Seizing Opportunities for Nature Conservation in the Carpathian Mountains

Seizing opportunities for nature conservation in the Carpathian Mountains 3 October 2007, Hostetin, Czech Republic

Objectives  Gain an overview and critical perspective on availability of especially EU funding opportunities for nature conservation across the Carpathians, including gaps and problems  Gain an understanding of how specific funding programmes work – how they can be tapped for nature conservation in the Carpathians  Collect and develop recommendations and good practice regarding use of especially EU funding opportunities for nature conservation in the Carpathians  Review, discuss and critically appraise specific project concepts – this will be an opportunity not only to learn about specific funding opportunities through concrete examples, but also to receive advice and possibly identify project partners for your projects.

List of participants (Annex 14), list of abbreviations attached below Agenda (Annex 1)

8:30: Tour through Hostetin  Drying house  Biological sewage  Wood chips heating system  Sculptures

10:15 Introduction AB initiated an introduction round and gave a small introduction to the Carpathian Project, which is financially supported by the EU. The project is more economically and less culturally and environmentally focussed. One part of the project deals with the production of two handbooks, one on the funding situation within the EU, another on threats in terms of nature conservation. The handbooks will be published by the end of the year. Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia are official participants in the project. A collection of recommendations will be available in the handbooks. Romania, Serbia and Ukraine will be included, as cross border issues are important. AB went through the agenda and asked the participants for comments, additions or changes.

