GuideGuidelines workshop evaluation 0 Financing Natura 2000 Workshop report NETHERLANDS Prepared by: Stichting Natuur en Milieu Arjan Berkhuysen 3 July 2006 Stichting Natuur en Milieu July 2006
Workshop report Netherlands 1 Content 1 Workshop characteristics... 3 2 Targets and target groups... 4 3 Workshop content... 5 4 Summary results of the modules... 6 4.1 Results of the module Integration of Natura 2000...6 4.2 Results of the module Guidance handbook...7 4.2 Results of the module Framework conditions...8 4.2.1 Concerning the status of the programming... 8 4.2.2 Concerning the realisation of Natura 2000... 8 4.3 Results of the module National funding information...10 4.4 Results from other chosen modules...12 5 Feedback from participants... 14 6 Summary feedback from national partners... 15 7 Annex... 15
Guidlelines Workshop evaluation 2 Stichting Natuur en Milieu July 2006
Workshop report Netherlands 3 1 Workshop characteristics Country Netherlands Date of workshop 30 March 2006 Duration 1 day Town, place Utrecht Number of participants 65 Responsible environmental organisation ( national partner ) Stichting Natuur en Milieu Responsible authority ( national authority ) Ministerie van LNV
Workshop report Netherlands 4 2 Targets and target groups In the table below are set out important targets of the national workshops as defined in our Guidelines part 2. If you reflect your workshop session, please try to make a ranking, which of the targets were focussed how intensely. Target - - - 0 + + + To explain the logic of the integration option to finance Natura 2000 0 To inform about EU funding opportunities to finance Natura 2000 + To present national programming approach of EU funds ++ To identify funding gaps 0 To influence national programming + To inform about national funding opportunities ++ To create dialogue and networks ++ Other targets Which target groups were represented on the workshop? Try to make a ranking, which group was represented how strongly by evaluating your list of participants and summarizing the number of representatives of the most important target groups. Target group How many representatives? Authorities: Ministry of environment 1 Ministry of agriculture, fisheries, forests etc. 6 Ministry of work, industry, economy etc. 0 Ministry of European affaires 0 Ministry of Finance 0 Other relevant authorities: Provinces and Waterworks 13 (please note this was our main target group indeed we had all provinces represented) Stakeholders / umbrella organisations: Environmental NGO s 30 Farmers, foresters, hunters, fishermen, aquaculturalists 2 Private and public land owners, land managers 3 Others 10
Workshop report Netherlands 5 3 Workshop content Which of the modules did you carry out in your workshop? Which other topics (due to national specifics) did you add to the workshop programme? It is assumed that all core modules were adopted. If not, please give the reasons why not. Content Yes / No / notes Core modules: Integration of Natura 2000 Guidance handbook Framework conditions Yes Yes Yes Optional modules: National funding information Yes Good practice Success factors Using LEADER for nature conservation Follow-up actions Other / additional topics: Using a case study it was discussed how to use the guidelines for increasing funding for Natura2000, but also to learn from each other what other possibilities could be there to close funding gaps.
Workshop report Netherlands 6 4 Summary results of the modules To remind you the intention of the modules, the targets (see Guidelines part 2 Designing the workshops on the basis of improved modules ) are highlighted in boxes firstly, followed by some questions, that should help you to reflect if the module met the target. In certain cases we added some inquiries to deliver specific information or material that will be essential for the elaboration of our overall summery report. 4.1 Results of the module Integration of Natura 2000 Target Explaining the logic of the integration option to finance Natura 2000. Before going into details of EU funding options the participants of the workshops should be informed about the background of the integration option for the implementation of Natura 2000. Thus, it is necessary to give a short overview on common obligations for all Member States to be sure, that all participants have the same information level. But it rather should motivate and make aware about the vision of integration. i) Key topics presented? State of play of implementation of Natura 2000 in the Netherlands EU financing for Natura 2000 ii) Key questions and answers given during the discussion? Since the EU funds for nature are not dedicated for nature (except LIFE+), people reacted a bit frustrated. There were remarks like: 'what are we here for, the EU has no money for nature. After lunch, we were able to get a positive mood, and discuss the possibilities for getting money whereby one has to be a bit more creative to get it. iii) Unresolved questions and potential problems? It is still unclear what exactly is necessary after defining the Natura2000 management plans, which are to be defined in the next few years. Most of the participants from local/regional governments were responsible for implementation of the nature plans, but hardly involved in financial matters. They complained about too little force on nature budgets from Dutch government or EU. They expect to get too little support within their local/regional organisations.
