Enlargement Enriches the EU: Taking the Challenge1 International Conference, Vienna City Hall, September 26-27, 2002

Summary of proceedings Author: Andreas Beckmann, EU Accession Coordinator, WWF International

Thursday, September 26

SESSION ONE: THE NATURAL WEALTH OF CENTRAL & EASTERN EUROPE (9:00-10:00)

Following a brief note of welcome on behalf of the City of Vienna by Chief Forester Andreas Januszkovecs, Andreas Beckmann, EU Accession Coordinator for WWF, set the scene for the conference by providing a general introduction and overview of natural heritage in the candidate countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Contrary to common perceptions, the bulk of the continent’s natural wealth today lies in the Eastern and not the Western part of the continent. Shaped and formed by natural conditions but also centuries of human influence, these treasures were relatively preserved thanks to the slower pace of development that occurred in the region. Even under Communism, while some areas were devastated, many other areas remained remarkably untouched. The process of EU accession is already helping to address “hotspots” like the “Black Triangle”; the greater challenge, though, will be to preserve those natural treasures that already exist. Determined efforts are needed, not only in the candidate countries but in the EU as as a whole, if the natural treasures brought by the candidate countries to the new Europe are to be saved rather than squandered.

Norbert Gerstl of the Large Carnivores Initiative and WWF Austria provided a more in depth view of large carnivores in Central and Eastern Europe, particularly in comparison with those in existing EU-member states (EU-15). The majority of European populations of large carnivores are in the Eastern part of the continent. There are scattered populations of brown bear in France and Spain (80-95 individuals), Austria (25- 30), Italy (40-80), and some 1.900 in Scandinavia; this compares with: 3.500 in the Dinaric Mountains (Balkans), 500 in the Baltic countries, and some 8.100 brown bears in the Carpathian mountains. Major centers of population for the European lynx are in Scandinavia (2.500 individuals), Baltic countries (2.000), the Carpathians (2.200), and scattered populations in the Dinaric Mountains (200), the Czech Republic/Bavaria (100), and Switzerland (180) – all of the latter are from successful reintroduction programmes originally from Slovakia. West European populations of wolves are found in Spain and Portugal (2.200), Italy and France (500), and only few (50-80) in Scandinavia; these compare with 2.000 in the Baltic countries, 3.500 in the Carpathian Mountains, and

1 Organized by WWF Austria in cooperation with the Austrian Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management; the Austrian Federal Environment Agency; the Government of Lower Austria; and the City of Vienna.

1 another 4.500 in the Dinaric Mountains. Large carnivores travel widely and do not respect national borders, so their conservation is only possible with international cooperation – something that should be further eased by the current EU enlargement. However, similar development of the Carpathians as has already occured in the Alps would spell disaster for European populations of large carnivores.

Des Callaghan, the European Research Manager for BirdLife International, rounded off the session with an in-depth look at birds across the accession countries (including Cyprus, Malta as well as Turkey). The present historic enlargement of the European Union will increase the number of native bird species in the EU by 58, bringing the total to 509 species. Twenty-four birds species of global conservation concern occur within the accession countries, including very significant populations of Pygmy Comorant, Red-breasted Goose, White-tailed Duck, and Cinereous Bunting. A total of 539 critical sites for birds (“Important Bird Areas”) have been identified so far in the accession countries, many of which are threatened with degradation, particularly from the proposed TINA transportation networks. The main challenges for bird conservation in the accession countries include prevention of environmental degradation within farmland, implementation of threatened species action plans and avoidance of damage to potential Natura 2000 sites.

SESSION TWO: INTEGRATING ENVIRONMENT INTO ACCESSION PROCESS (10:30-12:30)

Elisabeth Freytag, head of EU affairs and enlargement for the Austrian Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management and moderator for the session, introduced the session with a few words about Austria’s own experience with accession to the European Union in 1995. Similarities then and now included the fact that environment is part of the public debate about enlargement. She also stressed that, though the candidate countries will be represented in the European Council from the day of accession, it would nevertheless take some time to learn the ropes of the European Union.

Tony Long, director of the WWF European Policy Office in Brussels, talked about efforts of the European Union to achieve sustainable development – efforts that have been gaining quite some momentum and that, according to Long, “have profound implications for the candidate countries in preparing for the next evolution of environment policy.” The current state of the environment in the existing EU countries – with e.g. 38% of bird species threatened, 66% of trees suffering from pollution, two thirds of wetlands lost in northwestern Europe – shows that EU environmental policy to date has clearly failed. It is failing because environmental policy alone will not address the main economic drivers – including energy, transport, agriculture, regional, and other policies – which are going in opposite direction. Long noted the high-level commitment that has been expressed by European Heads of States to halt the loss of biodiversity – an undertaking that will require not only

2 environmental policies, but also integrating environment into other policy areas. As a result of this commitment, s ustainable development will be a major feature of the European Council meetings each spring. As a result, d ata collection, monitoring and standardisation will become an increasingly important activity and there will need to be much closer inter-Ministerial collaboration. Candidate countries should start preparing now for this data collection and integration across policy areas. New and additional financial resources will be needed for this, some of which may come from the EU’s Research and Development Programme.

