EU-FUNDS - Pandaawsassets.panda.org/downloads/eu_funds_brochure_final.pdfEuropean transport networks...

With financial support from the Polish National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management, the Woiwodship Fund for EnvironmentalProtection and Water Management in Wroc∏aw and the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety in Germany.

EEUU--FFUUNNDDSSIINNSSTTRRUUMMEENNTTSS FFOORR FFIINNAANNCCIINNGGSSUUSSTTAAIINNAABBLLEE DDEEVVEELLOOPPMMEENNTT

WWF DeutschlandWWF Vetretung in Berlin

Große Präsidentestraße 1010178 Berlin

Tel.: 0 30 308742 15Fax: 0 30 30 87 42 50

e-mail: [email protected]

de

Fotos: © WWF-Canon / A. Oswell, © WWF / P. Âwi´tkiewicz, © WWF / A. Tabor, © WWF / M. Znaniecka

WWF GermanyWWF Berlin Office

Große Präsidentenstraße 10D-10178 Berlin

Tel.:+49(030)30874215Fax: +49(030)30874250

E-mail: [email protected]

WWF EPO36, Avenue de Tervuren box 12

B-1040 BrusselsTel.: +32(02)7400930Fax: +32(02)7438819

E-mail: [email protected]/epo

This publication is part of the project „Finance instruments for sustainable develop-ment”, financed by the Polish National Fund for Environmental Protection and WaterManagement, the Woiwodship Fund for Environmental Protection and WaterManagement in Wroc∏aw and the Federal Ministry for the Environment, NatureConservation and Nuclear Safety in Germany.

Published in April 2005 by WWF Germany, Frankfurt am Main; WWF is entirely responsible for the content of this publication

1. Edition: 500Editors: Peter Torkler, WWF Germany;

Marta WiÊniewska und Przemys∏aw Kalinka, WWF Poland.Coordination: Marta WiÊniewska, WWF Poland ([email protected]);

Peter Torkler, WWF Germany ([email protected]).Printed by Naj-Comp s.j., Warszawa on paper with the Nordic Swan ecolabel.

© WWF Germany, Frankfurt am Main, 2005. Any reproduction in full or in part mustmention the titel and credit the above-mentioned publisher as the copyright owner.

WWF is one of the world’s largest and most experienced independent conservationorganizations, with almost 5 million supporters and a global network active in morethan 100 countries.

WWF’s mission is to stop the degradation of the planet’s natural environment and tobuild a future in which humans live in harmony with nature, by:• conserving the world’s biological diversity• ensuring that the use of renewable natural resources is sustainable• promoting the reduction of pollution and wasteful consumption.

More information about the presented positive examples:

BBlluummbbeerrggeerr MMüühhllee ttoouurriissmm cceennttrree::NABU-Besucherzentrum

im Biosphärenreservat Schorfheide-Chorin16278 Angermünde

Tel.:+49 (03331)[email protected]

MMäärrkkiisscchheess LLaannddbbrroott eeccoo--bbaakkeerryyBergiusstr. 3612057 Berlin

Tel.: +49 (030)[email protected]

TTeeuuffeellssmmoooorr rreennaattuurraattiioonnForstamt Köpenick

Dahlwitzer Landstr. 412587 Berlin

Tel.: +49 (030)[email protected]

The projects Märkisch Landbrot (FKZ: B 074 UFP II) and Teufelsmoor (FKZ: UEP 4745/OÜ/5)where realized with financial support from the European Union and the Federal State of Berlin

as part of the Environmental Mitigation Programme.For further details you can contact:

Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung Referat IXABrückenstr. 6

D-10173 Berlin Tel.: +49 (030)90252409

[email protected]

One of the fundamental aims of theEuropean Community since itsestablishment has been to secureharmonious social and economicdevelopment across its member states. Inorder to provide financial support to lessdeveloped regions, the Communityestablished the structural funds as partof its regular budget. The structural fundsare designed to help regions andindustries whose independent develop-ment is hindered, in order to achieve abalanced economic development andstandard of living across the EU memberstates. The structural funds are aninstrument of EU regional policy which iscurrently orientated towards three priorityareas.