10:30 Funding nature conservation in the Carpathians (presentation by Tomas Ruzicka, Annex 2) At the beginning TR mentioned two important key points:  Nature conservation has to be done with local people; local communities have to be involved.  Keep in mind that sustainable financing in the long run is of great importance. If there is a need for funding, it is difficult to distinguish between Carpathians and the national level. In most countries the Carpathians make up only small part of the territory and usually the government do not have a special programme for the area, although it is a special region in Europe. The Carpathian Convention gives political background for the conservation of natural and cultural heritage, but not all species are listed in the EU Natura 2000 lists. Governments usually take European requirements most important. It is impossible to add what is specific for Carpathians. Living heritage, traditional life style  Funds are needed for small local projects that are of local or regional importance. EPSD, REC, CF are the tools for funding, but € 5,000 are scarcely available for these kind of projects, although urgently needed.  Heritage interpretations: There is not enough knowledge on the interpretation of natural and cultural heritage. Trainings on the interpretation match with trainings on hiking trails or information centre. Funding tools are EU, EPSD, CF.  Regional product marketing: Many natural habitats depend on management by people. This kind of management is constantly disappearing. Not only funds for management in the old traditional way should be given, but also to work on new ways how to connect management of landscape with products, e.g. Hostetin fruit processing company. Farmers have the opportunity to sell their orchard fruits like apples. By having this opportunity they will keep the orchards and will be able to make a living out of them. Available funds are REC; EPSD, and EU.  Site management and long-term monitoring: In case there is no grazing anymore, money will be needed for site management. Funds for long-term monitoring are at all missing. Small money for monitoring was available for Natura 2000 sites, but there seem to be no further funds.  There is a lack of NGO’s in the role of watch dog. Not enough money is available; there are no institutions for that. Only few of them have the opportunity to raise money from donors (EPSD), and foreign donors are moving eastwards, leaving the region. Changing funding availability  Differs from country to country: e.g. Polish Environmental fund Debt for Nature Swap, unique set up in Eastern Europe.  Hungarian National Civil Fund: Businesses have to assign 1-2% tax to civil organizations. The same mechanism can be found in PL, SK, HU, and RO.  In some countries the MoE gives money to NGO’s.  There were several funds supporting projects in the 90’s and beginning of 2000 that are slowing down now, like big US donors, pre-accession funds by EU after accession of several Carpathian countries or funds given by the Norwegian government. Funds available  Canon is a partner of national parks in CZ for the sake of promotion.  Large number of money is available for nature conservation within the EU. But is there enough capacity to absorb available funding? Many organizations are not able to get funds due to different restrictions and are not capable to deal with the requested bureaucracy.  Short time money is offered by national programmes and is very specific for each country, In CZ site management dependends on the state budget and has to be anewly negotiated every year.  There will be GEF money for RO and UA, but this money will no longer be available I the region.  Foundations: EPSD, Carpathian Foundation, REC, Visegrad Fund, Central European Foundation (SK), OSF, Vodaphone foundation, etc.  Small money from smaller foundation might be available. Large versus small  Only very little money is dedicated to environmental issues within the EU structural funds. LIFE is an important tool for particular species or habitats that have to be connected to N2000. All these projects are short-term projects with a duration of 3 years, but nobody knows the future.  Ekopolis in CZ can support NGO’s/projects which are impossible to be funded by the EU (watch-dogs, projects of local and regional importance). Funding gaps and challenges  Lack of money for smaller nature conservation projects. NGO’s and local nature conservation authorities underestimate role of LEADER+.  Lack of money for long-term monitoring and for species of low importance; e.g. the Beskidy Mountains hold the strongest population of a N2000 species in the CZ. Without money from GEF for monitoring this would not have been revealed.  Lack of money for NGO’s in the watch dog role.  EU bureaucracy and national authorities that make EU funding even less available; focused on paper work and not real impacts of projects.  How to involve local communities in nature conservation?  Opportunity for corporate programs in the Carpathians to get financial support by bigger companies or other donors. The Carpathians are certainly attractive for that. Discussion Funding situation in Slovakia from the National Park point of view: Each project has to be approved by an authorized organization as well as the MoE. In case the project is not inline with the authorities, it will not be approved. The Norwegian government supported first steps for the development of the Carpathian Network of Protected Areas (CNPA).The SK MoE ranked the project at place 16. The Norwegian government had another opinion and supported the project. JK suggested to give more power the local authorities. Co- funding is a big problem. The national park administration does not own the land, other bodies do. Therefore it is difficult to organize management. For example wetlands would need regular management and education is underestimated in SK. In Velka Fatra National Park the info centre had to be closed because of lack of money. A project has been developed for the info centre, but the funding is not assured. The budget for Velka Fatra NP is SKK 1.2 Mio and does not include salaries. This year’s money was spent already by the end of Sept. The staff has to reduce travel activities; sometimes the economy department helps, but funds for the future are not sure. In Bile Karpaty CZ the situation is very similar. The money comes from the head quarters. The protected area administration or NGO’s have no chance to convince the headquarters for any project. Landscape management projects in CZ are not quite clear in future. Nobody knows the rules for the EU funds coming in. For 2008 there should be a certain amount. Until 2008 the headquarters can prepare for the funds coming in, but how they will do is very unclear. In Hungary governmental money is small. They are waiting for EU money. Co-funding for LIFE projects is not dissolved yet. It is certain that governmental institutions will decide on the money and NGO are not allowed to apply for operational money. NGO’s can be partners only. The overall picture for estimates of funding available is difficult to get. However, there are some reports on the amount state budget that goes to PA in the Carpathian countries. This study has been initiated by WWF International. They plan to present an overall picture at the 9th Conference of the Parties to the Convention of Biological Diversity. The EU made a tender on Natura 2000 funding. A new questionnaire on N2000 status for the countries has been prepared. The countries had high expectations in the beginning, but now it is certain that the countries have to put in national money as co-financing. More information will be available mid of next year. Other funding needs are for NGO’s so that they are able to work in a more sustainable way. This is a crucial point. Now they get money only for projects, but not for salaries, except they apply and receive the EU Core Grant. Brussels also depends on information on NGO’s to be able to establish the right programme for NGO’s. Charity organizations in Britain are exceptional. CZ is further along than other countries, as proving financial support for NGO’s better than in SK. But all intentions are still it is not enough. For comparison, 2 km of motorway construction is equal to 10 years of the work of Environmental Partnership in Czech Republic!!!

