A WWF Score-Card examination of Regional Funds programming documents for 2007-13 Stefanie Lang, Regional Funds Policy officer, WWF European Policy Office

Presentation structure: 1) WWF as a stakeholder in EU Regional Policy 2) Background of participation and environmental integration in Regional Funds plus the objectives of the WWF score-card 3) Main results 4) Conclusions

WWF as a stakeholder in Regional Policy: >WWF EU funding manual and Natura 2000 funding >WWF conflicting EU funds publication >WWF in steering and monitoring committees >WWF active in various NGO coalitions >WWF active in the ongoing programming process

Background of the partnership principle: >Legal requirement (§ 11 of 07-13 General Regulation) >DG Regio discussion paper (11/05) shows quality increase of programmes implemented with strong partnership: - contributes to the effectiveness, efficiency, legitimisation and transparency of operations - improves ownership and institutional capacity >BUT: Big differences in the realisation of the principle across regions, member states, programmes

Background of environmental integration: >Legal requirement (§ 17 of 07-13 General Regulation) >Heritage of the article 6 of the treaty and the Cardiff process in 1998 plus the Sustainable Development Strategy in 2001 >BUT: Various approaches, methods and degrees of environmental integration into Regional Funds policy exist

The WWF scorecard analysis: A project analysing the programming process of several member states according to the principles of partnership, environmental integration and transparency. Done by WWF staff nationally and partners like RSPB, Estonian Fund for Nature, Daphne and LPN.

Key results – 1: Environmental authorities in the drafting process

Key results – 2: Environmental NGOs and their contribution to NSRF

Key results – 3: NGO contributions incorporated

Key results – 4: Environmental integration: Sustainable Development

Key results – 5: Environmental integration: Addressing environmental priorities

Key results – 6: Environmental integration: Natura 2000 as a priority

Key results – 7: Resource allocation for environment and nature conservation Estonia: Roughly 25% are allocated for environment Latvia: Roughly 9% of ERDF and 38% of Cohesion Fund are allocated to environment – no detailed allocation Poland: Roughly 17% of CF on environment, but 42% on transport. Roughly 7% of ERDF on environment including 3,4% on Natura 2000, but 32% on national roads

Conclusion: Transparency of money allocation Transparency is weak as: Money allocations come in very late in the process Money allocations are not part of the SEA Large Projects are not published or not discussed Money is allocated for an Operational Programme, not broken down further Money allocations are only given in along unspecific priorities Detailed money allocations are not published or discussed

Conclusion: Environmental Integration Environmental integration is often insufficient: No strategic integration of sustainable development in the core sense of the term Environment is mostly tackled with end-of-the-pipe infrastructure solutions No integration of the Water Framework Directive funding needs Weak tackling of Natura 2000 funding needs

Conclusion: Partnership Partnership principle is only partly realised: Seemingly mostly good integration of environmental authorities Unclear role of NGOs : informed – included – taken serious – influential – or just neglected No clarity of the follow-up – what happens to the comments?

Thank you! http://www.panda.org/eu SLang@wwfepo.org tel: +32-2-7400930