Ugis Rotbergs, director of WWF Latvia and chairman of the Latvian State Forests, began by introducing what he called the sustainable development performance pyramid. A sustainable future is not possible without having basic foundations in place, including for example a civil society, legal framework, different financial information market systems, etc. However, most of the effort of EU accession in Latvia is directed at harmonizing the legal framework, while other aspects are marginalized. Rotbergs noted a number of challenges at different levels, including the fact that Latvians still largely distrust state authorities on the one hand, yet expect it to provide a cradle-to- grave caretaking at the same time. While policies already exist, they exist without an agreed common vision for Latvia in the future – what the landscape should look like, how it should be used, what nature should be preserved. As a result, we do not know if we are moving in the right direction. Where policies and programmes exist, they are not properly funded, so policymaking often remains on paper. Further, costs and benefits of accession are not adequately explained to the public – something partly also a problem for NGOs, which tend to select specific policies or programmes, like Natura 2000, and focus attention on this without explaining the broader context. Among things that need to be done, said Rotbergs, is to articulate a clear vision for the future, including but not limited to biodiversity components. “We also need to have agreement on a clear ecological reference point – what is the healthy environment that we are working for?” What ecological processes do we want to protect and restore? Species are not enough – in focusing on preserving critical individual species, we tend to lose the bigger picture.

Georg Rebernig, director of the Austrian Federal Environment Agency, described in greater detail some of the key EU nature conservation policies and legislation, but reserved most of his remarks for laying out some of Austria’s recent experience as an accession country to the EU. Though there were some areas, like toxics and transportation, where Austrian standards were more advanced than those of the EU, nevertheless, said Rebernig, “my sense is that we got a strong impulse and structure within which we developed our particular nature conservation policy.” This is particularly evident with regard to establishment of the Natura 2000 network of nature conservation areas, which now include some 200 Austrian sites and cover some 15.6% of the country’s territory. Establishing the network required the involvement of a

3 large number of actors – national, regional, local, including federal and provincial authorities, municipalities, landowners, and NGOs. The European Commission has pushed forward establishment of the network not only with the carrot of financial support, e.g. through the LIFE programme, but also the stick of complaints and infringements procedures – e.g. in the area of nature protection alone, Austria is facing 19 infringements and complaints (something that, according to Rebernig, should not be taken lightly and can ultimately lead to sentences from the European Court of Justice). Environmental agencies, including the European Environmental Agency, have played an important role in providing data and monitoring. The role of NGOs has been very important, though in some cases ambivalent. NGOs have pushed forward progress on Natura 2000, pressing authorities to be transparent, initiating complaints, and actively participating in biogeographical seminars. Among the lessons learned from Austria’s experience is that communication and information is crucial – do not underestimate the level of knowledge of different actors! Most of the work lies in informing, communicating, building platforms, addressing fears. Quality data is essential. While EU nature conservation policies have given Austria an important impulse in the past; the next great impulse can be expected to come from the new Water Framework Directive. With its emphasis on good ecological status of water as well as river-basin management, this new directive will become an increasingly important instrument.

Main points of discussion:

Does Enlargement enrich the EU? Referring to the name of the conference, Nina Thüllen from Greenpeace asked: does enlargement in fact enrich the EU? And does it enrich the accession countries? Ugis Rotbergs remarked that WWF Latvia is neither for nor against enlargement, but recognizes that it is a powerful political process. But, continued Rotbergs, “I have another dimension for this EU accession – I have the dimension of what is going on in my own country, and what is my own country’s vision. And that is lacking in these discussions always. When I have this vision, once I have people’s desires expressed, I can see what is good and what is bad, where we can see where are the opportunities. It is about how we are going to live. There is no yes or no answer; it is opportunities and threats.” Tony Long approached the question from a more global perspective. Particularly following the Johannesburg conference on sustainable development, the EU seems the one power with at least the potential for global environmental leadership over the next twenty critical years. Hopefully, an EU of 28 countries will have a stronger presence than the present EU-15. Better to have Poland within this group than outside of it!