11:30 LIFE+: From funding chemicals to brown bears (Presentation by Andreas Baumüller, Annex 3) LIFE+ is considered as good opportunity, but also has its weaknesses. This funding tool includes all funding lines for nature conservation, including raps oil as well as brown bears. The amount of LIFE+ funding equals 0.2 % of the EU structural fund and is an important source for NGO’s, although co-financing might be the problem for most smaller NGO’s. The EU Core Grant is dedicated to NGO’s, emphasizing work on trans-boundary species, habitats and species in general. The selection process is considered as not to be influenced by any political level. The amount of money distributed depends on the area of N2000 sites that have been designated by the member states. The minimum size of a project is € 3 Mio unofficially. The question for the applicants is how to get 1.5 Mio co- financing. WWF EPO does lobbying work for NGO’s within the EU. Briefings on have been done and position papers have been written. LIFE+ has a total budget of € 2.143 billion for the years 2007-13. It is expected that not enough proposals will be submitted for the first year. LIFE+ is based on three pillars, namely Nature and Biodiversity (39 % of the budget), Environmental Policy and Governance (39 %), and Information and Communication (22 %). LIFE+ for Nature and Biodiversity demands 50-75 % co-financing depending on the species that is to be protected. Projects will be funded dealing with best practices for implementing of the Birds & Habitats Directive or with innovative projects which are not linked to Natura 2000, for example concrete conservation work, the implementation of the Biodiversity Action Plan that was developed by the EU last year or work on the Water Framework Directive. The EU wants to support real field work and not only meetings. LIFE+ Environmental Policy and Governance demands 50% co-finance. Priority objectives are Climate Change, water, air, soil etc. The project should contribute to an innovative implementation of community environmental policy. A definition of innovative can be found in the guidelines. LIFE+ Information and Communication demands 50 % co-finance. Priority objectives are the implementing communications and awareness raising, e.g. campaigns on environmental, nature protection or biodiversity conservation issues. The EU would like to see communication work in any project of all pillars. The implementation of LIFE + has been started recently. The first call was the Friday before. The members states are asked to forward all project proposals to the EC. The ranking comprises 100 points, 10 of which the member state has to give. Timeline for project selection: Deadline for submission is 30 November 2007. Information to unsuccessful applicants will be given by 28 February 2007. First informal information will be available in May; draft grant agreements will be ready by 15 October 2008. The project implementation will start on 1 January 2009. Tips and tricks for the process: Get in good contact with the national desk officer of LIFE+, but do not overestimate his capabilities. NGO’s should work closer together and get more involved. NGO’s are not so professional, but should be more proactive! In general the project duration should be 3-5 year with around € 500.000 co-financing. Andreas Baumüller promised to give a short introduction to LIFE+ (Annex 4). Discussion The EC decides on the co-financing. They can give you less than 50% depending on the importance of the activities. A short list with the winners will be included in a database. LIFE+ is the only funding possibility available for NGOs within the EU without partner. Would work on climate change be an added value for the Carpathians? Climate change does not exist in any EU regulation; and EU regulations go first. 40 points out of 100 are for technical and financial coherence with the EU regulations. The distribution of points is officially available on the website.

