How green is the future of EU Regional Funds?

Transcription

1 How green is the future of EU Regional Funds? A WWF score-card analysis of the Regional Funds programming for Scotland House Stefanie Lang, WWF EPO 1

2 Objectives of the Score-Card: Analyse how the partnership principle has been applied during the programming process (for environmental NGOs) Analyse the degree of environmental integration in the programming documents Look at environmental funding allocations 2

3 Methodology: Qualitative questionnaire and quantitative scores Data to be collected by national WWF staff or partner organisations Data collection partly coordinated with national environmental authorities 11 member states analysed: BG, RO, LV, SK, EE, PL, DE, UK, GR, IT and PT in total receiving ca 190 Billion of Regional Funding Nota bene: Data collection started in mid 2006 and lasted until beginning of February 2007, it is snapshot in a process 3

4 Results - general: Large programming differences in time, quality and process across analysed member states Environmental authorities well integrated into the programming process Rhetoric of sustainable development is applied SEA process not always applied correctly No systematic integration of lessons-learned from previous funding periods 4

5 Results partnership: Environmental NGOs across the analysed member states face various degrees of participation While environmental NGOs are still relatively happy with their opportunities to make comments, there is concern about the proceedings of those comments NGO access easier to NSRF and environmental OPs, less access to other key OPs like the transport OP for example 5

6 Results environmental integration: Use of sustainability as a buzz-word that does not lead to substantial changes in the programming priorities Not enough procedures to ensure a constant and efficient integration of the environment into all programmatic priorities No mechanisms or management structures proposed to ensure integration during implementation 6

7 Results environmental funding allocation: Several mechanisms applied to make funding allocations inaccessible to NGOs Most funding under the environmental heading is still allocated to environmental infrastructure measures OPs in general contain many potentially harmful projects for the environment (i.e. flood risk prevention, transport) Low funding allocations for Natura 2000 measures, the Water Framework Directive, energy efficiency and renewable energy 7

8 How far were environmental public authorities involved in the drafting of NSRF? Romania Italy Bulgaria Portugal Slovakia Poland UK Germany Estonia Latvia Greece 8

9 How far were environmental NGOs involved in the NSRF drafting process? Romania Italy Bulgaria Portugal Slovakia Poland UK Germany Latvia Greece Estonia 9

10 How transparent was the drafting of key OPs? Romania Italy Bulgaria Portugal Slovakia Poland UK Germany Estonia Latvia Greece 10

11 To what extent is sustainable development mentioned as a priority in the NSRF? Romania Italy Bulgaria Portugal Slovakia Poland UK Germany Latvia Greece Estonia 11

12 To what extent environmental integration mechanisms are defined in the NSRF? Romania Italy Bulgaria Portugal Slovakia Poland UK Germany Latvia Greece Estonia 12

13 To what extent are environmental allocations balanced across all environmental priorities? Romania Italy Bulgaria Portugal Slovakia Poland UK Germany Latvia Greece Estonia 13

14 To what extent do other OPs contain potentially harmful priorities for the environment? (here, high scores actually mean more harmful priorities) Romania Italy Bulgaria Portugal Slovakia Poland UK Germany Latvia Greece Estonia 14

15 Recommendations: Ensure efficient participation for the implementation process Lay down mechanisms, procedures and management structures to ensure environmental integration in the implementation (also project selection criteria) Use the funding options for environment to a larger extent, more strategically and in a broader scope Upgrade the SEA application and integration into the programmes Do not spend funding on priorities/projects that conflict with the habitats, the birds and the water framework directives 15

16 Thank you! Stefanie Lang,