Role of NGOs. Several participants and speakers talked at greater length about the role of NGOs (Non- governmental organizations) within the accession process. “It is important to strengthen the capacity of NGOs to participate in the debate,” said Ugis Rotbergs, “as they are the most active partners in society, besides business and community leaders. In the debate, if

4 the NGO leg is undeveloped, we have a threat that policies and programmes will be implemented that are not rooted into the hearts and minds of people.” Tomas Ruzicka of the Environmental Partnership for Central Europe noted that there are wide variety of NGOs that are important to the process, including very local ones. Tony Long agreed, saying that the approach that needed to be taken is integration, forming networks of NGOs from the very local to the Brussels level. He cited examples from previous accessions of Spain, Portugal and Greece, where the NGO movement had moved very cleverly in networking from the local level and to Brussels – NGOs in the present candidate countries would do well to learn from their example. The development of information technology, said Long, has added a new dynamic to NGO networking. “Internet speed means that within hours the same information is being reported from an estuary and it is on a Commissioner’s desk. It’s the NGO community more than any other sector that is using information technology with more astounding effectiveness and speed.” At the same time, Ugis Rotbergs provided a touch of realism to the discussion on NGOs – NGOs are not a magic stick and are not going to solve everything. In the end, money talks, and the big question is: who is in control of the money?

Public servants and state administrations: Several participants, including Pam McCarthy of CEED, remarked on the continuing need for farreaching changes within state administrations, including changing basic attitudes of public officials responsible for environmental policy and work with NGOs and the public. Often, public officials seem more part of the problem than the solution.

Appropriateness of EU instruments: Miroslav Kundrata of the Environmental Partnership for Central Europe noted that one of the challenges for accession is that the instruments which are implemented to solve problems are often not appropriate to the level of the problems and the level of the capacity of institutions. Most of the pre-accession funds and Structural Funds are focused on really big projects, but most of the problems of communities are much smaller. The EU does not offer instruments to address these problems because they want to administer larger programmes. Vlasta Körnerova of A-Projekt noted that the LEADER programme is one EU instrument that is responsive to local needs.

SESSION THREE: THE CHALLENGE OF INTEGRATION IN RURAL AREAS (14:00-15:30)

The session was framed by three short “case studies” followed by brief comments from two panelists before breaking into a lively discussion with members of the audience.

Henrik Dissing, Coordinator for Central and Eastern Europe for WWF Denmark and moderator of the session began by noting the huge challenges facing rural areas in the candidate countries, including nature conservation (e.g. implementation of Natura 2000, re-structuring of landscapes to provide different services, such as flood protection,

5 etc.) and at the same time a huge need for development. Implementation of Natura 2000 will not work unless it is rooted in policies and at least passively supported by people living in these areas. How do we create win-win situations between nature conservation and socio-economic development? Dissing answered his question by referring to a paper he had written (“Elaboration of a Business Model for Sustainable Rural Development in areas with abundance of nature”), which argues that there does not need to be a conflict, and that, indeed, leading regions in Europe are marked by the ability to appreciate and mobilize human resources and cultural and natural heritage.

Edda-Maria Bertel of the Nature Protection unit of the Austrian Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management provided an overview of the Austrian Programme for Environment and Agriculture (ÖPUL), which includes e.g. support for organic farming, cultivation of rare agricultural crops, Alpine pasturage and herding, tending of ecological areas, education, etc. Austria is a leader in use of EU support for rural development, attracting 9.7% or 423 Million Euro per year of the total amount of EU rural funds available (EU Regulation 1257/99). Most Austrian farmers (138.000 farms, i.e. 72% of the total number) are involved in the Austrian agri- environmental programme (including ca. 19.000 organic farmers, i.e. 9% of the total number and 8.5% of total utilized area), covering some 88% of the total area used in Austria for agricultural purposes. The ÖPUL is of particular significance for implementation of the EU-mandated Natura 2000 network of nature conservation areas in Austria. About a quarter of the 195 designated Natura 2000 sites (some 16% of Austrian territory) are agricultural areas, including Alpine pastures. Natura 2000 sites include 25.000 farms covering some 10% of the total area under cultivation in Austria. Some 450 million ATS (ca. 32 million Euro) per year go to farms located in Natura 2000 areas.