12:05 – 12:15 Coffee break

12:15 EU funding for nature conservation (Presentation by Peter Torkler, Annex 5) In the beginning he introduced an IT tool on Natura 2000 funding being developed by WWF Germany on helping finding proper EU funding possibilities for different target groups and topics. http://financing-natura2000.moccu.com LIFE+ will be a key tool for implementing Natura 2000, only in EU member states. In Germany the government tries to get more NGO’s involved in the Natura 2000 work. The needs financing Natura 2000 activities are much higher the funding dedicated. An example of wider opportunities of EU funds is the Environmental Education Centre Blumberger Mühle (mill) which was funded through ERDF in 1995 organized by NABU. ESF supported staff capacity for proper management of the most valuable sites designated for the Natura 2000 network. 29 site mangers were employed. Further EU funds available for the implementation of Natura 2000 are the Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund (ESF) and the Rural Development Funding Challenges and solutions: The integration option means that all countries need to contribute to Natura 2000 implementation, together with local communities. Nobody is convinced that this will work at the moment. No systematic analysis was made from past experience with the use of wider funding opportunities. We need to know the success factors. There are not enough lessons learnt applied in the new funding discussion for the period 2007-13. Due to NGO’s Natura 2000 and nature conservation has been integrated in the EU funding tools. What is needed for the future? A more systematic approach to analyse complementary funding options o A better understanding of not purely environmental funding instruments among environmental actors; o To encourage non environmental actors to take responsibility for the implementation of Natura 2000; o An evaluation of real impact and practical use of wider funding opportunities for future improvements An example how to use the IT tool was given along the German-Polish cooperation on wolf conservation. Discussion The question arose whether WWF Germany located in Berlin was eligibility, as an official office has probably to be located in the priority area. It is impossible to find people in these remote areas that are capable of developing such a big project, but WWF Germany has project partners in the region. Moreover, the Polish MoE and the Polish Regional Forest Department is involved. Would it be possible to draw down a cross-boarder cooperation project to the Delta, although WWF is not based in some of the countries? WWF is eligible for the countries where has an official registration, but has to find additional money, e.g. for Ukraine. How much time is needed to complete the IT tool on Natura 2000 on the national level? Austria, Latvia and Italy have been completed so far. For the completion persons are needed who know what an operational programme is. There are a lot different fields to work on that are not necessarily related to each other. First steps are not so difficult, but then you have to find partners to discuss and interpret the details at the EU level. LIFE+ demands from the applicants to demonstrate that they are not able to get funds from other sources. If you have an activity for 2009, please prepare a proposal, as there will not be expected so many for the first call.

13:00-14:10 Lunch

14:10 Financing opportunities for nature conservation in the Carpathians - Focus on non-EU countries (Presentation by Pauline Denissel, Annex 6 and hand out, Annex 7) There are 9 different legal instruments within the EU framework programmes for external assistance, including the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) and the Instrument of Pre-accession. Eligible countries are Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Egypt, Georgia, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Moldova, Morocco, West Bank and Gaza, Syria, Tunisia and Ukraine, whereas the Russian Federation dropped out as they want to be seen as strategic partner of the EU. The country programmes are biggest in Ukraine. ENP website: http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/index_en.htm Within the ENP there are different levels of cooperation. There are different priorities agreed between EU and the individual partner country. A lot of environmental problems exist in these countries and it is difficult to get civil society involved. Second, Cross- boarder Cooperation programmes between EU countries and neighbourhood countries are possible, e.g. for the Carpathians Hungary, Slovakia, Romania together with Ukraine. Third, there are Multi-country Programmes like the Regional Programme East. The overall objectives for the Cross-boarder Cooperation between Hungary, Slovakia, Romania and Ukraine include sustainable tourism, environment protection and management of natural resources. The joint managing authority (JMA) is the Romanian Ministry for European Integration. The next call will be launched in the second quarter of 2008. Final eligibility criteria will be included in the call. The door will be open for less restrictive criteria, otherwise NGO’s will not be able to apply. The steps for submitting a project proposal are listed in the presentation. ENPI Regional East includes Ukraine as eligible country. Priorities of interest to WWF are environment protection and forestry, climate change, and water (25-35%). Further people to people activities, including environmental awareness-raising (10-15%) will be funded. First calls are expected by the mid 2008. Please go to http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/cgi/frame12.pl, if you intent to search for details of EU external aid projects. With the 5 thematic programmes under the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI) the following programmes are of interest for environmental NGO’s: Environment and Sustainable Management of natural resource including energy, non-State actors and local authorities in development and food security. Amongst others, all ENPI countries are eligible. Differences of Cross-boarder Cooperation, regional and thematic programmes are summarized in the following: CBC is more focused on the Carpathian ecoregion. Only small amounts of money are available. Eligibility rules have been developed. Regional programmes support big multi-country projects with big amount of money and high competition. In the Carpathians the activities will only be one part of the overall project. Thematic programmes are highly competitive. They are for big multi-country projects. Here as well activities in the Carpathians will only be one part of the project. Only a very limited number of projects - 3 or 4 per year for all ENPI countries - will be financed. The number of issues is limited. Instrument for pre-accession foresees funding for transition assistance and institution building as well as cross-boarder cooperation. For the Carpathians Serbia is the eligible country. CBC can be established between Serbia and Hungary, as well as Romania and Bulgaria.

