 31.14

Estonia 0.29 47.14 52.58

Hungary 0.46 52.18 47.36

Latvia 0.00 33.76 66.24

Lithuania 0.12 58.21 46.66

Poland 0.09 48.91 51.00

Romania 0.19 51.30 48.51

Slovakia 2.14 53.04 44.82

Slovenia 3.36 48.27 48.37

Average 2.53 48.82 48.65

* Czech flood relief

FIGURE 3



FIGURE 5

Airport Rail Rail and road Road

2.06 50.74 0.21 46.99

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Transport 2000-2001: Percentage per susbsectorBased on total ISPA grant for projects signed in 2000-2001

FIGURE 4

Drinking Drinking and Drinking Sewage Solid wastewater pipes/ sewage water and sewage network collection

plants water and treatment solid waste plant

3.03 16.71 0.71 64.85 14.7

Environment 2000-2001: Percentage per subsectorBased on total ISPA grant for projects signed in 2000-2001

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0



Objectives of the Structural FundsThe first objective of the Structural Funds — helping underdeveloped areas — is the

main priority of the EU’s cohesion policy. In an effort to promote harmonious develop-

ment and narrow the gap between the development levels of the various regions, more

than two-thirds of the current appropriations of the Structural Funds (more than EUR 135

billion) are allocated to areas where the gross domestic product is below 75 percent of

the Community average. Some 50 regions — nearly 22 percent of Europe’s population

— are covered in the period 2000-2006.

The second objective is to revitalise areas facing structural difficulties, whether industri-

al, rural, urban, or stemming from a dependence on fisheries. Though situated in regions

whose development level is close to the Community average, such areas are faced with dif-

ferent types of socio-economic difficulties that are often the source of high unemployment.

Partnership Principle in Structural FundsThe legal basis for the partnership principle is contained in Council Regulation (EC No

1260/1999 of June 21, 1999), which lays down the general provisions of the Structural

Funds, notably that:

FIGURE 6

FIGURE 7

Timing for Structural and Cohesion Funds

What does the future hold for the Structural and Cohesion Funds?

• EUR 23 billion for 2004-2006;

• Enlargement in 2004 (probably in May);

• Extremely short programming period;

• Legal basis exists upon accession only;

• Negotiation of programming documents during 2003;

• Formal adoption only after accession.

• Programming periods will likely only be up to 2.5 years.

• In many cases there is no (or virtually no) experience in pro-grammes like the Structural Funds.

• Lack of absorption may have repercussions on subsequentprogramming periods.

• Administrative capacity needs to be built up in many cases.

• Financial management and control mechanisms must be developed.

• Formal adoption only after accession.

Critical and Strategic Issues in Structural Fund Programming



FIGURE 8

FIGURE 9

From Article 15:

• 2. The plans shall be submitted by the Member State to theCommission after consultation with the partners, who shallexpress their views within a period of time consistent with thedeadline set in the second subparagraph.

From Article 16:

• The plans submitted under Objectives 1, 2 and 3 ... shallinclude: … (d) an account of arrangements made to consultpartners.

From Article 17:

• Each Community support framework shall include …arrangements for involving the partners in the MonitoringCommittees described in Article 35.

From Article 35:

• Monitoring Committees shall be set up by the Member State,in agreement with the managing authority after consultationwith the partners. The partners shall promote the balancedparticipation of women and men.

• Community actions shall complement or contribute to corre-sponding national operations. They shall be drawn up inclose consultation, hereinafter referred to as the "partner-ship,” between the Commission and the Member State,together with the authorities and bodies designated by theMember State within the framework of its national rules andcurrent practices, namely:

– the regional and local authorities and other competentpublic authorities;

– the economic and social partners; and

– any other relevant competent bodies within this framework.

• In designating the most representative partnership at nation-al, regional, local or other level, the Member State shall cre-ate a wide and effective association of all the relevant bod-ies, according to national rules and practice, taking accountof the need to promote equality between men and women

and sustainable development through the integration of envi-ronmental protection and improvement requirements.

• Partnership shall cover the preparation, financing, monitoringand evaluation of assistance. Member States shall ensure theassociation of the relevant partners at the different stages ofprogramming, taking account of the time limit for each stage.

• In application of the principle of subsidiarity, the implemen-tation of assistance shall be the responsibility of the MemberStates...

• Each year, the Commission shall consult the European-levelorganisations representing the social partners about the struc-tural policy of the Community.

Key Provisions for the Partnership Principle of Article 8 of Regulation 1260/99

Other Important Provisions from Regulation 1260/99



“Whereas the action of the Community should be com-plementary to, or intended to contribute to, the action ofMember States; whereas, in order to ensure significantadded value, partnership should be strengthened; where-as this concerns the regional and local authorities, theother competent authorities, including those responsiblefor the environment and for the promotion of equalitybetween men and women, the economic and social part-ners and other competent bodies; whereas the relevantpartners shall be associated in the preparation, monitor-ing and evaluation of assistance.”

Of particular importance is Article 8 of Regulation1260/99. Figure 8 lists the most important provisions asrelated to the partnership principle, and Figure 9 lists rele-vant provisions from other articles of the same regulation.

Decentralising programme management to the mem-ber states increases the need to involve actors other thanthe national authorities, especially in the monitoring com-mittees (which now have an expanded role). At an oper-ational level, the partners’ practical knowledge is drawnupon, both in relation to the local region and to the socio-economic problems that need to be addressed.

It is crucial to the success of any involvement to ensurethat the partners add sufficient value to the endeavour tomerit their participation. It therefore becomes extremely important that:

• members of the monitoring committee are chosen by their organisation on the basisof their specific competence and real understanding of the issues at stake and the areaconcerned;

• participation in the work of the monitoring committees is planned in a pro-activeworking spirit of partnership, which includes helping to select those investments thatoffer the greatest value-added for the region’s development;

• the Committee members liase regularly with their organisations so that transparency isincreased and they can benefit from the widest possible range of skills and experience; and

• a genuine understanding of the issues and the local area and a pro-active and practical approach will be especially necessary during the mid-term evaluation andwhen allocating the performance reserve.

Lessons from Early Stages of Programming for 2000-06The definition of partnership is not uniform. It sometimes differs even between pro-

grammes in the same country. This is one consequence of the subsidiarity principle. Therights accorded to the partners in the monitoring committee are similarly varied. Despitetheir participation, they often have a different status vis-à-vis the other committee mem-bers, either because they are not entitled to vote or have restricted voting rights, orbecause their role is defined as consultative or informative.

ANDRAS TOTH, Clean AirAction Group, HungaryGUENTER RAAD, DG Environment(left to right)

Monitoring committees will play a more important role in 2000-2006 than in the preceding period. In particular, the committees must approve the criteria for selecting pro-jects, one area in which all the partners will undoubtedly make their presence felt, what-ever their status on the committee. This assumption will be verified during the interim evaluation for which standard specifications have been prepared with the memberstates and in which partnership is one of the elements whose impact must be evaluated.

Role of DG ENV in the Structural and Cohesion FundsIn accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the Commission delegates control

over the Structural and Cohesion Funds as much as possible to the member states. It istherefore up to the countries to decide how to administer the funds and how much toinvolve NGOs in the process. Nevertheless, DG Environment encourages practices andpolicies that ensure that attention is paid to environmental considerations.

