Kick Off Meeting of the Financing for Natura 2000 Tender

Kick Off Meeting of the Financing for Natura 2000 Tender

Kick – Off Meeting of the Financing for Natura 2000 Tender

Brussels, DG ENV, 07.11.05

MINUTES

Drafted by Stefanie LangAndreas Baumüller, Peter Torkler,

14.11.05

1) Welcome and Introduction by DG Environment (N. Hanley and A. Kaemena)

Tender Process was followed and the WWF Germany lead consortium was awarded the tender as a contractor. DG Environment made it clear that this is not a WWF project, but WWF and the consortium is giving a defined service under the control and responsibility of the tender contract managed by DG Environment.

The steering group will not be responsible for doing the work but to follow the process, to advise and oversee the work and to give comments.

2) Introduction to the project logic, timing, consortium members, roles and responsibilities (P. Torkler, WWF Germany)

see presentation attached available under:

Timing: 04/ 06 handbook translations ready, 05/06 start conducting national workshop(s)

Main issues dDiscussedion:

Discussion:

  • Rationale of tender:

According to DG ENV, The tender exercise should not be seen as an end product, but as the start of a process. Beside the defined outputs one of the duties of the contractor is to provide a final report to highlight major information gaps, further needs of MS, lack of guidance and so on as a result of the national workshops.

  • Division of Roles

The role of the Commission as regards the handbook is to do the final quality check of the versions delivered by the contractor.. The handbook will be a Commission publication. The role of the steering group is to ensure user-friendliness and to make ensure communication across all relevant stakeholders easier.

  • Regulation finalisation stages:

While the Financial Perspectives are not adopted by the Council there will be no official versions either of the legislative package for Cohesion policy (2007-2013) that delineates the scope of the eligible expenditures neither of the Community Strategic Guidelines that point out the priorities for investment. It might still be the case that important changes are happening in some regulations (i.e. Regional Funds) depending on the budgetary deal. Nevertheless MS need to do ss start their National Strategic Reference Frameworks ome of their planning and programming on the bases of draft documentsregulations, so the handbook will also need to use those drafts as a framework.

  • Background / references for the handbook:

It is important to establish the link between Strategy and Take the national strategies for Lisbon into account as they will also give a good indication of the national priorities for Regional Funding. Take the ‘Integrated guidelines for growth and jobs (2005-2008) renewed broad economic guidelines into account as they state that of which Guideline 11 ‘To encourage the sustainable use of resources and strengthen the synergies between environmental protection and jobs’ gives the contextual framework for investment priorities biodiversity is an economic asset.

  • Target group of the handbook:

The tTarget group of the handbook, as stated in the tender description, are the relevant authorities in the MS authorities in charge of the programming and management of the different funds.. Beneficiaries are the ones who benefit from funding (they may be defined in specific Regulations). In some cases, those two categories may overlap (as in the case of beneficiaries of Regional Funding) in other cases not.

The handbook is targeted to authorities but will nevertheless be very helpful for stakeholder representatives (like landowners-, forest owners, farmers, hunters, fishermen associations) etc.) who can give input in an early stage and distribute the information to their members (who in many cases will be the final beneficiaries). The workshops are not intended to train individual beneficiaries on which funding possibilities exist. Nota bene: The tender contract defines authorities as the main target group.

  • Rationale of handbook:

The handbook will present community funding options, not national funding possibilities. Just the information of what funding possibilities are theoretically possible by EU funds will help to guide more funding towards Natura 2000 at national and regional level.

  • Inclusion of stakeholders in workshops:

The steering group considered beneficial to invite stakeholder representatives (e.g., landowners, farmers and forestry associations, fishermen) to the workshops. These can give input in an early stage and disseminate the information to their members (who in many cases will be the final beneficiaries). However, it was made clear during the steering group meeting that the workshops are not intended to train individual beneficiaries on which funding possibilities exist. As mentioned before, the tender contract defines authorities as the main target group.

The inclusion of all stakeholders (like fishermen and forest owners or hunters) is welcomed and suggested by the Commission , although butit can not be prescribed to Member States. They are the ones who define the participants of the workshops. Those beneficiaries and representatives of them who could use the handbook should be included to the national processes according to country needs and wishes.