14:35 Support for nature conservation in Carpathians – Slovakia (Presentation by Milan Janak, Annex 8) An overview of operational programmes in Slovakia was presented. o The Rural development programme for Slovakia (EAFRD) supports the improvement of environment and landscape, quality of life in rural areas and diversification of rural economy and the implementation of the LEADER approach. o The Regional operational programme supports strengthening facilities of the Regions. This includes construction and reconstruction of trails and cycling paths, reconstruction of bridges and footbridges, support for natural and cultural heritage sites. o Environment operational programme (ERDF) is aimed at conservation and rehabilitation of natural environment and landscape and is going to be implemented outside Bratislava County only. Specific objectives are the finalization of the Natura 2000 network and nature conservation infrastructure with regard to legal instruments of the EU and the Slovak Republic. o The Bratislava County operational programme gives support for investments in environment. The area of restriction is Bratislava County. Specific objectives are management of protected areas including Natura 2000, building of infrastructure for nature conservation, information and communication activities. o LIFE+ Nature and Biodiversity, LIFE+ Environmental Policy and Governance and LIFE+ Information and Communication. No concrete information of the MoE has been available. In general surveys, studies, plans and programmes, land purchase and leasing, management measures, monitoring, communication activities, etc. will be funded. o EEA funds include protection of the environment, including reduction of pollution and promotion of renewable energy; promotion of sustainable development through improved resource use and management; human resource development through, inter alia, promotion of education and training, strengthening of administrative or public service capacities of local government or its institutions as well as the democratic processes, which support it; academic research may be eligible for funding. o Norway funds are complementary to EEA funds. They support environment with emphasis on strengthening the administrative capacity to implement relevant acquis and investments for infrastructure and technology with priority given to municipal waste management, regional policy and cross-border activities, technical assistance relating to implementation of Acquis Communitaire. o Environmental Fund (state aid) supports actions needed for reaching goals of the state environmental policy, environmental research and development, education and promotion, mitigation and rehabilitation measures in environmental accidents and risks. Quite a lot of money is provided for infrastructure, sewage treatment, and education. o Compensation of Restriction of Common Cultivation (state aid): There are problems with fish ponds, because the owners of the ponds are not the landowners. o Financial contribution for nature conservation management (state aid): This is more a motivation payment, than a real measure, because landowners are not obliged to do anything. Finally 15 activities that are important for Natura 2000 (list was provided by Andreas Beckmann, part of the handbook, Annex 9) were listed and funding possibilities were ticket if theoretically available for a certain activity. Discussion Are the Norwegian or the EEA Funds are flowing? There was a second call for individual proposal. Unfortunately, the application for these funds is quite complex. A lot of documents have to be compiled that are not directly related to the project, amongst them endorsements. Daphne applied, but because of a non-updated staff list, they refused to support the project. Are the operational programmes approved? Five out of 11 are not approved. The Environmental Fund has been revised by MoE due to recommendations or comments coming from the EC. The new programme has been sent to the EC around 3 weeks ago. The part related to nature conservation will not be changed. The programme is expected to be adopted by the end of the year. Rural funds are a disaster. DG Agriculture sent the programme back. The programme is expected to be accepted by April or May next year. The Slovak Ministry of Agriculture even published a call to travel to Brussels for negotiations. How much funding is dedicated for nature conservation and other environmental issues? All together there are € 15 Mio for nature conservation. From other funds there are € 163 Mio (rural development programme, life+ 10 Mio a year). Total costs are € 206 Mio for the period 2007-2013. 15:10 Funding for nature conservation in the Carpathian Mountains - Czech Republic (Presentation by Jana Urbancikova, Annex 10) The presentation has been prepared from an NGO perspective. The funding opportunities that are not available in reality were left out. Non-EU funding for NGO’s in Czech Republic include the Landscape Management Programme (LMP) and funding via Czech Environmental Partnership Foundation and its small grant schemes, which are very user friendly. EU funding provides the Rural Development Programme (RDP) through EAFRD and the Operational Programme Environment (OP E) and the Regional Operational Programmes (ROP) through ERDF. The ERDF should flow to the LMP. Management activities referred to here are the ones provided by Andreas Beckmann (Annex 9). There are funding gaps for activities 2 ‘Pilot projects Initial “trial” projects at sites, 3 ‘Preparation of information and publicity material’, 4 ‘Training and education for staff’, 6 ‘Establishment of management bodies’, 9 ‘Running costs of management bodies’, 11 ‘Staff’ and 15 ‘Cross-border management of sites’; although in theory it is possible to get money for that. In practical they have not funded any project for these activities. Additionally, co-financing is very difficult for most NGO’s. Bile Karpaty Education Centre in the Carpathians is the most experienced for project submissions. The