Ex-ante environmental evaluations are a key component of the preparations of pro-gramming documents for the current round of the Structural Funds for 2000-2006. DGEnvironment will encourage the use of its Handbook on Environmental Assessment ofRegional Development Plans and EU Structural Funds for the 2004-2006 period. DG Envi-ronment will also continue to ensure that the recommendations resulting from the evalu-ations, especially those that refer to Community legislation and policy, are duly taken intoconsideration in the final programming documents. Although the member states drafttheir own programming documents, they are only approved after an intensive negotiationphase based on a mandate approved by all Commission services — including DG Envi-ronment — with the necessary modifications subsequently made by the member states.

The involvement of regional and national environmental authorities in the proposedimplementation of the Structural Funds has been a central plank in DG Environment’sstrategy in the negotiations for the period of 2000-2006 for the current member states,and DG Environment intends to continue this cooperation. NGOs should encouragetheir respective countries to establish national structures for the Structural Funds, such asenvironmental networks or specific working groups, which are eligible for support fromthe technical assistance budgets.

In developing Agenda 2000, the Commission stressed that the implementation of theStructural Funds can successfully promote the process of environmental integration andprovide transparent information. The most prominent mechanisms for achieving thesegoals include:

• high quality strategic assessments and evaluations at all relevant stages of programmedesign and implementation;

• a partnership as wide-ranging as possible that involves environmental authorities,crosses sectors and operates at all relevant geographic levels;

• a greater share of Community co-funding for environmentally friendly operations;

• decentralised management of global grants close to the beneficiaries; and

• the application of the polluter-pays principle.




During a preparatory seminar on October 5-6, 2002 at theREC in Szentendre, Hungary, the NGO Dialogue groupcomposed a position paper entitled, “PromotingSustainability in Structural Funds Assistance in FutureMember States,” and presented an abstract of the paper toCommissioner Wallstrom. The following the Commissioner’sresponse. The NGO position paper can be found in itsentirety in Annex I.

Dear Members of the NGO Dialogue Group,During our last meeting of the NGO Dialogue, on

November 18, 2002 in Brussels, you presented to me anabstract of your group's position paper on the EU's Struc-tural and Cohesion Funds, which will become available tothe countries after accession in 2004. Because of the limit-ed time available at the meeting, we agreed that I wouldcome back to the paper in writing.

One request you have addressed to the Commission isthat it should provide strict rules on how the StructuralFunds are programmed and implemented. As already dis-cussed during the meeting, the general Structural FundsRegulation for the period 2000-2006 provides for the shar-ing of responsibility between the member states and the Commission. It is not possible to give a role to the Com-mission that is not conferred by the existing StructuralFunds Regulation. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, allmember states are treated equally by the Commission. Sec-ondly, following the principle of subsidiarity, the Structur-al Funds are administered by the beneficiary member states in a decentralised way.Therefore, it is largely up to the member states to organise the management of Structur-al Funds programmes and to determine the extent to which environmental NGOs areinvolved. However, all countries have to follow the partnership provisions laid down inArticle 8 of the Structural Funds General Regulation, requiring that the designated part-ners be involved in all stages of preparation and implementation. I would, therefore,strongly recommend that you also address your concerns to your national authorities. Iwill certainly support your concerns and address them to your governments during high-level meetings and my country visits whenever possible.

S U M M A RY O F T H E S E S S I O N S : E U R O P E A N C O M M I S S I O N ` S R E S P O N S E TO T H E N G O P O S I T I O N PA P E R


European Commission’s Response to the NGO Position Paper

MARGOT WALLSTRÖM,Commissioner for Environment


In addition, I would like to make you aware of a new legal instrument which will indue course strengthen the role of environmental NGOs in the preparation and adoptionof plans and programmes. The objective of the new Directive on Strategic Environmen-tal Assessment is to provide for a high level of protection of the environment and to con-tribute to the integration of environmental considerations in the preparation and adop-tion of plans and programmes. In the Commission's view, these include the nationaldevelopment plans required for the programming of Structural Funds. This Directive pro-vides a framework in which to carry out consultation with the public, including environ-mental NGOs.

The application of the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive to the StructuralFunds is only mandatory for the next programming period after 2006. The Directive explic-itly excludes plans and programmes co-financed under the current programming periodbecause by the time it has to be transposed (July 21, 2004) plans for the current program-ming period will have already been settled. However, this does not exclude the new mem-ber states from voluntarily carrying out a strategic environmental assessment on theirnational development plans and Structural Funds programmes, should they so desire. Fur-thermore, Article 41 of the Structural Funds Regulation requiring an ex-ante environmentalevaluation of operation includes many of the elements of a strategic assessment.

I would also like to thank you for the paper on Public Participation in Regional Devel-opment in Central Europe, reflecting your view on the Aarhus Convention and regionaldevelopment planning, concluding with some suggested guidelines. This document willprovide some useful ideas and inputs for the Commission's work on the ratification ofthe Aarhus Convention and the implications for regional policy, amongst other policies.

The following pages contain my reply to each of the points you raise. I would like tothank you once again for taking the time and initiative to prepare such an extensivepaper, and working towards a better environment in an enlarged Europe.

Yours sincerely,Margot Wallström



Part I: Integration of Environmental Aspects intoStructural Funds AssistanceEnvironmental Ex-ante EvaluationsNGO position:

Proper environmental ex-ante evaluations of national development plans and otherprogramming documents for EU Structural Funds and Cohesion Funds in accessioncountries should be undertaken to guarantee full horizontal integration of environmen-tal aspects. To ensure the maximum quality of environmental ex-ante evaluations, theEuropean Commission should immediately advise accession countries to:

• use the Handbook on Environmental Assessment of Regional Development Plans andEU Structural Funds (DG XI, 1998) as their main reference for undertaking environ-mental ex-ante evaluation;

• inform the wider public and environmental NGOs — through the Internet and otherelectronic tools — on the results of draft environmental ex-ante evaluations and allowfor comments before the evaluations are finalised; and

• consult environmental committees of national parliaments on environmental ex-anteevaluations before the programming documents are finalised and sent to the Euro-pean Commission.

Commissioner’s remarks:

• The environmental ex-ante evaluation is a key component in the preparation of pro-gramming documents for the current round of the Structural Funds 2000-6. I am par-ticularly pleased that you intend to use the Handbook produced by my Departmentin 1998 as guidance for forthcoming programming of the period 2004-6. However, Imust underline that the ex-ante environmental evaluation is carried out under theresponsibility of the member state.

• In principle, the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive will apply to allthe new Structural Funds programmes after 2006 for the 25 member states, and willprovide the legal obligation for member states to consult the public with the results ofthe environmental assessment.

• The participation of environmental partners together with the other socio-economicpartners in the process of programming and evaluation should be as effective as pos-sible within the time available. This implies that such consultations should take placeas early as possible to give the partners a fair chance to voice their opinion beforedocuments are finalised. How this effectiveness can be ensured depends on the spe-cific conditions in the member states.