• The focus in “objective 1 areas” is on thedevelopment and structural improvementof regions with a development backlogwhose gross domestic product (GDP)totals less than 75% of theCommunity’s average.

• In “objective 2 areas”, support forregional policy is to foster economicand social change in areas withstructural problems (regions withdeclining industrial development,areas dependent on agriculture andfishing).

• Activities in “objective 3 areas”focus on developing education andemployment policy in all the EUmember states.

There are currently four structural fundsdesigned to achieve these aims.

• The European Social Fund (ESF) –established in 1960, this fund financesmeasures to combat unemployment.

• The European Agricultural Guidanceand Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) –established in 1964, this fund supportsstructural reform in agriculture anddevelopment in rural areas. This fundincludes the Guidance section, as aninstrument of regional policy, and theGuarantee section which finances theEU’s common agricultural policy andwhich is not part of the structural funds.

• The European Regional DevelopmentFund (ERDF) – established in 1975, thisfund focuses primarily on eliminatingeconomic imbalances between regionsin the Community.

1

The history and aims of the EU’s

structural funds

© WWF / S. i A. Homan

Between 2004 and 2006, the new EUmember states are to receive €24.5bn fromthe structural and cohesion funds. Aroundhalf of this sum will be invested in Poland.

The EU’s regional policy is subject topersistent change. Due to theunprecedented enlargement of the EU inMay 2004, priorities and instruments of EUpolicy currently require reform. In July2004, the European Commissionpresented its proposals for regulationswhich define in detail the principles offuture regional policy for the new budgetperiod (2007 to 2013)1. The Commissionhopes that the new regional policy willachieve greater success in implementingthe EU’s most important goals as laiddown in the Lisbon Strategy2. Theinterests of environmental protection setas priorities for Community policy at theEuropean Council meeting at Gothenburgin 20013 are also to be considered here.

In order to simplify this system, threeobjectives for regional policy wereproposed. These objectives are to beimplemented with three correspondingfunds: the European Regional DevelopmentFund, the European Social Fund and theCohesion Fund. The European Fisheries

Fund and the Fund for Rural Development(“European Agricultural Fund for RuralDevelopment”) will be implemented in futureas independent funds and are in principleindependent of the three new proposedstructural funds.

• The Financial Instrument forFisheries Guidance (EFF)– established in 1993, thisfund supports measures toreform the fishing sector in themember states.

Additional support for theCommunity’s regional policy hascome since 1993 from theCohesion Fund. This fundsupports investment in trans-European transport networksand environmental protection.Money from this fund is availableto member states whose per-capita GDP is below 90% of theCommunity’s average. Thesecountries currently include allnew Member States (Estonia,Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland,Slowakia, Slowenia, CzechRepublic, Hungary, Cyprus) aswell as Spain, Portugal andGreece.

32

11997700 11998800 11999900 22000000

ESF 37,0 700,5 3212,0 7675,0

EAGGF Guarantee section 58,4 314,6 1825,3 3510,4

ERDF — 793,4 4554,1 14 226,4

EFF — — — 498,0

Cohesion fund — — — 2800,0

TToottaall 9955,,44 11880088,,55 99559911,,44 3311 995577,,00

Number of member states 6 9 12 15

Annual regional policy budgets in the European Community in millions €.

Reform and future

of the structural funds

in the enlarged EU

1 Period of validity for the programme planning documents which form the basis for the use of EU funds.2 At the European Union’s spring summit in Lisbon in March 2000, the heads of government and state

adopted the so-called “Lisbon Strategy”. The aim is to make the EU the most competitive and dynamicknowledge-based economic area in the world by the year 2010.

3 At its 2001 summit meeting in Gothenburg, the Council of the European Union adopted the strategy forsustainable development in the EU.



Source: European Commission, http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy

Convergence will be the first of the three newobjectives of regional policy. This meanspromoting economic growth and creatingnew jobs in regions and member states withthe greatest development backlog.