LMP is the only source that can be used by PLA Administrations. It covers a wide range of management activities and enables PLA Administrations to offer reward for site specific management. Further, it helps landowners and land users whose land happens to be in the protected areas, as most of them see their land in protected areas as a drawback. There is simple administration and human approach throughout the process! The only disadvantage is that the funds are distributed annually and no long-term plans can be draw up. EU funding provides longer-term funding (2007-13) with significant amounts of money. But one rules established by the EU will be translated into 3 rules by the Czech Republic. These make the programmes non-operational. The applicant needs to be part of an organizations network and invest the money first. Once the money is invested the rules may be changed. This is a non-transparent system of indicators and checks. Changes in personal at the ministry causes that nobody on the site of the ministry is accountable for mistakes und NGO’s take the risk having put in money. Nobody at the ministry gives advice in a written form. CZ is the second worst country in drawing in EU money. Additionally, none of the small farmers will go for the funds in the Carpathians; not any farmer is involved in the projects. Discussion What is the official minimum size of a LIFE+ project? There is no official minimum size. Therefore, a project budgeted with € 20,000 could be submitted. The independent consultants have to be neutral when ranking the project. In case there are a higher number of small projects coming from the Eastern countries they cannot ignore this. That would put pressure on the EU. Pre-financing of the projects is certainly a big problem for smaller organizations. No national agency can support small projects, because of law restrictions. Leader+ would be fine for small NGO’s, as it covers a wide range of activities. The threshold for project ranking points is outlined in the guidelines. The handbook will include guidelines, information on funding schemes, recommendations, and give an overview about specific characteristics in the Carpathians. 15:40 Nature protection funding in Poland - Carpathian perspective (Presentation by Marta Babicz, Annex 11) Currently all people in Poland are in a waiting position in terms of EU funding. The biggest programmes for Poland are ERDF & CF (cohesion fund) and Environment operational programme. Before the twins ruled Poland, two programmes were being developed for infrastructure and environment. Now these are combined. Poland will be the biggest beneficiary of EU Structural and Cohesion fund in the period 2007-2013. The 2007-2013 operational programmes are at the final stage of negotiations with European Commission. The final versions are being expected for autumn 2007. The funds are more orientated at infrastructure. Priorities for nature protection funding include habitat restoration, endangered species protection, management plans elaboration, natural water retention increase projects etc. Also in Poland a high financial contribution of the applicants is required. The ERDF has been translated into 16 regional operational programmes following the boarders of so-called voivodships, 3 of which are in the Carpathians. Support is foreseen for activities related to local scale habitats restoration, environmental education, agro- and eco-tourism development, etc. Within the trans-border cooperation operational programme not much money as compared to the remaining funds are available. Cooperation aiming at nature protection and environmental education with Czech Republic and Slovakia are feasible in the Carpathian region. The ESF Human Capital operational programme supports projects related to raising public administration capacity, NGO capacity and networking, training/counselling for ‘shifting’ enterprises etc. The NGO capacity building will hopefully be an institutional support. EAFRD Rural Areas Development Programme 2007-13 is directed to individual farmers and local action groups for implementing local development implementation and also for agro-environmental payments. From the previous funding period it is known that this kind of fund had great popularity. Small projects up to € 10,000 were funded. Once a local action group is established, it works effectively. Other EU funding sources that are less appropriate for the Carpathians are the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) and LIFE+ out of reasons mentioned before. The rules for bank guarantees will be changed in future. Then co-financing will be easier. BirdLife PL had big problems. It was a famous case that discouraged other NGO’s to apply. The problems were similar to those in Czech Republic. EEA – Norwegian fund and EEA Financial mechanism 2004-09 supports non-investment environment protection and sustainable development promotion. There is strong interest among NGOs as well as strong competition, especially for environmental topics. National funding for environmental protection provides money for non-investment projects, but is politically biased. In case an NGO was against the development of Via Baltica, they did not receive funding. This type of funding provides pre-financing and money for EEA mechanism and grants and to gain other funds of sources. EcoFund – Dept for Nature Swap means that part of the Polish international dept has to be directed to environmental funds. Funding for Carpathians in PL will be available mainly through 3 regional operational programmes, trans-border cooperation programmes and the EEA Mechanism, including the NGO fund. Discussion Are there any private funds or any foundation relevant in Poland? There are, but the money is directed to health care or social projects. There is no tradition for contributing money to environmental protection. The common opinion is that Poland has a beautiful nature anyway that is not needed to be supported. Employees can dedicate 1% of their taxes to NGO’s.