Workshop report Netherlands 7 4.2 Results of the module Guidance handbook Target Information about EU funding opportunities to finance Natura 2000. This module will present the guidance handbook developed on the European level and clarify any questions in this context. The aim is to inform the participants about the structure and the benefit of the handbook and to give an overview on which measures relevant to Natura 2000 may generally be co-financed. i) Key topics presented? The guidebook was presented and used for a case study of one of the provinces (Drenthe). ii) Key questions and answers given during the discussion? People would like to have an updated version, based on what the Netherlands have decided about how the EU funds can be used in the Netherlands. The Ministry would look into this. iii) Unresolved questions and potential problems? It was understood that different EU funds could be used for one big nature project. The question was asked though if you have to write all different small project proposals or draft one big one and approach the right channels for each relevant part.
Workshop report Netherlands 8 4.2 Results of the module Framework conditions Target Presenting national programming approach of EU funds to integrate Natura 2000 financing This module will inform the participants about the status of the programming in the Member State as well as the needs and costs of the Natura 2000 Network, creating the basis for further modules (particularly National funding information ). 4.2.1 Concerning the status of the programming i) Key topics presented? Several people from the Ministry explained about status of programming for the different funds, focussing on: o Rural Development o Structural Funds o LIFE+ The programmes were explained and the processes involved as well. ii) Key questions and answers given during the discussion? There were complaints about the little amount meant for the second axis of the RDP. It was asked if NGOs could participate as well. The answer was that the beneficiaries were restricted to farmers and foresters. iii) Unresolved questions and potential problems? The ministry was asked to send a letter to provinces, saying that part of the EU funds should be used for Natura 2000. Such a letter could support local/regional lobbies within these regions/provinces to get more attention for nature. 4.2.2 Concerning the realisation of Natura 2000 i) Key topics presented? Implementation in the Netherlands is characterised by three phases: a. list of areas (completed in 2004). b. national targets for favourable conservation status c. specification per area The Netherlands is now working on b and c. ii) Key questions and answers given during the discussion? The Ministry was asked for their role, in relation to the roles of regions/provinces? iii) Unresolved questions and potential problems?
Workshop report Netherlands 9 If there are legal, local disputes, the Ministry of LNV only takes a facilitating and advising role. These result in decisions, that concern third parties. It was not sure who would bear the costs.
Workshop report Netherlands 10 4.3 Results of the module National funding information Target Information about national funding opportunities and/or funding gaps The main focus of this module depends strongly on the state of programming in your country. If it is quite advanced it would be better to give information on funding opportunities to multipliers. If there is still the possibility of influencing the national programmes, it might be worth it to search for funding gaps together with responsible persons from ministries and find ways for closing them. i) Key topics presented? Please reflect the following questions: - Eligible measures were explained during the presentation of the guidelines/handbook. - Which of the funds were identified as the most important for your country?: RDP, Structural Funds and LIFE+. Within these, most of the space of more budgets was seen to come from Structural Funds and the third axis from the Rural Development Plan. - At the time it was not clear whether there would be funding gaps. Meanwhile though, we have seen a regional plan for the south of the Netherlands for Structural Funds, which did not mention Natura2000. - The participants got some practical information where they had to go for money requests. - We presented the guidelines and used it, looking at a case study the province of Drenthe. Attached some of the presentations. ii) Key questions and answers given during the discussion? There were questions whether changes to the EU budget would change anything. (At the moment of the workshop the financial perspectives had not been confirmed yet). In the end something did change the Netherlands probably get more money from LIFE+ than previously thought. This has been communicated to the participants when the notes of the workshop were sent. It was asked who could lobby for bigger budgets, and reply was that currently most of the space for nature was a the level of the regions/provinces. That is where most of the lobby should be. iii) Unresolved questions and potential problems? It was asked whether areas outside Natura2000 could get EU financing as well, for example if practises in these areas have significant effects on the Natura2000 areas. For example, intensive farming. Nobody had a clear straight forward answer.
Workshop report Netherlands 11 It was remarked that it is still very unclear what the division of payments will be for Natura2000 and Water Framework activities. This is because the plans for the WFD will only be finished in 2009.
