EU funds and EU policy in 200713 Contents: I. NGO Coalition on EU funds II. Money III. New regulatio

1
EU funds and EU policy in 2007-13
ContentsI. NGO Coalition on EU fundsII.
Money III. New regulations for EU fundsIV.
New strategic guidelines for EU fundsV. Other
recent developments in cohesion policyVI. Wider
context EU transport and waste
policiesMartin KonecnýCEE Bankwatch Network
/ Friends of the Earth Europe
2
I. Coalition on EU funds

www.coalition-on-eufunds.orgeu.funds_at_foeeurope.o
rg



3

• II. Money how much EU funds in 2007-13?
• SF/CF transfers to NMS will roughly double from
  8 billion annually in 2004-06 to possibly as
  much as 20 billion in 2007-13
• More than double for CZ, SK, PL, HU
• Small increases for Baltic countries
• Depends on the financial perspectives deal

4
III. Regulations

• Some key changes
• CF - the same general regulation will apply to CF
  as for SF extension of eligible areas removal
  of 10m threshold
• EC to approve only major projects - for both SF
  and CF
• Process
• European Parliament voted on 6 July (first
  reading)
• Council of the EU negotiations ongoing in the
  Structural Actions Working Party
• Final adoption only after the budget

5
European Parliaments demands on the new
regulations

• For the General Regulation
• Maintain a strong partnership principle
• Affirm protection and improvement of the
  environment throughout implementation
• Strengthen the link to the SDS and ensure
  financing of urgent environmental needs (e.g.
  Natura 2000, WFD, Kyoto)
• Prevent conflicts between infrastructure and
  environment (SEA and EIA) suspend payments to
  projects in breach of environmental law
• Maintain the Community Performance Reserve to
  reward progress

6
European Parliaments demands on the new
regulations

• For the ERDF regulation
• Strengthen the ERDFs contribution to the
  environment in particular Natura 2000, Water
  Framework Directive
• Enable investment in housing for energy
  efficiency
• For the CF regulation
• Enable investment in regional transport
  infrastructure from the Cohesion Fund (only first
  pillar)
• Maintain the proposed third pillar of the
  Cohesion Fund for sustainable energy and transport

7
Compromise texts of the Council (Structural
Actions Working Party)

• For the General Regulation
• ? Severe weakening of the partnership principle
• Replacement of the Community performance reserve
  with national performance reserve
• For the CF Regulation
• Merge the 3rd pillar (sustainable energy and
  transport) into the 2nd pillar (environment)
• For the ERDF Regulation
• ? Enable more support for Natura 2000 a few
  other improvements

8
Regulations - Summary

• The Council pushes in the opposite
• direction than the Parliament.
• Why?
• Less policy integration/coherence in the Council
• National environmental authorities havent paid
  enough attention
• The Parliament has less weight than the
  Council on the general regulation and CF
  regulation (assent), but equal weight on ERDF and
  ESF regulations (co-decision)

9
IV. Community Strategic Guidelines NGO
recommendations

• Add Natura 2000 and WFD among priority
  environmental investments
• Require Member States to show how they intend to
  finance environmental needs, such as Natura 2000,
  in their NSRF
• Strategic Guidelines for rural development as a
  model
• SEA to be applied in a proper and timely fashion
  to NSRFs and OPs
• Partnership - use TA to cover costs linked to the
  duties of partners
• Integrated approach to investment

10
V. Other recent developments in cohesion policy

• Jaspers and Jeremie - major projects and support
  for SMEs
• No similar support for local sustainable
  projects, eco-efficiency etc.
• Jaspers only faster or also better/more careful?
• Move away from the 50-50 split in CF
• EC Communication on Greening the Cohesion policy
  withdrawn or blocked
• Ex-ante evaluation and SEA applied to NSRFs only
  as best practice?

11
VI. Wider context - EU transport policy

• 2001 EU White Paper on Transport 2 nice goals
• decouple transport growth from economic growth
• shift transport from road to rail
• Reality
• EU/EIB funding still favours roads and more
  transport in general
• TEN-T budget quadrupled for 2007-2013
• Revision of White Paper deadline for comments 31
  Dec!
• White Paper 2001 Every effort must therefore be
  made to convince the CEE countries of the
  need to maintain the railways share of the
  freight market at a high level, with a target of
  around 35 for 2010.

12
Transport CEE comparative advantage Share of
freight transport by rail (2003)
13
Transport CEE comparative advantage Share of
passenger transport by bus and train (2003)
14
VI. Wider context - EU waste policy

• EU waste hierarchy favours prevention recycling
  
• Reality EU funding favours incinerators
• Draft thematic strategy on waste (incl. revision
  of Waste Framework Directive) step back
• Producer responsibility completely omitted
• Proposed measures promote incineration over
  recycling
• No specific targets
• ! Chance for strengthening through MS and EP
  (co-decision)

15
Waste CEE comparative advantage Municipal
waste generated (kg per capita - 2003)
16
(Very general) conclusion

• Politics determines policies
• Political shift in Brussels EU green agenda
  undermined
• NGOs must bridge the national-EU divide more
  campaigning on EU issues on national level
  influence EU via national governments