Vlasta Körnerova, director of the Slovak A-Projekt, provided an overview of the work and challenges facing her organisation. Initially established to oppose government plans to bring the Winter Olympics to northern Slovakia, A-Projekt (standing for „Alternative“) has spent the past decade working to promote sustainable development in a number of micro-regions in the area of Liptov (population ca. 200.000) in northern Slovakia. The organisation employs a variety of participatory methods and techniques, including computer-aided community resource mapping and planning, studies of landscape and development, community visioning, community planning, micro-grants programmes, etc. In later discusssion, Körnerova emphasised the importance of public participation in activities, including the need to find creative ways for making this happen – such as using micro-grant schemes to encourage local initiative and ownership, user-friendly computer programmes that can help locals to catalogue local resources, or using artwork of local children to illustrate publications. “Local people care about their communities”, said Körnerova; the key is to find ways to tap and mobilize this concern and motivation. Important for this is the kind of long-term assistance and support provided by A-Projekt and other organizations, and trust is key. „In my experience,“ said Körnerova, “you can work with stakeholders to put together a regional development plan within a couple of years – but you really need to follow-up this work and continue assisting for actual implementation.“ Assistance is also important to guide local people, who care about their communities, but do not always know the best approach. A-Projekt organizes training

6 and technical assistance for locals, e.g. to guide selection of trees for tree planting projects, or appropriate technology for community water treatment.

Irek Chojnacki, director of WWF Poland, presented a number of cross-border sustainable development initiatives focused around the river-basin of the Oder/Odra river valley. They include the establishment of a system of cross-border protected areas along the Oder and Neisse, creation of a trans-boundary ecological basis for spatial planning in the region, as well as organisation of a series of integrated, smaller sustainable development projects along the river. Among the results was the support of all communities for the establishment of a new national park at the mouth of the Oder, a network of cooperating NGOs along the river, and the basis for ecological planning along the river-basin, including GIS mapping, development of ecological concepts for flood management, and identification of Natura 2000 sites. Problems encountered in the projects included different languages and mentalities, different appreciation of ecological values, and the reluctance of Polish authorities to work with NGOs, i.e. the lack of a tradition of co-operation and public participation. Future problems for projects along the Oder, which are planned to focus on rural development, implementation of the Water Framework Directive and Natura 2000, as well as ecological flood protection, apply to the country as a whole. They include lack of support (both financial and political) for implementation of Natura 2000; lack of support for and consequently experience with agri-environmental schemes (agri- environmental schemes were recently removed by the Polish government from the country’s SAPARD programme); poor preparation of Polish administration; and lack of support for NGOs – e.g. the Phare 2003 programme, drawn up by the Polish government, does not include support for NGOs as in the past – regardless of the missing finances, this is not a good signal from the state authorities.

Gusztav Nemes, research scholar at the Hungarian Academy of Sciencies and one of two panelists for the session, noted that integration is needed between the kinds of top- down policies like the Austrian ÖPUL programme and the kinds of bottom-up initiatives as described by Körnerova. The biggest challenge according to Nemesz is finding ways in which central policies can support local initiatives, and vice versa – i.e. building a truly integrated rural development system.

Miroslav Kundrata, director of the Czech Environmental Partnership for Central Europe Foundation and the second panelist, observed that there has been a significant shift among nature conservation NGOs like Körnerova’s toward more general sustainable rural development. “They realise that you cannot care for the environment wihout getting the support of local people.” Concepts and approaches like Landscape Stewardship, which emphasizes people taking care of the land, are becoming increasingly important, for example in areas like the White Carpathians in eastern Moravia. Such approaches are especially significant in Central and Eastern European countries, where there continues to be too much emphasis on the role of the State. “In order to address environmental challenges and achieve sustainable development, we need the active involvement of everyone.” Part of the challenge for rural development is creating structures that can encourage and facilitate such individual initiative and participation.

7 Main points of discussion:

SAPARD, CAP and “bottom-up” development: Tamas Marghescu, regional director for IUCN in Europe, noted that the SAPARD programme in Hungary had begun as an exemplary, bottom-up exercise in rural development, with hundreds of micro-regions formed. These however have been greatly frustrated by changes in the programme, which now emphasise centralised decisionmaking. Gusztav Nemes responded that the problem with the SAPARD programme was not so much due to the Hungarian government, but rather the EU itself, which communicates two very different messages on rural development. One of the messages, emphasised in rhetoric and policy documents, includes beautiful words about sustainability, integration, and bottom-up development, and has inspired the bottom-up formation of micro-regions noted by Marghescu. But another message comes through the actual implementation of the SAPARD programme itself, and emphasises strong centralisation and bureaucratisation at the central, government level. “Central and Eastern Europe would have a very good chance to develop a large-scale integrated rural development strategy – we have a cleaner environment, more traditional society, culture, as well as currently a culture of change... another change would not shock our societies as much as it would for example the British or French, where interest groups are more entrenched.” Nemesz concluded: “I think it is a big mistake that the EU is actually forcing outdated European policies on the accession countries...”