Furthermore, regional competitivenessand employment will be promoted inregions that do not fulfil the criteria of theconvergence objective. The third objectiveis European territorial co-operation,which is to support the harmonious andsustainable development of Europe inconjunction with support for borderregions and trans-border co-operation.

The European Commission proposesexpenditure of €336.1bn for the structuralfunds between 2007 and 2013. This sumrepresents around one third of the EU’s entirebudget for this period. The Polish Ministry of

Economics and Labour estimates that Polandwill receive more than €50bn from thesefunds. Taking government subsidies and therecipients’ own funds into consideration,projects with a volume of €100bn to €110bnare likely to be implemented during thisperiod. The efficient application of thesefunds thus represents both an enormousopportunity and challenge.

RREEFFOORRMM PPEERRIIOODD 22000077––22001133 TTOOTTAALL PPOOLLAANNDD

Funds from the EU’s regional policy budget €336,1bn > €50bn

Convergence (ERDF, ESF and Cohesion Funds) €264,0bn

Regional competitiveness and employment (ERDF and ESF) €57,9bn

European territorial co-operation (ERDF) €13,2bn

Proposal for financing the EU’s regional policy from 2007 to 2013

The “Strategy for sustainable developmentin the EU” adopted at the Gothenburgsummit demands that economic develop-ment in the member states should go handin hand with social development andenvironmental protection. This means thatmoney from the structural and cohesionfunds should be used also with a view tothe interests of environmental protection.

EU subsidies are creating a host of ways inwhich sustainable development conceptscan be implemented. They currentlyprovide a key source of finance for thenecessary environmental protectioninfrastructure, such as sewage treatmentplants or sewers. These funds providecountries such as Poland with anopportunity to improve the quality of waterin their rivers or to reform their wastemanagement systems. According to theEuropean Commission, approximately10% of the regional policy budget for theperiod from 2000 to 2006 will be used forvarious environmental investments.Examples from many countries haveshown that EU funds can also be used inthe region within the scope of other,sometimes unconventional, projects inorder to promote regional developmentwhilst at the same time considering theprotection of nature. Furthermore, it ishoped that with economic developmentand addressing of fundamental structural

shortcomings inregions it will bepossible to makepeople moreaware of environ-mental issuesand nature intheir regions.

One should,however, notforget that theapplication of thestructural andcohesion fundsoften involvescertain risks.Ignoring theprinciples ofs u s t a i n a b l ed e v e l o p m e n twith a one-sidedfocus on economic development has ledto negative consequences for the environ-ment in many projects financed by the EU.Thoughtless granting of subsidies, forexample, for large-scale transport infra-structure projects, often fails to yield theexpected economic gain and at the sametime threatens areas worth protecting. Onthe other hand, sensible planning anddevelopment in the field of publicmunicipal transport can certainly generatepositive effects for the environment.

54

Funds and the environment

– opportunities and risks



Source: European Commission, http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy

In early 2004, Polish environmentalorganizations established a Coalition forEU Funds. This coalition consists of WWF-Poland, the Institute for EnvironmentalEconomics, the Institute for SustainableDevelopment and the “Polish GreenNetwork” association. The tasks of thiscoalition include:

• Monitoring sustainable implementationand the involvement of partners in theuse of EU funds

• Active involvement in the preparation of thecoming programme planning phase (2007to 2013) as well as advocating efficientparticipation by non-governmentalorganizations (NGOs) in decision-makingprocesses concerning the use of EU funds

• Improving expertise on the part ofNGOs regarding the use of EU funds

Details of the Coalition’s activities and thelatest news can be found on the Internet atwww.koalicjafs.org.pl.

The structural and cohesion funds shouldbe applied on the basis of the principleof partnership between the EuropeanCommission and the respective memberstate and its regional and localauthorities. Article 8 of CouncilRegulation No. 1260/1999 of 21 June1999 provides that the principle ofpartnership shall also apply to regional,local and other competent publicauthorities and other relevant competentbodies, including economic and socialpartners interested in the application ofEU funds. Article 10 of the proposedgeneral regulation contains a similarprovision for the pending programmeplanning phase.