36

NGO position:When the European Commission reviews the ex-ante evaluations during preparation

of its negotiating mandate for provision of community structural assistance to futuremember states, it should:

• ensure that all outcomes of environmental ex-ante evaluations were used for modifi-cation of programming documents;

• ask environmental NGOs of accession countries for their suggestions on the final proposed system for integration of environmental aspects in structural assistance; and

• provide the opportunity, within an appropriate timeframe, for accession countries tomodify their national development plans and other programming documents in linewith the results of the national and EC reviews of environmental ex-ante evaluations.

Commissioner’s remarks:

• On your first point, DG ENV has done so in the past and will continue to ensure thatthe recommendations, especially those that refer to the respect of Community legislation and policy, are duly taken into consideration for the final programmingdocuments. Experience has shown that the quality of these environmental ex-anteevaluations is an important factor for the applicability of its findings for improved programming documents.

• The NGOs are free to undertake their own assessment and to publicly express theiropinion about the draft programming documents. Such an exercise took place for cer-tain current Structural Funds programmes in the EU-15 in 2000. However, the NGO'sviews should, in the first instance, be expressed to those responsible for these pro-grammes and in the frame of national and regional consultation and partnership.

• As you know, the timing for the Structural Funds 2004-2006 programming is very tight.In any case programming documents are only approved after an intensive negotiationphase based on a mandate approved by all Commission services including DG ENVand the necessary modifications subsequently being made by the member states.

Role of Environmental AuthoritiesNGO position:

The European Commission should check whether the proposed implementationstructure for Structural Funds provides sufficient opportunities for participation fornational and regional environmental authorities at all stages of implementation (e.g.overall management, project selection and monitoring). The sectoral operational pro-grammes for environmental investments should be managed by the national environ-mental authorities.




Commissioner’s remarks:The involvement of regional and national environmental authorities during the imple-

mentation phase of the Structural Funds has been a central plank in our strategy in thenegotiations for the period 2000-6 for the EU-15, and I have every intention of ensuringthat it continues in the future.

The suitability of the management arrangements shall be assessed by the ex-ante evaluation. The Member State is responsible for designating the authorities responsiblefor the management of the programmes.

In order to strengthen the role of environmental authorities and other partners youmay wish to encourage and initiate the establishment of national Structural Funds structures such as environmental networks or specific working groups. They can get sup-port for this from the Structural Funds programmes' Technical Assistance budgets as isthe case already in a series of EU-15 member states.

Cohesion FundNGO position:

The experiences of recent member states and accession countries show that small-scale environmental investments can be implemented in a more sustainable way thanlarge-scale ones. To improve sustainability, Cohesion Fund assistance should not exceed10 percent of all structural assistance — the level received by new member states. TheEuropean Commission also should decrease the minimum project scale eligible for Cohe-sion Fund assistance to EUR 5 million in future member states. The Commission shouldcheck that the allocation of co-financing to Cohesion Funds does not divert funding fromexisting national environmental programmes.

Commissioner’s remarks:As you probably know, the European Council has recently agreed at the Brussels

European Summit that one third of the overall allocation for structural operations will bedevoted to the Cohesion Fund for the period 2004-6 for environment and transport pro-jects. This is very good news, because this means a threefold increase for environmentunder the Cohesion Fund for new member countries for 2004-6 compared to presentassistance from ISPA.

In the past the Cohesion Fund has been split 50:50 between environment and trans-port projects, and it is my conviction that environment should not receive any less in thefuture. Unlike the situation with the Structural Funds, in the Cohesion Fund there is aclear earmark for environment, which ensures that, under no circumstances, can themoney be spent in other sectors.

In the current four countries receiving EU Cohesion aid (Spain, Portugal, Greece andIreland) environmental projects have ranged from large urban wastewater projects formajor cities such as Dublin to small waste recycling schemes. I am also happy to say thatby and large the support for transport infrastructure has also focused on sustainablemodes of transport.

As far as environment is concerned, the main purpose for the Cohesion and Structur-al Funds in the new member states after 2004 should be to ensure the implementation ofthe environmental legislation for which the transition periods have been granted and thiswill require both large and small investment projects.


The Cohesion Fund focuses on larger projects and the Structural Funds on smallerprojects. Current Cohesion Fund beneficiary countries have demonstrated that properand flexible “financial engineering” and project management such as grouping of a seriesof smaller projects supporting common environmental objectives is an appropriate wayto comply with minimum funding thresholds. As conformity with environmental legisla-tion is an obligation, it is not in the interest of member states to divert funds away fromexisting national environmental programmes. However, it is not the Commission's roleto check the funding of national funding programmes. Again, here you as "environmen-tal watchdogs" have the responsibility to apply pressure in your countries.

Changing the Approach to DevelopmentNGO position:

For the promotion of sustainable development, the European Commission shouldhelp future member states to change their approach in development policy from heavyinvestments to softer measures, such as community development, environmental aware-ness raising, research and development in the field of sustainable development, estab-lishment of transparent and participatory decision-making systems in public administra-tion and prevention of environmental, health and social problems.

Commissioner’s remarks:Point taken. However, for me one of the main priorities is to ensure the implementa-

tion of environmental legislation within the negotiated transition periods. This couldconcern, for example, investments that can indeed reach large amounts of money suchas urban wastewater installations or the closing down of illegal landfills. However, pro-grammes shall also comply with the wider and horizontal objective of sustainable devel-opment across different economic sectors. Therefore, there is much scope and need inthe programmes for “softer measures” and in particular those inspired by the SustainableDevelopment Strategy such as decoupling transport demand from economic growth,increasing energy efficiency, creating of “green jobs” and so on.

Part II: Partnership PrincipleImproving Access to Information on Structural Fund OperationsNGO position:

The European Commission should ensure that all necessary information on StructuralFund operations in accession countries is publicly available. In order to achieve this, theCommission should:

• provide information on Structural Fund operations in specific accession countries toexisting independent NGO information centres (at least one per country) and helpestablish such centres where they do not exist; and

• provide guidelines on what information should be publicly accessible and require thatsuch information be published on websites and in printed format.



S U M M A RY O F T H E S E S S I O N S : E U R O P E A N C O M M I S S I O N ` S R E S P O N S E TO T H E P O S I T I O N PA P E R


Commissioner’s remarks:All relevant information on the Structural Funds in the EU-15 is publicly available in

different forms. Firstly, the relevant information is available on the Europa website<www.europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/index_en.htm>.

Secondly, there are obligations to set aside funds to implement an information strate-gy for each programme as well as to allow for public access to important documents suchas the environmental ex-ante evaluation. This will also be the case with the StructuralFunds programmes in the new member states. Regarding accessibility to documents, theCommission has adopted rules for its own transparency and accessibility to documentsand is even working on its improvement by ratifying the Aarhus Convention. All of theaccession countries, except Slovakia, have signed the Aarhus Convention and, therefore,taken a commitment towards improved access to information. So far Estonia, Hungary,Latvia, Lithuania, Malta and Poland have ratified the Convention.