LEADER programme: In this session and in others, there was considerable criticism of current EU policies for agriculture and rural development. But some positive examples of EU programmes were also held up, particularly the LEADER programme, which supports rural development that is initiated and guided by local communities themselves. Vlasta Körnerova noted that there are already strong networks in place in Slovakia and other candidate countries that can provide the kind of facilitation and support needed for such approaches.

CEE infrastructure for rural sustainability: Several speakers noted the important role of NGOs in rural development. A strong infrastructure for bottom-up approaches to sustainable development have already been created in a number of countries. A-Projekt is part of a larger network of organisations focused on sustainable rural development existing not only in Slovakia but also across many countries of the region. Within Slovakia, such groups have formed a quasi-political body called the Rural Parliament. The „Parliament” seeks to influence government policies concerning rural development and is represented, for example, on the monitoring committee for the SAPARD programme. It also has a network of communications centers that ensure the flow of information from the local to the national level and vice versa.

SESSION FOUR: THE CHALLENGE OF INTEGRATION IN URBAN AREAS (16:00-17:00)

8 Karl Kienzl of the Austrian Federal Environmental Agency and moderator introduced the session.

Gyorgy Gado, Buda Hills project officer for WWF Hungary, described the various threats currently facing the Buda Hills, a valuable nature site in and around the Hungarian capital. The hills, which will be included in the Natura 2000 nature conservation network particularly for their rare endemic species, face intense pressure particularly from urban development. Municipal and state land use and conservation plans are not clearly conceptualized and relatively weak, providing investors virtually a free hand to do as they will. The case of the Buda Hills contrasted with the picture of nature protection in Vienna painted by Andreas Januszkovecz, Head Forester for the City of Vienna. Januszkovecz described the city’s long-term commitment to preserving green areas. In 1874, Vienna began purchasing forested areas not only within but also outside of the city limits, thus securing at the same time its water supply from two alpine springs in Lower Austria and Styria – a policy and tradition that continues to the present. Also in this vein, environmental education receives particular attention -- the City of Vienna for example has the largest staff of environmental educators in the country. The case studies were rounded off with a presentation by Professor Emil Klimo from Mendel University in Brno, who described the natural and cultural values of the Masaryk Forest near Brno. In addition to their use for scientific projects and education, these forests fulfil an important role for recreational purposes of Brno City inhabitants.

Main points of discussion:

Speed of change. One of the main points of discussion – inspired by the contrasting views of the Buda Hills and the Vienna Forest – was the speed and size of change that is currently taking place in Central and Eastern Europe, and that make it difficult to establish the kind of stable conditions and relations needed to preserve natural resources. As Gyorgy Gado put it – by the time we establish the legal, political, and institutional structures and mechanisms needed to protect the Buda Hills, how much of them will be left to preserve?

Andreas Januszkovecz noted the need for long-term commitment not only of politicians, but also administrations, NGOs, and ordinary citizens to nature conservation goals – a commitment that in Vienna has over a century of tradition. But how is this possible in the CEE candidate countries, responded Irek Chojnacki, given the general instability or even chaos within public administrations, where employees are regularly replaced following each change in government?

The basic conundrum presented by the case of the Buda Hills provides an allegory to the situation facing CEE societies more generally, noted Andreas Beckmann. “The kind of bottom-up rural development development that we discussed earlier, based on trust, strong social networks, public involvement and buy-in, or the need to develop strong civil societies addressed in the first session – this all takes time, lots of time...will we have this time? Will anything be left to save?”

9 Gado was hopeful, noting a shift in paradigm that is taking place in Hungary in some areas and issues, e.g. with regard to water management and flood control. Beckmann offered his own ray of hope, noting a veritable sea-change that has been occuring at the grassroots level in the Czech Republic and some other countries, first among NGO activists, and increasingly among local community leaders. These NGO and community leaders are now beginning to enter regional and national politics, and thus increasing the speed and size of positive change. He concluded: “We are in a race, and the basic question is: how can we speed up positive developments to make sure that it is not outstripped by negative change?”

Friday, September 27

Welcome by Isabella Kossina, Environmental Counsellor of the City of Vienna, and Marga Hubinek, long-serving President of the Austrian Parliament and board member of WWF Austria, and brief introduction by moderator Corinna Milborn.