All the parties involved should co-operateextensively during each phase, i.e. duringthe planning, introduction and monitoringof EU regional policy. This means thatmember states making use of thestructural and cohesion funds must createthe necessary consultancy services andconditions for real dialogue (for instance,by providing the relevant documentationand with sufficient time).

In many EU countries, numerousenvironmental organizations are now alreadyinvolved in the planning and introduction ofEU programmes. Representatives of theseorganizations are working in national andregional steering and monitoring committeesand, for example in Poland, are participating

in consultation talksregarding preparations forthe national developmentplan which will set theframework for the applicationof EU funds from 2007 to2013. Unfortunately, thiswork is frequently hinderedor prevented by publicauthorities who are stillunused to dialogue withenvironmental partners.However, decision-makersare increasingly recognisingefforts by environmentalorganizations in the interestof a more efficient, trans-parent and sustainableapplication of EU funds.

Principles of partnership

in the application of funds

76

© WWF / A. Tabor


A co-generation plant that had beeninstalled at the business premises hasmeanwhile been shut down for technicalreasons. Additional power has beengenerated since 1993 by two solarsystems (a thermal solar system and aphoto-voltaic system). What was once thelargest photo-voltaic system in Berlin andBrandenburg is currently being upgradedby 7 kW to 28 kW. Furthermore, thecompany uses a rainwater collectionsystem and water-saving equipment.Flour production and processing iscarried out in a largely dust-freeenvironment at all workplaces in thebakery. Hot exhaust air from the bakeryhall passes through a textile filter and isthen used to heat a warehouse. Energy-saving lighting was also installed.Compared to the time when the companyfirst went into business, energyconsumption has been reduced by 50%,water consumption by 20% and carbondioxide emissions by 70%. The projecttook 18 months and cost €2.4m, with 68%of this amount financed by the BerlinEnvironment Relief Programme, which isbacked by the European RegionalDevelopment Fund and the City of Berlin.

Positive example:Teufelsmoor renaturation

The aim of the project was to rehabilitateand restore the Teufelsmoor area in orderto protect and develop a planned naturereserve of around 6.4 hectares.Teufelsmoor is one of Berlin’s rarehighmoors located at the northern slope ofMüggelberg. The end of a sled-run aboveTeufelsmoor was reinforced usingconstruction rubble in the 1950s. Theconstruction rubble displaced the moorand at the same time caused an adverseshift in pH. The entire construction rubblewas removed from the moor during theproject. A moor lake with shallow bankswas restored in order to promote theresettlement of amphibians.

A visitor platform was also built over theshallow shoreline and various environ-mental education measures undertaken.The project cost a total of €371,000, ofwhich €319,000 was financed by theEuropean Regional Development Fundand €52,000 from public sources. Theproject ran from December 2001 toDecember 2003. Berlin’s forestryadministration was the recipient of thefunds and also carried out the project.

The project has significantly boosted thearea as a visitor attraction. The conditionsfor the future existence of the highmoor arenow good and it will offer an excellentvenue in the future for environmentaleducation. The project has also played acentral role in protecting biodiversity in whathas become a rare biotope. Shortly aftercompletion of the project, typical specieshad already settled in this moor again.

Negative aspects of the use of EU funds

Unfortunately, in many cases the principleof sustainability has not been respected inthe application of structural funds. Manyprojects have not only harmed theenvironment, but also failed to achieve theexpected economic effects. For instance,harbours have been built which almostnobody uses, or roads and transportnetworks have been constructed that cutthrough nature reserves and habitats.Investment in environmental protectionmeasures, such as new sewage treatmentplants, have been planned andconstructed without considering theactual situation or demand, therebycausing unnecessary damage to valuablenature areas.