Implementation of Partnership NGO position:

The European Commission should ensure that the partnership principle (CouncilRegulations No 1260/1999 General provisions on the Structural Funds Art. 8) foroperations of regional policy is properly applied. In order to achieve this, theCommission should:

• design binding guidelines for implementation of the partnership principle in operationsof regional policy. Partnership should cover the preparation, financing, monitoring andevaluation of Structural Funds assistance. The NGO Dialogue group offers existing NGOguidelines based on the Aarhus Convention as a basis for discussion and is prepared toparticipate in its further elaboration. Existing examples for incorporation of the partner-ship principle into national laws, such as in Slovakia, should be promoted;

• send letters to governments of accession countries suggesting the involvement ofNGOs in programming and implementation of Structural Funds assistance. NGOsshould be involved in management, project selection and monitoring committees ofeach operative programme;

• strongly advise second-wave countries, where the process of national developmentplanning is at an earlier stage, to ensure that NGOs are invited to be involved innational development plan elaboration through NGO participation in working groupsand that drafts are made available to the public and discussed at public hearings; and

• require national governments of accession countries to report about how the partner-ship principle was implemented in the area of regional development EC shouldrequire this issue to be addressed in regular reports of accession countries.

Commissioner’s remarks:Again the existing Structural Funds Regulation provides for an as large and as efficient

as possible participation of all relevant partners including those from the environmentalside. I certainly would expect that the governments in the accession countries complywith the stipulations of the Structural Funds General Regulation by associating as widely as possible the most relevant partners such as NGOs and other stakeholders in



the programming and implementation of Structural Funds assistance, and indeed in relevant programme committees and working groups.

However, I do not see a role for binding guidelines on the implementation of the partnership principle as the cultures in one Member State can vary with those inanother. Again you should apply pressure to do so in your countries, as good and effec-tive partnership — by definition — cannot be imposed from outside but has to be developed and improved progressively by practising it in a concrete context such as theStructural Funds programmes. Sharing experiences with the partners in the current EU-15 will certainly provide valuable and constructive assistance.

Increasing NGO Capacities NGO position:

The European Commission should help NGOs from accession countries to increasetheir capacities to participate properly in operations of regional policy. In order to dothat, the Commission should:

• develop a system of NGO financing which should cover core funding, expenses forNGO participation in the consultation process, financing for representatives in com-mittees and training for NGO representatives in committees;

• make sure that each pre-accession fund and national development plan and eachoperational programme in each accession country contain specific measures for build-ing NGOs capacity to:

aa)) be involved in planning, decision-making and monitoring of pre-accessionfunds, national development plans and new legislation (i.e. for networking, training, information exchange among NGOs, etc.).

bb)) prepare and implement projects for Structural Funds, including those that build administrative capacities, language skills, financial stability, partnerships with otherdomestic institutions and the transfer of experiences from NGOs in EU memberstates;

• make sure that assistance for NGOs is a part of the technical assistance for implemen-tation of Structural Funds in each accession country; and

• make sure that NGOs are one of the beneficiaries of technical assistance and trainingprovided by the EU to accession countries (twinning programmes, TAIEX, etc.).

Commissioner’s remarks:You have pointed here to the need for financing NGOs’ involvement in the Structural

Funds:

• Firstly, the pre-accession funds such as ISPA and the programmes, once they havebeen negotiated, contain a budget for technical assistance. There is a high degree ofcompetition for these limited resources. However, there is no reason why NGOs cannot apply.

• Secondly, you could also apply for support through the Community action pro-gramme promoting non-governmental organisations primarily active in the field ofenvironmental protection, which was adopted by the Parliament and Council in March2002 and which is now also open to the accession countries. Further information canbe found at <europa.eu.int/comm/environment/funding/finansup.htm>.

• Thirdly, I would strongly suggest that environmental NGOs get involved with nextyear’s Green Week on June 2-6, 2003. This year I am also proposing national GreenDays, and this could be a way of drawing attention to integrating environment intoother sectoral policies.

Additional Remarks by the NGO GroupTransfer of Experiences and Lessons to Second-Wave CountriesNGO position:

Experience with integration of environmental conditions and implementation ofpartnerships within the programming and the implementation of Structural Fundsassistance in the “first-wave” accession countries should be evaluated and theexperiences and lessons learned should be transferred to “second wave” accessioncountries, such as Romania, Bulgaria and possibly also Turkey. Effectiveness ofprogrammes such as twinning should be evaluated, as measures may be necessary tomake improvements.

Commissioner’s remarks:This is a sensible and prudent approach to look at the experience the accession

countries gain from the programming and implementation of Structural Funds, and totransfer good practice to the remaining candidate countries after accession.

In terms of policy developments, Bulgaria and Romania have just finalised the transposition of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive, which is one of themain policy instruments aiming at integrating environment into decision-making at aproject level. For the moment I feel that there is still room for improvement in all candi-date countries. Therefore, DG ENV is hoping to establish a Phare Multi-Country Environmental Enlargement Programme, including a capacity-building facility for theimplementation of the environmental acquis at the local and regional levels focusingamong others on environmental impact assessment.

Regular Meetings with DG REGIONGO position:

NGOs participating in the DG ENV-NGO Dialogue appreciate the openness of DGEnvironment and they welcome DG REGIO participation in this meeting. In order toestablish the regular exchange of information in the area of EU regional policy it isimportant that DG REGIO participates in all further Dialogue meetings. The REC shouldexpand the scope of the NGO Dialogue for systematic consultations with DG REGIO onthe environmental dimension in Structural Funds in the new member states.



Commissioner’s remarks:I am very pleased to hear that you appreciate the openness of my services, and I very

much support your wish to strengthen your cooperation with the Commission services, sinceit is a single organisation and all the departments work together towards common goals.

However, at the same time, I would also like to use the next NGO Dialogue meetingto discuss and consult you as representatives of civil society on policy developments inthe area of environment. A lot of things are currently in the pipeline, following the WhitePaper on Chemicals, the adoption of the sixth Environmental Action Programme, OurFuture, Our Choice, for which thematic strategies are under preparation as well as oth-ers. For me an open policy-making process is a key priority, and that is why I would liketo learn about your opinions. Only by a wide participation through the policy chain canthe quality, relevance and effectiveness of EU policies be ensured and the NGO Dialogueis one means to achieve these aims.



S U M M A RY O F T H E S E S S I O N S : C O N C L U S I O N A N D F U T U R E O F T H E D I A L O G U E P R O C E S S


Future of the DG ENV-NGO DialogueDuring the wrap-up session of the Dialogue, Soledad Blanco, head of the Enlargement

Unit at DG Environment, highlighted the future of the Dialogue process. Anne Burrilladded various points on possibilities for future support for NGOs from the multi-countryPhare programme on Environment and Enlargement.

The Next Dialogue SessionThe next meeting will be during Green Week, June 2-6, 2003, where there will be sev-

eral opportunities to participate in policy shaping. The key focus will be on changingbehaviour, touching on such topics as sustainable consumption and production, renew-able energy and water.

A great deal of attention was given during the seventh Dialogue meeting to the Struc-tural Funds. The next sessions should look at the need for NGOs to form their position on policies relevant for their countries once they become members of theUnion. There are many proposals presently under discussion for developments in EUenvironmental policy which will have to be implemented also by the new member statesand will have major implications for them.