16:05 – 16:25 Coffee break

16:25 Funding opportunities in the Carpathian Region in Hungary - an NGO perspective (Presentation by Viktoria Kavran, Annex 12) Approximately 23% of the Carpathians in Hungary are protected either by national parks or by Natura 2000 sites. The national parks in the region are very active. The only political framework for development in the Carpathians is the Carpathian Convention. At the governmental level no programmes/instruments are being developed for spatial planning. Within the European framework funding possibilities are available through the Rural Development Programme – EARDF, the National Development Plan – ERDF and the Environmental operational programme – ERDF. There are initiatives between Hungary and Slovakia to harmonise development plans along the borders, but there is no similar approach with Romania, Ukraine and Serbia. There is an ongoing INTERREG project in Aggtelek National Park in cooperation with other national parks in Poland and Czech Republic. National funding is mainly allocated to governmental bodies and background institutions. The National Civil Fund has been reduced. Earlier it was a good funding possibility for NGO’s. International funds include the Visegrad Fund (co-financing needed, probably from national funds), the Norwegian Fund and the upcoming Swiss Cohesion Fund. Discussion In comparison to other countries, in Hungary the national parks have the right to apply for INTERREG projects. The national parks can be partners in the projects as well as NGO’s active in the area, e.g. CEEWEB works on the Carpathian Convention Sustainable Tourism Protocol and Action Plan. BirdLife works on species protection; a LIFE+ project is being prepared by WWF HU together with a national park. Hungary and Poland have some funds to enable NGO applying for EU funds. In Czech Republic it is not possible. In Poland protected areas can apply for funds like operational programmes. They have been the potential beneficiaries. Half a year ago, this was not possible. The rules have been changed just recently.

16:40 Support for nature conservation in the Romanian Carpathians (Presentation by Raluca Dan, Annex 13) The importance to conserve the Carpathians in Romania was presented, as well as threats and opportunities. 28 % of the area in Romania is agricultural, 62 % forested land. Both types of land are economically used. 3 Mio people live in the Romanian Carpathians. There is a huge amount of money available from EU, but not much is allocated for Natura 2000 activities and nature conservation in general. The legislative and institutional framework is not yet ready for Natura 2000 and people in responsible institutions have not been informed and involved enough. Examples of use of EU money for unstainable projects were shown, like tourism development in Moeciu. Discussion The development of the funding programmes has not yet been finished in Romania. The programmes have to be approved by the EU. This is being expected by the end of the year. Natura 2000 activities will be funded only from 2010 onwards, because the list of Natura 2000 sites has not yet been approved.