Therefore, the importance of a thoroughexamination of planned measures andgoals must be emphasized even forprojects that are ostensibly focussed onenvironmental protection. This is the onlyway to prevent EU funds from being usedto finance unnecessary investments or

9

In order to apply EU funds more efficientlyin future even in the new EU memberstates, it is worthwhile to learn from theexperience of other countries where EU-financed projects have been underway formany years. Next to positive examples ofprojects that have resulted in economicdevelopment whilst observing theinterests of environmental protection,there are unfortunately also negativeexamples where projects have not onlyharmed the environment but also failed tobring economic gain.

Positive example:Blumberger Mühle tourism centre

The Blumberger Mühle tourism centre inBrandenburg is a model project in termsof sustainability. This project was largelyfinanced by the European RegionalDevelopment Fund (EU subsidiestotalled €3.23m with a total project costof €13.5m). The aim of the project wasnot only to promote environmentalprotection and eco-friendly tourism, butalso to create jobs in the Schorfheide-Chorin biosphere reserve. An informationcentre was built offering environmentaltraining, exhibitions and events related toenvironmental protection and regionalculture. The centre was designed tocause minimum environmentalinterference. Part of the power supply forthe centre comes from renewable

sources, whilst the building itself blendsinto the surrounding landscape. In orderto attract tourism to the region, a naturetrail was created which leads through allthe main areas that make up the naturereserve’s ecosystem. An 18-hectarenature discovery park was also built. Thisproject created four direct jobs andprotected a host of other workplaces,especially in the catering sector - quitean achievement in a region whereunemployment totals 20%.

The Blumberger Mühle project was carriedout by Naturschutzbund Deutschland(NABU). Despite competition for subsidieswith projects focusing on traditionaleconomic development, the projectmanaged to attract EU structural fundssupport through the ERDF.

Positive example:Märkisches Landbrot eco-bakery

Märkisches Landbrot is a medium-sized bakery in Berlin which usesingredients from controlled organicfarming only. Since going into businessin 1981, extensive efforts have beenmade to make the bakery’s operationeven more eco-friendly. In 1993, thebakery moved premises and at its newlocation joined forces with two othersmall businesses, i.e. an organicconfectioners and food store.

8

Examples of positive and negative

use of EU funds in Germany

- towards change

The WWF project “Finance instruments forsustainable development in the enlargedEU” is financed by the Polish NationalFund for Environmental Protection andWater Management and the GermanFederal Ministry for the Environment,Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety.The aim of the project is to support thefuture, environmentally friendlyapplication of EU funds in Poland basedon German experience. Particularattention will be paid to improving co-operation between government, regionaland local authorities and environmentalorganizations as a way of ensuring that EUfunds are applied to a greater extent inorder to achieve sustainable development.

The main task of the first project phase isto form a network of institutions andplayers with an interest in increasingthe application of EU funds in theenvironmental sector.

The project is to improve co-operationbetween ministries for the environment,economics and labour, regional authoritiesand administrations as well as withenvironmental organizations. Workshopsand seminars are being held for thispurpose. Sharing Germany’s experiencewith other countries will have a central roleto play because EU-financed projects havebeen carried out in Germany for manyyears. The project will include, for example,expert workshops that will be organized inco-operation with German authorities.

Measures for the sustainable applicationof EU funds require both co-operationbetween different players as well as theappropriate expert background.A manual for administrations andNGOs will hence be published within thescope of the project together with thePolish Ministry for the Environment. Thismanual is to highlight options for thesustainable use of EU funds at local level.This will enable readers to already obtainfunds in the current subsidy period forconcrete projects benefiting bothbusiness and the environment.

The second important part of the project willbe participation in the discussion andplanning of thestructural fundsin the years2007 to 2013.WWF is contri-buting to thiswork both at EUlevel, where itsubmits criticalcomments onproposed regu-lations, and atnational level,where the orga-nization and itspartners areinvolved in theprogramming forthe eventual useof the funds.

11

projects which nobody needs. This iswhere environmental organizations havean important role to play. They mustdiligently examine projects of this type aswell as their proposed locations.