Following the White Paper on Chemicals, a major revision of EU policy in this sectoris under way. In the area of waste, the directive for packaging and packaging waste isunder revision, and a new directive on electronic waste is in the pipeline. Lastly, thematicstrategies announced in the sixth Environmental Action Programme, Our Future, OurChoice, are under preparation.

Consistent with the agreed objectives for the NGO Dialogue, and as has occurred in thepast (e.g. on the sixth Environmental Action Programme), one focus of the coming meetingsshould be on consultations. The Commission feels it is important that NGOs, as experts intheir respective countries, participate actively in the formulation of future EU policy.

There will be a final meeting of the NGO Dialogue group before the first wave ofenlargement in 2004, most likely at the end of 2003.


Conclusion and Future of the Dialogue Process



Cooperation with NGOs after 2004This final NGO Dialogue meeting will not be the end of DG Environment’s

cooperation with NGOs. Rather the cooperation will evolve and take on different forms.DG Environment is currently investigating the possibility of supporting capacity-

building projects for NGOs in response to their requests for such assistance and the possibility to participate in twinning activities. A draft proposal has been prepared for aPhare 2003 multi-country programme on Environment and Enlargement, which wouldinclude a project designed to increase NGOs’ administrative capacity. If this project isapproved, proposals could be submitted to allow organisations from member states toshare their experiences to help NGOs in the Phare countries to:

• improve their organisations’ capacity to manage projects from different donors and togain access to wider financial sources (LIFE, the DG ENV NGO Action Programme;national programmes, etc.);

• improve cooperation with environmental authorities and communication with thepublic and industry;

ROXANNE KOUDOUNARY,Federation of Ecological andEnvironmental Organisations

of Cyprus

• make effective contributions to the implementation of EU environmental acquis; and

• play an active role in the preparation and implementation of Structural and CohesionFunds.

It should be noted that this exercise would only cover the 10 Phare countries,although it may be extended to the other candidate countries through separate financ-ing. DG Environment is also attempting to identify complementary financing for NGOtwinning activities in the Newly Independent States and the Balkans.

DG Environment noted that the proposed Phare 2003 multi-country programme wouldalso include a project to support continued participation of the Phare countries in theIMPEL network, as well as a project to assist local and regional authorities in the imple-mentation of the EIA and IPPC directives. DG Environment will provide an update on thestatus of the proposed programme at the next NGO Dialogue meeting in June 2003.



ENGIN URAL, EnvironmentalFondation of Turkey (left)RUDOLF RAGONESI, Friends of the Earth, Malta(right)

Annexes


Promoting Sustainability in Structural Funds Assistance inFuture Member StatesPosition Paper of DG ENV-NGO Dialogue Group

We, the environmental NGOs of the 13 accession countries and two other Central andEastern European states who participated in the preparatory meeting of the DG ENV-NGO Dialogue, are committed to help ensure that the EU accession process contributesto the sustainable development of our countries and the whole European continent. Asa part of the accession process several of us have been involved with Structural Fundsassistance at the national and regional levels for several years. We realised that Structural and Cohesion Funds assistance can either strengthen or seriously threaten thepossibilities of sustainable development in our countries. The impact of the structuralinstruments very much depends on how environmental aspects and the partnership principle are integrated into planning and implementation structures. We fear that thisyear confused and rapid national development planning endangers the integration ofthese important factors into the implementation of the regional policy of the EuropeanCommission (EC) in the future member states.

To promote the maximum positive impact of Structural and Cohesion Funds assis-tance in our countries we suggest to the European Commission the following actions:

Integration of Environmental Aspects into Structural Funds AssistanceEnvironmental ex-ante evaluations

Proper environmental ex-ante evaluations of national development plans and otherprogramming documents for EU Structural Funds and Cohesion Funds in accessioncountries should be undertaken to guarantee full horizontal integration of environmen-tal aspects. To ensure the maximum quality of environmental ex-ante evaluations, theEuropean Commission should immediately advise accession countries to:

• use the Handbook on Environmental Assessment of Regional Development Plans andEU Structural Funds (DG XI, 1998) as their main reference for undertaking environ-mental ex-ante evaluation;

• inform the wider public and environmental NGOs — through the Internet and otherelectronic tools — on the results of draft environmental ex-ante evaluations and allowfor comments before the evaluations are finalised; and

A N N E X I : N G O P O S I T I O N PA P E R O N S T R U C T U R A L A N D C O H E S I O N F U N D S

Annex I: NGO Position Paper on Structural and Cohesion Funds


• consult environmental committees of national parliaments on environmental ex-anteevaluations before the programming documents are finalised and sent to the Euro-pean Commission.

When the European Commission reviews the ex-ante evaluations during preparationof its negotiating mandate for provision of community structural assistance to futuremember states, it should:

• ensure that all outcomes of environmental ex-ante evaluations were used for modifi-cation of programming documents;

• ask environmental NGOs of accession countries for their suggestions on the final proposed system for integration of environmental aspects in structural assistance; and

• provide the opportunity, within an appropriate timeframe, for accession countries tomodify their national development plans and other programming documents in linewith the results of the national and EC reviews of environmental ex-ante evaluations.


ANDRAS KROLOP, CEEWEB, Hungary

IVAN GYULAI,The Ecological Institute

for Sustainable Development, Hungary

(left to right)


Role of environmental authoritiesThe European Commission should check whether the proposed implementation

structure for Structural Funds provides sufficient opportunities for participation fornational and regional environmental authorities at all stages of implementation (e.g.overall management, project selection and monitoring). The sectoral operational pro-grammes for environmental investments should be managed by the national environ-mental authorities.

Cohesion FundsThe experiences of recent member states and accession countries show that small-

scale environmental investments can be implemented in a more sustainable way thanlarge-scale ones. To improve sustainability, Cohesion Fund assistance should not exceed10 percent of all structural assistance — the level received by new member states. TheEuropean Commissions also should decrease the minimum project scale eligible forCohesion Fund assistance to EUR 5 million in future member states. The commissionshould check that the allocation of co-financing to Cohesion Funds does not divert fund-ing from existing national environmental programmes.

Changing the approach to developmentFor the promotion of sustainable development, the European Commission should

help the future member states to change their approach in development policy fromheavy investments to softer measures, such as community development, environmentalawareness raising, research and development in field of sustainable development, estab-lishing transparent and participatory decision-making systems in public administrationand preventing of environmental, health and social problems.

Partnership PrincipleImprovement of access to information on Structural Fund operations

• The European Commission should ensure that all necessary information on StructuralFund operations in accession countries is publicly available. In order to achieve this,the Commission should:

• provide information on Structural Fund operations in specific accession countries toexisting independent NGO information centres (at least one per country) and helpestablish such centres where they do not exist; and

• provide guidelines on what information should be publicly accessible and require that suchinformation is published on websites and printed material.

Implementation of partnership The European Commission should ensure that partnership principle (Council Regula-

tions No 1260/1999 General provisions on the Structural Funds Art. 8) for operations ofregional policy is properly applied. In order to achieve this, the Commission should:



• design binding guidelines for implementation of the partnership principle in operations of regional policy. Partnership should cover the preparation, financing,monitoring and evaluation of Structural Funds assistance. The NGO Dialogue groupoffers existing NGO guidelines based on the Aarhus Convention as a basis for discussion and is prepared to participate in its further elaboration. Existing examplesfor incorporation of the partnership principle into national laws, such as in Slovakia,should be promoted.