SESSION ONE: ENVIRONMENT AND THE PROCESS OF ACCESSION (10:00-11:30)

Jean-Francois Verstrynge, Deputy Director General for Environment, European Commission began his remarks by saying that negotiations on the environmental chapter have largely been satisfactorily completed with all first wave candidate countries, putting them in line for accession in 2004. However, activities are not over; they have only shifted to a new phase, from the creation and transposition of laws to their actual implementation. Implementation will be expensive, estimated at between 80 and 110 billion Euro; but it will bring great, long-term benefits. How European laws are applied today is important, indicating how countries will likely behave in future as members. As a result, monitoring will be a special focus of attention for the European Commission in the next period. One example of this are the system peer reviews that are being conducted for each candidate country. Effective implementation of EU nature conservation legislation, including extension of the Natura 2000 network to the candidate countries, is a central strategy for ensuring preservation of the natural wealth that is in the candidate countries. Nature legislation must be implemented from day one of accession. This needs to be supported by the integration of environmental concerns in all relevant sectoral policies, such as agriculture, transportation, and rural development. Management of sites as well as communication about the new conservation network will also be essential, and are areas where there is much to learn from experience of existing EU member states. Another important area, financing, is currently under discussion among EU members. Verstrynge used forestry as an example of the complex approach that needs to be taken. Verstrynge concluded: “Now is the moment of truth – the moment when the new laws and regulations need to be applied. You might say that this is the most difficult part of the

10 whole exercise, but it is better to try to solve problems now then to end up in the Court of Justice in the first days or years as a member of the European Union. It is an outcome that none of us wishes for.”

Petru Lificiu, Minister of Waters and Environmental Protection, Romania described the rich biodiversity of his country, 47% of whose territory is covered by natural and semi-natural ecosystems. Virgin forests cover some 400.000 hectares, one of the largest areas in Europe. The country has over 3.700 species of flora and more than 33.792 species of fauna, including a high level of endemic species. The almost unbroken Carpathian mountain chain as well as the Danube river and its tributaries are especially important in providing corridors for the spread and migration of species. Romania currently has 845 nature protected areas, 1.3 million hectares, ie. 5.4% of country’s area. Thanks to its size (580.000 hectares) and exceptionally high level of biodiversity, the Danube delta is of truly global importance. Romania has been taking steps to preserve this biodiversity. In 1999 for example it was the first candidate country to implement LIFE nature projects. Priority objectives for conservation include development of legislative framework and strengthening institutional capacity, and the protection, conservation, and restoration of aquatic and terrestrial biological diversity outside protected areas through reducing negative impacts of pollution, overexploitation of resources, and inappropriate land-use practices. Said Lificiu: “In the context of accession process to the European Union, the extremely valuable natural heritage of Romania represents a capital that ought to be taken in consideration by the member states and to be preserved as the European capital to be transferred to future generations. We would like to underline that in joining the European Union, Romania will enrich the capital of the European Community.”

Mladen Berginc, State Under-secretary for Nature, Slovene Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning began by noting that, in addition to geopolitical and other specific features, the countries joining the EU have their own comparative advantage in the still good state of biodiversity. “The reason for this situation lies in the relative lack of economic development, but also in the conscious and planned concern for nature conservation. Due to circumstances like state ownership, centralized decisionmaking, etc., this has often been more successful and enterprising, as well as on a larger scale, than in other economically more advanced countries.” Berginc went on to describe some of the extraordinary nature values that Slovenia brings with it to the European Union – including one of the highest levels of biodiversity (after Slovakia and Turkey) in Europe, with some 850 narrow endemic species, large populations of specialised forest species such as lynx and bear that are threatened elsewhere in Europe, valuable cultural landscapes, and a network of existing and planned nature conservation areas – some 8% of the country’s territory is currently protected, and this figure is planned to increase to as much as 30% in the future. Berginc noted that the process of accession to the European Union is having a positive effect in a number of areas, including legislation (nature conservation) as well as

11 integration of environment into different sectors. “In a sense,” said Berginc,” the process of Slovenian accession to the EU has made the greatest contribution towards nature conservation by giving it a broader character, making it an important factor in determining the strategic orientations and action programmes of other sectors.” In concluding, Berginc remarked that in the wider EU context, Slovenia’s future Natura 2000 protected areas are important as a coherent network connecting populations of species on Balkan peninsula with central European ones. Financial and technical support from the current EU member states would be essential. The European Commission and present members can help to preserve the wealth of biodiversity in the accession countries by offering support from EU funds, bi-lateral support, and experience on implementation of Natura 2000; but finally it depends greatly on the candidate countries themselves to take major steps.