The inclusion of representatives of all stakeholders (like e.g. fishermen, and forest owners, farmers, landowners, or hunters) is welcomed and suggested by the Commission but can not be prescribed to Member States. They are the ones who define the participants of the workshops. Those Bbeneficiaries and their representatives of them who could use the handbook should be included to the national processes according to country needs and wishes. The WS will be useful also for the establishment of networks.

  • Structure of Workshops

The contractor re wwill provide abe There will be aproposalsuggested for thesuggested structure ofor the national workshops. However, eachveryevery MS will beis invited to adapt the structure to their national needs and to keep it flexible.

Rationale of handbook:

The steering group made clear that the handbook will present Ccommunity funding options, not national funding possibilities. The tTarget group is the authorities, that whichare the ones to define define the national eligibility according in the framtoeframe of the framework eligibility laid down by Ccommunity regulations. Just Tthe information of what funding possibilities are theoretically possible by EU funds will be very helpfulhelp to allocateguide more funding towards Natura 2000 at national and regional level.

3) Presentation of guidance document, logic and structure (C. Miller, IEEP)

Ssee presentation attachedavailable under:

Main issues discussed:

Discussion:

  • Which funds to include:

The European Regional Development, the European Social Fund, Tthe Cohesion fund, the Rural Development Fund, LIFE + and the Research and Employment Fund are to be included. should be included as well as the 6th framework programme for Research. To define the funds to be included, it might be helpful to look at the list in the LIFE+ proposal. Highlight the cross-border and Interreg possibilities for nature conservation. Technical assistance under the SFs is a good tool for capacity building as well. DG ENV must ensure that the DGs representing the above mentioned Funds are included in the Steering Group

  • Usefulness of guidance handbook (target audience, beneficiaries, timing):

The guide is targeted at the authorities, but it is also helpful for final beneficiaries and their representing organisations as they then can get more involved into the programming. Even when the programming is finished, there is always scope to insert more options, for example during the mid-term review. But it is not an application guide. this is not very clear

Probably better saying: “Even after the finalisation and initial approval of the programmes, there will be scope for possible changes in the programmes and measures, for example in the light of the mid-term review.”

  • Range of beneficiary categoriestypes

Education organisations and SMEs (Small and Medium Size Enterprises)) should be added to the list of beneficiary categories.

Some articles also do not clearly mention only one specific beneficiary (as in EAFRD) so the article will be mentioned for all the different categories of beneficiaries. When talking about SFs, it needs to be distinguished if beneficiaries live in an objective 1 area or not as this defines eligibility.

  • Land-Use types

Land-use types seem to be the best category for specific information as species is not clear enough. Garigue is very important in Southern Europe, so it should be a sub-categorypoint. The theme of risk prevention could be linked to different land-use types as well. Win-win situations with co-eligibility should be highlighted.

Consortium suggestion: This would be presented with three complex examples to be placed before the tables start, but can also be taken up by adding small box examples alongside the tables.

  • Detail of measures to be described

It seems reasonable to use the article 8 list as a base of the activities needed funding in Natura 200 sites, but it should beto further detailed to detail it a bit more. Marine sites are not yet designated, so here, more detail in the designation is advisable. For all the other sites, more detail in the management and investment costs is recommended. It is advised to add costs for consultancy and advisors to the capacity building measures group. Separated pilot management plans from long-term management plans as eligibility for LIFE+ is different. Illustrate measures with examples.

Consortium suggestion: For each land-use form there will be 2-3 explanatory project/measure examples included

  • Add national data to handbook

If existent (like in Poland), the analysis of national funding options or national eligibility data can be annexed to the relevant national language exversionampleexample of the handbook.

Consortium suggestion: the scope and context of this inclusion should be discussed during the national workshops.

  • Cost categories

Cost categories make sense from a nature conservation and Natura 2000 management point of view, but might not reflect the logic of community funding (like for example the logic of SFs). A footnote should refer to this fact. Complementary information should make these aspects clear.

  • Description of funds

An explanation of funds will include the presentation of the programming architecture and the key stakeholders in the process so that it becomes clear who has the responsibility in programming and distributing the monies.