• send letters to governments of accession countries suggesting the involvement ofNGOs in programming and implementation of Structural Funds assistance. NGOsshould be involved in the management, project selection and monitoring committeesof each operative programme.

• strongly advise second-wave countries, where the process of national developmentplanning is in an earlier stage, to ensure that NGOs are invited to be involved innational development plan elaboration through NGO participation in working groupsand that drafts are made available to the public and discussed at public hearings; and

• require national governments of accession countries to report about how the partner-ship principle was implemented in the area of regional development. EC shouldrequire this issue to be addressed in regular reports of accession countries.

Increasing NGO capacities The European Commission should help NGOs from accession countries to increase

their capacities to participate properly in operations of regional policy. In order to dothat, the commission should:

• develop a system of NGO financing which should cover core funding, expenses forNGO participation in the consultation process, financing for representatives in committees and training for NGO representatives in committees;

• make sure that each pre-accession fund and national development plan and eachoperational programme in each accession country contain specific measures for building NGOs capacity to:

• be involved in planning, decision-making and monitoring of pre-accession funds,national development plans and new legislation (i.e. for networking, training, infor-mation exchange among NGOs, etc.);

• prepare and implement projects for Structural Funds, including those that buildadministrative capacities, language skills, financial stability, partnerships with otherdomestic institutions and the transfer of experiences from NGOs in EU member states;

• make sure that assistance for NGOs is a part of the technical assistance for implemen-tation of Structural Funds in each accession country; and

• make sure that NGOs are one of the beneficiaries of technical assistance and trainingprovided by the EU to accession countries (twinning programmes, TAIEX, etc.)


NGOs should be involved in

the management, project selectionand monitoringcommittees of each operative

programme.



Additional Remarks Transfer of experiences and lessons to second-wave countries

Experience with integration of environmental conditions and implementation of partnerships within the programming and implementation of Structural Funds assistancein the “first-wave” accession countries should be evaluated, and the experiences andlessons learned should be transferred to “second wave” accession countries, such asRomania, Bulgaria and possibly also Turkey. Effectiveness of programmes such as Twin-ning should be evaluated, as measures may be necessary to make improvements.

Regular meetings with DG RegioNGOs participating in the DG ENV-NGO Dialogue appreciate the openness of DG

Environment and they welcome DG Regio participation in this meeting. In order toestablish the regular exchange of information in the area of EU regional policy it isimportant that DG Regio participates in all further Dialogue meetings. The REC shouldexpand the scope of the NGO Dialogue for systematic consultations with DG Regio onthe environmental dimension in Structural Funds in the new member states.

DG ENV-NGO Dialogue, Seventh Meeting Venue: November 17-18, 2002. DG Environment, 5 Avenue de Beaulieu,

1160 Brussels, BelgiumDG Regional Policy, 41 Avenue de Tervuren, 1040 Brussels, Belgium

Sunday, November 17, 2002: NGO preparatory meetingTIME TOPIC PERSONS NOTES PLACE

14:00- Welcome and introduction Robert Atkinson, REC Welcome Beaulieu-5, Salle C 14:15 to agenda Cerasela Stancu, REC Description of agenda and logistics

14:15- Results of the preparatory NGO Participants Presentation of the NGO position statement Beaulieu-5, Salle C15:00 seminar

Pavla Jindrova, CCO, CR • partnership principleIstvan Farkas NSC, Hungary • integration of environmental aspects

into Strucural Fund operationsFacilitator - Robert Atkinson

15:00- Coffee break15:15

15:15 Preparation of the presentation NGO Participants Agreement on key issues to be raised to Beaulieu-5, Salle C 16:15 to the Commissioner on the the Commissioner

basis of the position paper Facilitator - Cerasela Stancu Select rapporteur to the Commissioner

16:15 Wrap-up16:30

A N N E X I I : T H E AG E N DA


Annex II: The Agenda



Monday, November 18, 2002TIME TOPIC PERSONS NOTES PLACE

09:30- State of play in the Chair: Krzysztof Kamieniecki Progress in negotiations Beaulieu-5, Salle C 10:30 environmental enlargement Jean-Francois Verstrynge, Regular reports

process and environmental Deputy Director-General, Results of the environmental cooperation in the Balkans DG ENV peer reviews

Preparation for Kiev conference

10:45- Outcome of Johannesburg, next Chair: Krzysztof Kamieniecki Commitments taken by the EU Beaulieu-5, Salle C 11:45 steps, followed by discussion Jos Delbeke, head of the Task Measures under preparation

Force

11:45- Lunch with the DG ENV desk DG ENV.2 desk officers meet with the Beaulieu-5, Salle C 13:00 officers NGOs from the country for which they

are responsible

13:00- Meeting with Commissioner Chair: Andras Krolopp Speech by Commissioner Wallstrom Beaulieu-5, Salle C(Margot Wallström) Presentation by NGOs of key issues

14:00 and requirements from their positionpaper, followed by discussion

14:00- Implementation of Chair: Andras Krolop Main requirements Beaulieu-5, Salle C15:30 Natura 2000 Nick Hanley, Head of Unit B.2 State of play on implementation of

Fernando Hervas Soriano, DG Natura 2000ENV.2 Respect of Natura 2000 in the revision Jon Parker, Unit B.3 of TEN


15:45- Role of DG ENV in Structural Chair: Andras Toth Programming Beaulieu-5, Salle C17:00 Funds and Cohesion Funds Fernando Hervas Soriano, Review of Strucural and Cohesion Fund

DG ENV.2 applicationsGuenter Raad, DG ENV B.3Yvonne Berghorst, EIB(observer)



Tuesday, November 19, 2002: TIME TOPIC PERSONS NOTES PLACE

14:00- ISPA - Review and changes to Erich Unterwurzacher, DG ISPA Commitments made since 2000 DG REGIO14:15 Structural Funds and Cohesion REGIO ISPA Projects in the pipeline 41 AV de Tervuren

Funds, followed by discussion Fernando Hervas-Soriano, DG Continuation of ISPA for Romania and 9th floorENV Bulgaria (Auditorium)

Structural and Cohesion Fund budgetsProgramming procedure


10:15- Roundtables DG REGIO12:00

Table I. Integration of Facilitator: Paul Kosterink Ex-ante evaluations, EIA and SEA Ground floorenvironmental aspects into Jon Parker, Unit B.3 Role of environmental authorities (00/152)Structural Fund assistance Fernando Hervas Soriano, Cohesion Fund and its threshold

DG ENV.2 Changing the approach to development

Table II. Partnership principle Facilitator: Pavla Jindrova Implementation of the partnership principle 9th FloorJuan Pedro Perez Escanilla, DG Increasing NGO capacity (Auditorium)REGIO Unit A.2 Improvement of access to information onGuenter Raad, Unit B.3 Structural Fund operationsSilke Will, DG ENV.2

12:00- Presentation of the outcome of NGO rapporteurs Reporting and discussion of the findings 9th Floor12:45 the roundtables from the roundtables to the plenary (Auditorium)