Laszlo Haraszthy, Deputy State Secretary for Nature, Hungarian Ministry of the Environment and Water began by noting that, “by tangling up in the legal documents and trying to agree on derogation deadlines, negotiators on both sides have become occupied with the idea of Hungary becoming merely a recipient of value coming from the European Union as an exchange for the further expansion of the community markets.” The rich natural heritage contained in the candidate countries has been pushed to the sidelines. Hungary will not only enrich the EU with natural treasures that have been relatively better preserved than those in the western part of the continent, but also with unique species of fauna and flora as well as landscape diversity that are not found in the present EU member states. “With EU membership, this value will become part of the community; therefore, its preservation must be the combined effort of Hungary as a member state and the European Union as a community of European people,” said Harraszthy. He also noted that stringent Hungarian nature conservation laws must be maintained after accession, and that public awareness of natural heritage be strengthened. The Hungarian national plan for nature protection, which is now being developed, recognizes the goals set under the Sixth Environmental Action Programme and Sustainable Development Strategy. A good example of cooperation with existing member states to preserve the natural heritage in the region is the recent establishment in Budapest of a Central and Eastern European office for TRAFFIC, the organization focused on prevention of trade in endangered plants and animals, with support from the Austrian government as well as WWF Austria.

Main points of discussion:

Implementation of Natura 2000 and relative preparation of candidate countries In response to a comparison between Poland, which has allocated some 200.000 Euro for work on Natura 2000, and the much smaller Czech Republic, which has allocated 7 million Euro for the same work, Verstrynge remarked that the Commission is aware of differences between candidate countries and that it is not equally satisfied with their preparations, particuarly concerning Natura. Nevertheless, said Verstrynge, the Commission believes that it is important to let the process go forward, because in nature

12 protection the main thing to secure now is that Eastern Europe does not make all the mistakes that Western Europe made after World War II – and this will only be achieved by letting the countries in. After they join, in the period in-between, the Commission will insist that the countries reinforce administrative capacity.

Agri-environmental funding In response to a question about agri-environmental funding, Verstrynge said that the European Commission believes that more money should be spent on agri-environment – in fact, the current proposal to reform the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP mid-term review) calls for doubling the amount available for agri-environment. “I think in the end we will win the debate (on reforming CAP), because history is going in this direction. The population in Western Europe.. does not want to continue to pay for farm over- supply, but they want to pay for farmers taking care of the environment,” said Verstrynge. At the same time, though, it is important that the money that is already available for rural development and agri-environment is fully used. “We told several members that it would be better that they spend more on rural development,” said Verstrynge, “because there is no chance of increasing the budget if you are not spending the money in the first place.”

Costs and sources of financing for implementation of Natura 2000 According to Verstrynge, the European Commission calculates that financing implementation of Natura 2000 will cost upwards of 3 billion Euros – a sum that is simply not in the cards, far above what the LIFE, agriculture or regional funds can do. The Commission is currently working on a proposal to mobilize money within the budget; the proposal will be influenced by the outcome of CAP reform and will also operate with the Structural Funds (the Cohesion Funds for example are already being used for some activities in forestry). But it will be a very hard negotiation around a lot of money, and will not be made easier by the unspoken enemies of Natura 2000. It is a question of mobilizing sufficient political and citizens support to convince people that Natura 2000 is worth supporting. Sources of funding will have to be increased in the budget in the next financial perspective after 2006. Verstrynge concluded: “It is for you to support the proposals of the Commission. We can only win when we have the support of the grassroots organizations. Like the NGO instrument which we won from the Council just last year – because we orchestrated the pressure correctly, we got away with 32 million Euro (ed: support for a programme of core support for environmental NGOs) ... The first ever proposal on financing of the Commission that got through the Council and Parliament without losing a penny! We got it because the NGO community was mobilized. Natura will be exactly the same – only that it is not 32 million, it is 3 billion. It is for you to help us to win this battle... We are going to win it because the people in the Council and the Parliament will be convinced that there is sufficient political pressure to win it...”

Explaining Natura 2000: Mladen Berginc remarked that it is essential to get the message across to ordinary people about the importance of preserving natural heritage. Verstrynge noted that explaining biodiversity usually does not work. “The best argument I have heard,” said Verstrynge,

13 “is like this: Biodiversity is like an airplane. In an airplane there are a million screws. As long as the screws are fixed, the airplane is flying. If you take out species in biodiversity, it is like taking screws out of an airplane. And of course you can unscrew many screws out of the airplane before anything happens. But then one day you have taken one screw too many out of the airplane, and the airplane collapses. And there is no way of putting it back together. It disintegrates on the ground, and you cannot make it fly by putting the screw back. This is what biodiversity is like,” Verstrynge concluded, “– when you explain that to people, sometimes they start understanding what Natura is all about.”