Involvement of non-governmentalorganizations in the applicationof EU funds

For more than 10 years, environmentalorganizations have been actively involvedin the planning and application of structuralfunds in East Germany. The experience ofthese organizations with the structuralfunds initially was rather negative, as theirefforts were hardly noticed during the firstplanning period. Although the provincialgovernments did try to involve economicand social partners as demanded byBrussels, they gave preference to businessorganizations, universities or institutionsclose to government over independentenvironmental organizations. Time-consuming efforts were required beforeenvironmental organizations were able totake part even in committees monitoringthe use of structural funds. Although publicpolls were conducted on programmeplanning documents, the quality andpublication dates for information by publicauthorities left much to be desired. Anothermajor problem were the limited resources

of the environmental organizationsthemselves, who rarely had the funds normanpower or expertise needed toeffectively take part in the planning,earmarking and application of EU funds.

Experience by environmental organizationsin the current programme planning phase(2000 to 2006) is somewhat better. Most ofthe provincial governments have invitedenvironmental organizations to join themonitoring committees. The process fordiscussing programme planning documentshas also improved significantly. Theenvironmental organizations have issued aseries of comments on procedures for theindividual funds which in many cases havebeen considered (for example, in the case ofthe agricultural guidance and guaranteefund in Thuringia, where all the amendmentsproposed by the Grüne Liga associationwere included).

Thanks to the efforts of such organizations,positive changes are already evident inthe application of structural funds from thepoint of view of environmental protection.However, there is still much to do if thesefunds are to be really used in the interestof sustainable development. Theexperience gained by the Germanorganizations shows, however, that it isworthwhile to actively contribute towardsplanning, earmarking and using EU funds.

The WWF project: „Finance instruments

for sustainable development

in the enlarged European Union“



10

12 | FFUUNNDDUUSSZZEE UUNNIIJJNNEE — INSTRUMENT FINANSOWANIA ZRÓWNOWA˚ONEGO ROZWOJU12

© WWF / W. Lipiec

At EU level, WWF demands that the newregulations of the European Commissioncontain effective control mechanisms toensure adherence to Europeanenvironmental protection regulations andthat they define as a central aim theimplementation of sustainable developmentin conjunction with the use of EU funds bymember states. The European Commissionshould ensure both the integration ofenvironmental issues into the regionalpolicy of the individual member states aswell as the examination of theenvironmental effects in the programmeplanning plans and documents, adoptingthe principles of strategic environmentalimpact assessment4.

One important aspect is to securesufficient funds to establish the Natura2000 Network5 and implement the WaterFramework Directive6. If the newregulations for the individual funds fail toclearly refer to these environmental issues,there is a high risk that these projects

which are so important for environmentalprotection in Europe will not be sufficientlyfunded by the member states.

During the new programme planningperiod, environmental organizationsshould have the same rights as othersocial and economic partners in theplanning, implementation and monitoringof regional policy in the individual memberstates. This will require that appropriateprovisions are included in the regulationson the structural funds in order to ensureinstitutional support for the organizationsparticipating in the processes.

In November 2004, WWF published itscomments on the proposed regulations onregional policy in the EU. The Englishversion of these comments can be foundon the WWF European Policy Officewebsite at:

http://www.panda.org/downloads/europe/wwfsfpositionfinal.pdf

4 Pursuant to Directive 2001/42/EC, a strategic environmental impact assessment must be performed asof 2007 for all programme planning documents related to applications for EU funds.

5 European Network of Protected Areas, established on the basis of the Directive on the Conservation ofNatural Habitats (92/43/EEC) as well as the Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds (79/409/EEC).

6 One of the aims of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EU) is to achieve a good ecologic andchemical condition of waters in the EU by the year 2015.

EU-FUNDS - Pandaawsassets.panda.org/downloads/eu_funds_brochure_final.pdfEuropean transport networks...

Documents

Transcript of EU-FUNDS - Pandaawsassets.panda.org/downloads/eu_funds_brochure_final.pdfEuropean transport networks...