16:50 Discussion on the handbook The handbook will have 36 to 100 pages. There will be a printed and digital version. Andreas Beckmann asked the participants to think about the following questions: o What would be useful to have in the handbook? o How should it look like? o Repacking the Natura 2000 handbook, as suggestion o Digital form with hyperlinks o Approach? o Theory and practice? o Target group? NGO’s, PA authorities, users of the money, other groups, policy makers feeding in the Carpathian Convention, opinion makers; science as a third group? o There is the chance to present the handbook at the next COP to the Carpathian Convention in spring 2008. o We could ask the Carpathian Network for Protected Areas for sending some recommendations. Discussion The handbook language will be English only. In Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia national workshops will be held. In Czech Republic and Slovakia no detailed information is available from the ministry. Slovakia refocuses on different things and preserve funding components for ‘more important’ issues, like the review of protected area network, Natura 2000 network. A new methodology of zoning in protected areas and amendments for nature protection is on the way. Site protection will be based on subcontracted landowners. In case there will be money left, it could be used to prepare a Czech version of the handbook. There will be no brochure connected to the handbook. It would be of importance to discuss conclusions that have been drawn up with responsible people in Czech Republic. Beskidy and Bile Karpaty Protected Landscape Areas work on a GEF project. It might be a good option to meet with these people. Officials force NGO’s and protected area administrations to do illegal things. There is an NGO that works on environmental law. The situation has to be changed. In Slovakia the handbook could be used as internal information source for the development of projects, as NGO’s and protected area administrations are isolated from information. Calls are communicated so late that there is not enough time to develop a project properly. The handbook should include recommendations for the governments as well. The draft handbook including tables, a section for problems and recommendations could be sent to the target groups asking for their feedback. The right choose of the target group is important: if the handbook is considered for politics and decision makers a list of all funds has to be included, although not all of them are practically accessible for NGO’s and protected area administrations. The list could contain all different funds that exist; the funds practically available could be marked. The relevance of the funding lines has to be indicated for the three target groups. The handbook should contain best practices for environmental NGO’s, focused on a small part of funding lines, like education operational programmes. A table with different funds and outlines should be shown, picking out one or two to put into place to focus on. This would give the opportunity to have a look how the funds work. Links to other examples should be given. Another important topic is how to implement the Carpathian Convention; which funds are available for that. Case studies and good practice in different countries should be given. Small grants seem to be better than big ones. Examples should be listed to open policy maker’s eyes. Recommendations o Micro-projects € 3.000 -5.000, bigger in PL o Intermediaries o National funds for co-financing should be available like in Hungary and Poland (ministry). In Slovakia the Environmental fund supports co-financing. o Funds needed for NGO institutional capacity o Enabling PA administrations to apply for funds (SK, CZ), give them legal status, same changes have been taken place in Poland, where national parks and protected landscapes are eligible now. o Decentralization: This will not happen in our lifetime. There are problems with protected area management, because it is paper work only and never implemented. The overall management is not being done. Tourism and environmental education are left out, management is only concentrated on species and habitats in an unsustainable in the Czech Republic. o Carpathians are attractive for funding? o Simplify administrative requirements and bureaucratic procedures

17:30 End of seminar

List of Abbreviations

EPO Environmental Policy Office EC European Commission ERDF European Regional Development Fund NABU Naturschutzbund Germany ESF European Social Fund MoE Ministry of Environment EAFRD European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development ENPI European Neighbourhood Policy Instrument EFF European Fishery Fund IPA Instrument for Pre-accession DCI Development Cooperation Instrument EIA Environmental Impact Assessment LMP Landscape Management Plan SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment RAPPAM Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Area Management Methodology