12:45- Closure of the meeting and Soledad Blanco, Head of Unit Evaluation of the meeting 9th Floor13:30 Follow up DG ENV.2 Plans for the next year and ahead (Auditorium)

Silke Will, DG ENV.2Georges Strongylis, DG ENV.2

NGOsBULGARIAGalina GeorgievaBlack Sea Regional Energy Centre8, Triaditza Str.Sofia 1000BulgariaTel: (359-2) 980-6854Fax: (359-2) 980-6855E-mail: [email protected]

Petko KovatchevCenter for Environmental Information andEducationjk "Ilinden", bl. 9, (G1)1309 SofiaBulgariaTel: (359-2) 920-1341Fax: (359-2) 920-1341E-mail: [email protected]

CROATIADuska PericEco Group ZmergoV Cara Emina 151410 OpatjiaCroatiaTel: (385-51) 271-459Fax: (385-51) 271-459E-mail: [email protected]

CYPRUSRoxane KoudounaryFederation of Ecological and EnvironmentalOrganisations of Cyprus28, Athalassis Aven. Flat 22StrovolosNicosiaCyprusTel: (357-2) 231-3750Fax: (357-2) 231-3750E-mail: [email protected]

CZECH REPUBLICJiri DlouhySociety for Sustainable LivingKrkonosska 1CZ-120 00 Praha 2Czech RepublicTel: (420-603) 841-304Fax: (420-251) 620-441E-mail: [email protected]

Pavla JindrovaCentre for Community OrganisingAmericka 2930138 PlzenCzech RepublicTel: (420-37) 7329-558Fax: (420-37) 7329-558E-mail: [email protected]

Pavel PribylHnuti DUHA/Friends of the Earth CzechRepublicLublanska 18120 00 Praha 2Czech RepublicTel: (420-22) 251-3859Fax: (420-22) 251-8319e-mail: [email protected]

ESTONIAMaret MerisaarEstonian Green Movement Tallinn OfficePOBox 152110402 TallinnEstoniaTel: (372) 641-3402Fax: (372) 641-3402E-mail: [email protected]

Peep MardisteFriends of the Earth EstoniaPO Box 318Tartu 50002EstoniaTel: (372) 742-2532Fax: (372) 742-2082E-mail: [email protected]

HUNGARYAndras KroloppCEEWEBKossuth 13.3525 MiskolcHungaryTel: (36-46) 352-010Fax: (36-46) 352-010E-mail: [email protected]

Andras TothClean Air Action GroupPf. 16761465 BudapestHungaryTel: (36-1) 209-3823Fax: (36-1) 365-0438E-mail: [email protected]

Istvan FarkasNational society of ConservationistsUlloi ut. 91/b1091 BudapestHungaryTel: (36-1) 216-7297Fax: (36-1) 216-7295E-mail: [email protected]

Ivan GyulaiThe Ecological Institute for SustainableDevelopmentKossuth 13.3525 MiskolcHungaryTel: (36-46) 413-390Fax: (36-46) 352-010E-mail: [email protected]

A N N E X I I I : L I S T O F PA R T I C I PA N T S


Annex III: List of Participants


LATVIAJanis UlmeLatvian Environmental Protection Club,Friends of the Earth LatviaMeza street 4/4th floorRigaLatviaTel: (371-7) 226-042Fax: (371-7) 213-697E-mail: [email protected]

LITHUANIAPranas MierauskasLithuanian Fund for NatureKlaipedos St. 5Vilnius 2001LithuaniaTel: (370-2) 620-715Fax: (370-2) 625-152E-mail: [email protected]

Ignas KubiliusCenter for Environmental PolicyA. Juozapaviciaus 6/2LT-2005 VilniusLithuaniaTel: (370-2) 728-936Fax: (370 2) 728-961E-mail: [email protected]

FYR MACEDONIADaniela StojanovaSouth East European Environmental NGOsNetwork - SEEENNVasil Gjorgov 39, Baraka 6Skopje 1000FYR MacedoniaTel: (389-2) 290-118Fax: (389-2) 128-075E-mail: [email protected]

MALTAIan MifsudBirdLife Malta57/28, Marina Court, Abate Rigord Str.Ta' Xbiex MSD 12MaltaTel: (356) 2134-7656Fax: (356) 2134-3239E-mail: [email protected]

Rudolf RagonesiFriends of the Earth [email protected]: (356) 2158-4473Fax: (365) 2158-4474E-mail: [email protected]

POLANDKrzysztof KamienieckiInstitute for Sustainable Developmentul. Lowicka, 3102-502 - WarszawaPolandTel: (48-22) 646-0510Fax: (48-22) 646-0174E-mail: [email protected]

Joanna FurmagaPolish Green Networkul. Okopowa 6/1420022 LublinPolandTel: (48-81) 743-7104Fax: (48-81) 743-7104E-mail: [email protected]

ROMANIAAlexandru SavulescuRomanian Environmental Journalists Associ-ationC.P. 45-8BucharestRomaniaTel: (40-1) 252-2713.Fax: (40-1) 252-2713E-mail: [email protected]

Camelia ZamfirEarth Friendsstr. Portului, bl.Siret 4, sc 7, ap1096200 GalatiRomaniaTel: (40-36) 462-564Fax: (40-36) 462-564E-mail: [email protected]

SLOVAKIAEmil BediFoundation for alternative energyP.O.B 35850 07 BratislavaSlovakiaTel: (421-26)383-6964Fax: (421-26) 383-6964E-mail: [email protected]

Richard FilcakInitiative-Development Alternatives SlovakiaPolna 15934 01 LeviceSlovakiaTel: (420-60) 241-2908E-mail: [email protected]

SLOVENIAAnamarija SlabeInstitute for Sustainable DevelopmentMetelkova 61000 LjubljanaSloveniaTel: (386-14) 397-465Fax: (386-14) 397-105E-mail: [email protected]

Erika OblakUmanotera, The Slovenian Foundation forSustainable DevelopmentPO Box 44401000 LjubljanaSloveniaTel: (386-61) 439-4890Fax: (386-61) 439-7105E-mail: [email protected]

TURKEYEngin UralEnvironmental Foundation of TurkeyTunali Hilmi cad. 50/20Ankara 06660TurkeyTel: (90-312) 425-5508Fax: (90-312) 418-5118E-mail: [email protected]



Aybe Yesim ErkanTEMA FoundationCayir Cimen Sk, Emlak Kredi Bloklari,A2/10, Levent80620 IstanbulTurkeyTel: (90-212) 284-8005Fax: (90-212) 281-1132E-mail: [email protected]

Zeynep BoratavCEKUL – Foundation for the Protection andPromotion of the Environmental and Cultur-al HeritageEkrem Tur Sok. No: 880060 Beyoglu – IstanbulTurkeyTel: (90-212) 251-5444Fax: (90-212) 251-5444E-mail: [email protected]

Observer NGOsBELGIUMEllen TownsendWWF European Policy Office36 Ave. de Terruren1040 BrusselsBelgiumTel: (32-2) 743-8800Fax: (32-2) 743-8819E-mail: [email protected]

Mara SilinaEuropean Environmental BureauBvd. De Waterloo 341000 BrusselsBelgiumTel: (32-2) 289-1090Fax: (32-2) 289-1099E-mail: [email protected]