4) Presentation of workshop structure, approach, modules and national organisation (D. Schubert, NOVA)

see attached presentation available under:

Main issues discussed:

Discussion:

  • Role of national authorities:

The national representative in the Habitats Committee will serves as the key contact point (unless thishe representativehe or s mayheshe has delegated this task).. The success of the workshops will clearly depends on the involvement of national authorities.

One representative of the Commission will participate in most of the workshops, so the dates should be communicated in due time to the CommissionDG Env. Costs for preparing the structure and content are included in the tender.All costs for the organisation (e.g.: room, equipment, travel expenses for participants…) lie have to de financed bywith the national authorities. This, tSo the relevant authorities need to be alerted in order they to include workshop budgets into their yearly planning for 2006.

Consortium suggestion: the cConsortium willConsortium alerts national workshop pPartners immediately about draft workshop budget and prepares suggestions for a clear division of tasks between national partners and national authorities. Furthermore, DG ENVnv.Env. should encourage the planning process within national authorities by an official letter (in addition to the request that members of the Habitats Committee should inform their national authorities).

  • Choice of modules:

Beside the two modules “Guidance handbook” and “National framework conditions” it is proposed that the national authorities who choose the modules according to their needs and interests. The proposed modules reflect a mixture of potential needs of authorities and final beneficiaries. A potential additional module is suggested: looking into the future and how those ad hoc groups could continue working together.

Consortium suggestion: Prepare an additional module to clarify the question on how to manage more integrated approach on financing Natura 2000 sites in the frame of cooperation between authorities on all levels.

  • Inclusion of stakeholders:

It is in the final responsibility of the authorities to define participants in those workshops. Commission will only give advice to include all stakeholders as multipliers to the beneficiaries. But it is suggested that members of the steering group also alert their national partners to ask for an invitation to the workshops. It is strongly supported by the steering group to use those workshops as the start of a network to continue work together. Although 30-40 participants were foreseen in the Tender specifications, steering group members suggested that more participants should be included.

  • Duration of workshops:

When looking at the complexity of the issue, it was considered that a full day meeting might be too short. The steering working group recommends that the workshops stretch over 1,5 days.

Consortium suggestion: It will be part of the Workshop guidelines to give advicseadvise to the national partners to plan the workshops accordant to the number of chosen modules (at least one day, better 2 days).

  • Capacity of national partners to provide the national eligibility information:

There steering group expressed was some doubt onf of the capacity of national partners (authorities and consortium partners) to be able to provide the necessary national data on funding options. Some MS have already fulfilled an analysis, some others not. And this is a crucial part as you cannot present best practices from other MS in a national workshop.

Consortium suggestion: Analysis raster resp. recommendation for practical proceeding of analysis as part of the workshop guidelines may help preparing the national part of the workshops.

  • Timing of workshops:

A point of discussion was if a workshop based on draft Regulations should be conducted or if the workshops should be postponed until a final regulation situation can form the bases for information given during the workshops. This is a crucial question. If necessary the Ccommission will pick it up and launch a discussion in the next Habitats Committee

  • Flexibility:

The help and content for the workshops are an offer by the tender project – if the Member States want to organise more workshops, bigger workshops or workshops in different languages, they are invited to do so (e.g. extra workshops in different national languages).

Workshops in different regions are recommended particularly in those countries that have decentral (programming) structures (e.g. the Lander in Germany).

5) Summary

The structureGuidance structure and workshop structure have both been agreed in principle by the steering group however, concerning details of both presentation and phrasing further elaboration is necessaryGuidance handbook structure and workshops structure hasvehave both been globally agreed by the steering group. A more elaborated draft of both will be circulated by e-mail to the steering group members by the end of this year (21st December 2005).

Comments and inputs of the steering group are requested by the end of January 2006.

6) AOB

  • The Commission and the tender contractor will look into the possibility to establish a website to store all relevant documents.
  • The nNext steering group meeting will be helddate: ondate: 02.03.05
  • The minutes and all presentations as well as the technical annex of the tender contract will be circulated to the steering group.
  • DG Regio asked why Romania and Bulgaria is not included in the work as they will be most likely member for the next budgetary period. The contractor explained that they intend to submit an additional offer in order to cover these countries.

1

Top View