SESSION TWO: AUSTRIA TAKING THE CHALLENGE (12:00-13:00)

Wilhelm Molterer, Austrian Minister of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management began by emphasizing that enlargement is enrichment, and confirming the strong commitment of the Austrian government to enlargement, which presents not only an historical chance to enlarge the area for peace, but also a positive chance to strengthen the voice of Europe in facing the world’s challenges. At a recent meeting of environmental ministers from the candidate countries in Vienna, three priority issues were identified: air quality, waste management, and water protection. As important as these, according to Molterer, is the question of biodiversity, which is key for sustainable development. Enlargement would, said the minister, bring three main advantages in the area of biodiversity: more consistent implementation of legislation in the applicant countries; an increase in surface areas, and an increase in species protected. Referring to experience from his own ministry, which includes agriculture, forestry, environment and water, minister Molterer stressed that integration of environment into different areas is key. Also important is the positive engagement of local and regional authorities and the people living in these areas, and for this it is necessary not only to stress nature values, but also practical, socio-economic benefits from nature protection. Finally, cross-border cooperation is essential. Enlargement provides a chance for a breakthrough in each of these areas.

14 Josef Plank, Minister for Agricultural Affairs, Government of Lower Austria noted that the fall of Iron Curtain, Austria’s accession to the EU in 1995, and the ongoing process of accession of Austria’s neighbors to the European Union have dramatically shifted Lower Austria’s position from the periphery to the center of Europe. The changes present a number of challenges, not least with regard to transportation as well as economic development. Nevertheless, Lower Austria has a very positive attitude and is trying to steer development in the direction of sustainable rural development with high environmental standards, with particular emphasis on ecological agriculture. A number of EU, national, and provincial programmes, including LEADER, INTERREG, ÖPUL (national agri-environment scheme), and Öko-Punkte (a regional programme that is part of ÖPUL, i.e. co-funded by the EU and Austrian government), are being used to promote this development, including cross-border initiatives. There are a number of factors that make the relationship between Lower Austria and its eastern neighbors more difficult, including language and low level regional pride and identity. There is a large number of very small farmers, and an increasing number of them are trying to get employment outside of agriculture. As a result, urban migration is leading to the erosion of local communities. The enlargement process may increase some of these challenges, yet also presents new opportunities.

Günther Lutschinger, CEO of WWF Austria looked at Austria’s recent experience with accession to the European Union and drew from this what NGOs have to offer to the EU enlargement process and what WWF expects of the Austrian government. According to Lutschinger, NGOs can offer to the accession process scientific and conservation expertise; communication with different audiences; monitoring of political processes and their impact on nature; and help to build the capacity of NGOs in the candidate countries. The Accession Initiative launched by the WWF network seeks to respond to the historic challenges and opportunities connected with the current enlargement of the European Union. It focuses on three areas in particular: nature conservation, particularly effective implementation of Natura 2000; promotion of agri-environmental measures; and timely and effective implementation of the Water Framework Directive. The expectations that Lutschinger addressed to the Austrian government include promoting Sustainable Development in Europe – including for example prevention of some destructive transportation projects planned as part of the Trans European Network; expanding the focus of the overall communication of enlargement – not only on economic effects, but also stressing the importance of social and ecological values and supporting and listening to the experience of NGOs in the region.

Main points of discussion:

Reform of CAP Responding to criticism of the Austrian government’s recent rejection of the European Commission’s proposal for reforming the Common Agriculture Policy, minister Molterer noted that Austria is the front-runner in the EU in terms of rural development. “I think

15 that agriculture in its multifunctional role can only play its role if we give the farmers the possibility to produce in a sustainable way”, the minister said. “This is our major problem with Fischler’s proposal for the mid-term review: this is de-coupling – OK if this means decoupling from the level of production. But we are against decoupling of the effort of agriculture on the arable land and the direct payments. The efforts of the work the farmers do is the basis for the fulfilment of all multifunctional roles they have to do. Modulation is interesting, but we have a better proposal for modulation – it is a step-by- step approach.” He added that Austria wants to strengthen the second pillar of the CAP, but that the country at the same time wants to maintain its number one position in use of rural development funds. It is easier for some countries to favor changes at the mid-term review, since changing from zero is no problem for them.

Role of NGOs: Molterer: “I think we need NGOs. But we are successful if we talk together with the people in the region... NGOs must be open to the needs of the people.”

Communicating enlargement Minister Molterer: “I think it is an important signal that we talk not only about Euros, but that we also talk about the real challenge, that we have the real possibility to create a better future. To talk about enlargement as enrichment, for all of us. And I think we need to give this signal to the people in our countries, because otherwise we will have problems in referendums and so on. If we are only defensive in our argumentation, then we should not be surprised that people are in sorrows. We must be much more optimistic and offensive that enlargement is enrichment. We are here to solve problems and not to create them.” Concluding remarks from Romanian Minister Lificiu: “I want to just thank you very much for this conference. In my political life, this is the first time that a member country, Austria, says very clearly that the candidate countries enrich the EU. And this is so important, and so wonderful.”

16