John Hontelez European Environmental BureauBvd. De Waterloo 341000 BrusselsBelgiumTel: (32-2) 289-1090Fax: (32-2) 289-1099E-mail: [email protected]

CZECH REPUBLICPetr Pelcl Center for Community Organising Americka 2930138 PlzenCzech RepublicTel: (420-19) 743-1728Fax: (420-19) 743-1728E-mail: [email protected]

THE NETHERLANDSPaul KosterinkMilieukontakt Oost-EuropaPO Box 181851001 ZB AmsterdamThe NetherlandsTel: (31-20) 639-2716Fax: (31-20) 639-1379E-mail: [email protected]

Magda StoczkiewiczCEE Bankwatch Network and Friends of theEarth, Europe PO Box 19199, 1000 GD AmserdamNetherlandsTel: (31-20) 622-1369Fax: (31-20) 639-2181E-mail: [email protected]

POLANDPiotr Handerek European Environmental CenterUl. Uniwersytecka 150-951 WroclawPolandTel: (48-71) 343-6695Fax: (48-71) 341-0197E-mail: [email protected]

SLOVAKIAHelena Zamkovska Center for Environmental Public Advocacy(CEPA)Ponicka Huta 65Poniky 976 33SlovakiaTel: (421- 4) 134-587Fax: (421- 4) 134-587E-mail: [email protected]

UNITED KINGDOMZoltan WaliczkyRoyal Society for the Protection of Birds(RSPB)The Lodge, SandyBedfordshire, SG19 2DLUnited KingdomTel: (44-1) 766- 80-551Fax: (44-1) 767-69-1178E-mail: [email protected]

The Regional EnvironmentalCenter for Central and Eastern EuropeRobert AtkinsonHead of ProgrammeNGO Support and Capacity BuildingThe Regional Environmental Center forCentral and Eastern EuropeAdy Endre ut 9-112000 SzentendreHungaryTel: (36-26) 504-000Fax: (36-26) 311-284E-mail: [email protected]

Cerasela StancuProject ManagerNGO Support The Regional Environmental Center forCentral and Eastern EuropeAdy Endre ut 9-112000 SzentendreHungaryTel: (36-26) 504-000Fax: (36-26) 311-284E-mail: [email protected]

Commission ParticipantsDG ENVIRONMENTJean-Francois VerstryngeDeputy Director GeneralDG Environment (BU-5 3/186)European Commission1049 BrusselsBelgiumTel: (32-2) 295-1147Fax: (32-2) 299-0310E-mail: [email protected]



Soledad BlancoHead of Unit - Environmental cooperationwith European Third CountriesDG Environment (BU-9 4/140)European Commission1049 BrusselsBelgiumTel: (32-2) 299-5182Fax: (32-2) 299-4123E-mail: [email protected]

Jos DelbekeHead of Unit - Integration EnergyDG Environment (BU-9 5/139)European Commission1049 BrusselsBelgiumTel: (32-2) 296-8804Fax: (32 2) 296-9970E-mail: [email protected]

George StrongylisDG EnvironmentEuropean Commission (BU-9 4/176)1049 BrusselsBelgiumTel: (32-2) 296-8745Fax: (32-2) 299-4123E-mail: [email protected]

Guenter RaadDG EnvironmentEuropean Commission (BU-5 4/152)1049 BrusselsBelgiumTel: (32-2) 296-8760Fax: (32-2) 296-9561E-mail: [email protected]

Jon ParkerDG Environment European Commission (BU-9 4 /134)1049 BrusselsBelgiumTel: (32-2) 299-2507Fax: (32-2) 296-9561E-mail: [email protected]

Nick HanleyHead of Unit - Integration ForestsDG EnvironmentEuropean Commission (BU-9 3/204)1049 BrusselsBelgiumTel: (32-2) 296-8703Fax: (32-2) 299-0895E-mail: [email protected]

DESK OFFICERS – DG ENVIRONMENT

Silke WillDesk Officer – Czech RepublicDG Environment (BU-9 4/166)European Commission1049 BrusselsBelgiumTel: (32-2) 296-3948Fax: (32-2) 299-4123E-mail: [email protected]

Anne BurrillDesk Officer – Romania, BulgariaDG Environment (BU-9 4/130)European Commission1049 BrusselsBelgiumTel: (32-2) 295-4388Fax: (32-2) 299-4123E-mail: [email protected]

Fernando Hervas-Soriano Desk Officer – Malta, HungaryDG Environment (BU-9 4/160)European Commission 1049 BrusselsBelgiumTel: (32-2) 295-3019Fax: (32-2) 299-4123E-mail: [email protected]

Andrew MurphyDesk Officer – Albania, Bosnia, Croatia,Cyprus, FYROM, Yugoslavia, TurkeyDG Environment (BU-9 4/169) European Commission1049 BrusselsBelgiumTel: (32-2) 295-4792Fax: (32-2) 299-4123E-mail: [email protected]

Jamie ReynoldsDesk Officer – Estonia, Latvia, PolandDG Environment (BU-9 4/170)European Commission1049 BrusselsBelgiumTel:(32-2) 299-5632Fax:(32-2) 299-4123E-mail: [email protected]

Hans Van Vliet Desk Officer – Lithuania, Slovakia, SloveniaDG Environment (BU-9 4/133) European Commission1049 BrusselsBelgiumTel: (32-2) 296-8759Fax: (32-2) 299-4123E-mail: [email protected]

DG REGIONAL POLICYErich UnterwurzacherDG Regional PolicyEuropean Commission (CSM2 6/93)1049 BrusselsBelgiumTel: (32-2) 296-6721Fax: (32-2) 299-4445E-mail: [email protected]

Juan Pedro Perez EscanillaDG Regional PolicyEuropean Commission (CSM2 2/105)1049 BrusselsBelgiumTel: (32-2) 296-0601Fax: (32-2) 296-6235E-mail: [email protected]

Pascal StellerDG Regional PolicyUnit F.2, ISPA and pre-accession measuresEuropean Commission 1049 BrusselsBelgiumTel: (32-2) 295-6478Fax: (32-2) 295-1174E-mail: [email protected]


THE REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER FOR CENTRAL AND

EASTERN EUROPE (REC) is a non-partisan, non-advocacy, not-for-

profit organisation with a mission to assist in solving environmental

problems in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). The Center fulfils this

mission by encouraging cooperation among non-governmental

organisations, governments, businesses and other environmental

stakeholders, by supporting the free exchange of information and by

promoting public participation in environmental decision-making.

The REC was established in 1990 by the United States, the European

Commission and Hungary. Today, the REC is legally based on a Charter

signed by the governments of 27 countries and the European

Commission, and on an International Agreement with the Government

of Hungary. The REC has its headquarters in Szentendre, Hungary, and

local offices in each of its 15 beneficiary CEE countries which are:

Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic,

Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, FYR Macedonia, Poland, Romania,

Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia and Slovenia.

Recent donors are the European Commission and the governments

of Albania, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada,

the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany,

Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Serbia and

Montenegro, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom

and the United States, as well as other inter-governmental and

private institutions.

NG

O S

UPP

ORT

dg env-ngo dialogue group - rec...

Documents