Workshop report Netherlands 12 4.4 Results from other chosen modules Target of the module Good practice : Showing that integration of Natura 2000 can work In this module positive examples regarding the financing of Natura 2000 are to be presented. The module serves to convince participants how integration can work and to draw their attention to relevant requirements as well as to show them how to overcome bottlenecks. Target of the module Success factors : Kick off process competence and long-term learning effects for successful financing of Natura 2000 In this module the success factors for the financing of Natura 2000 are presented and evaluated for the Member State on the basis of a standardised questionnaire. The advantage is to identify and make visible bottlenecks and weaknesses very quickly. But the aim is to produce long-term learning effects by changing processes and improving framework conditions. Target of the module Using LEADER for nature conservation Drawing attention to special funding opportunities which promotes integration of Natura 2000 within complex regional development strategies. As LEADER is not an own programme with own funding possibilities but an approach which needs an integrated regional strategy and the co-operation of local actors across all sectors it promotes very good the integration goal for Natura 2000. The aim is to give important information on advantages and requirements of LEADER. Target of the module Follow-up actions Initiating networks for integration of Natura 2000 The aim of this module is looking into the future and how those ad hoc groups created within the workshops could continue working together in a more integrated approach, because integration needs dialogue. i) Key topics presented in the chosen modules? (with short abstracts of examples, results etc.) The case study of Drenthe showed an integrated approach of nature development within an area. It also showed that there are more possibilities of funding then realised by the province of Drenthe. Most hopes for this were concentrated on Structural Funds (exploiting a new information centre) and the third axis of the RDP for restructuring landscape elements (Art 57). ii) Key questions and answers given during the discussion of the particular modules? Timing: The management plans are only expected to be ready in 3 years. It will be difficult to use EU money for projects and programmes following these plans if they do not fit in the framework of the programmes of 2007 to 2013. That is why the Ministry emphasised to get the framework conditions right on provincial level. Knowledge: It was noted that the participants together had a high level of knowledge of financing, therefore we should share it more. Good ways to do that might be to make the current body for the Rural Development Programme responsible for other programmes as well. That could support as a helpdesk for questions from within the
Workshop report Netherlands 13 provinces. Another suggestion came from one of the provinces, who have established a project team for EU subsidies, supporting questions from people within the province. That could be a good model for other provinces too. iii) Unresolved questions and potential problems with respect to the particular modules? As mentioned earlier, the problem if EU money could be used for areas outside Natura2000, having significant effect on the Natura2000 areas, was a main issue during the workshop. People form the provinces asked from support from national or even EU level that Natura 2000 needed to be included in programmes. The national government was asked to send a letter to the provinces to (re)inform them about that obligation. iv) Which other (country specific) modules / topics were part of the workshop? Please give a short overview and summarize the main results of them.
Workshop report Netherlands 14 5 Feedback from participants Please translate the following questions in your national language in advance and create a one page feedback-paper (copy and paste of the table below), that should be filled out anonymous by the participants at the end of the workshop. Make sure, that they will be collected, e.g. by your staff or in prepared boxes. Please analyse the answers after the workshop and transfer the summarized result into your workshop report. PLEASE NOTE WE GOT THIS PAPER ONLY AFTER OUR WORKSHOP (WHICH WAS ALREADY HELD AT 30 MARCH SO WE COULD STILL INFLUENCE PROGRAMMING ) BELOW ARE ESTIMATES BASED ON FEEDBACK THAT WE GOT FROM PARTICIPANTS. Feedback to the Workshop Financing Natura 2000 - - - 0 + + + 1 Did the workshop fulfill your expectations? + 2 Was the organisation (timing, place, composition of content and participants etc. ) adequate? + 3 Is the Guidance handbook a helpful product for the implementation and financing of Natura 2000 in your country? 4 Are you standing behind the Integration option as the new European approach for cross-sectoral financing of nature conservation? 0 0 5 Do you think, that the need of financing Natura 2000 in your country will be covered by the implementation of the integration-option that is incorporated within the new 2007-13 EU funding? - Place for your notes: The workshop did not fulfil expectations in first instance, because some people were simply expecting more money directly available for nature. It was well appreciated though later in the day that the integration financing option requires a different approach. People did feel they learned about new potential funding. At the end of the workshop people were certainly more positive about the integrationoption than before.
Workshop report Netherlands 15 6 Summary feedback from national partners Last but not least we would like to have a summary feedback from you as our national partner (and of the persons from national authority you co-operated with). Feel free to write down all experiences and impressions you have and what wishes you have for future projects from EC concerning the implementation of Natura 2000. Some key issues we are interested in: The cooperation with WWF and others has been very pleasant. The cooperation with the Ministry of LNV has been very good. The main problem with the whole exercise was the timing: most of the programmes of EU funding were already in a finishing state. If the workshop would have been half a year earlier, the impact could have been much bigger. The strategic timing of such a workshop should get higher priority next time. 7 Annex Please add the following documents as electronic versions: - Workshop invitation and programme - Presentations / material used for important modules (particularly Framework conditions and National funding information, see chapter 4.2 and 4.3) Contact: Barbara Vay nova-institute Frankfurt Office Tel.: +49 69 98 19 69 75 Mob: +49 160 91 42 47 97 Barbara.Vay@nova-Institut.de Peter Torkler WWF Germany WWF Berlin Office Tel.: +49 30 30 87 42 15 Mob: +49 162 29 144 63 torkler@wwf.de