Financing Natura 2000 WORKSHOPS 2nd meeting of the Steering Group, 2 March 2006

Financing Natura 2000 WORKSHOPS 2nd meeting of the Steering Group, 2 March 2006 State of workshop planning Guidelines second draft Improved modules Next steps Forecast: evaluation

Key issues discussed in Berlin: + Clear in most of the MS: Target groups Financing of the workshops - Unclear in many MS: Benefit for target groups Distribution of roles and tasks Selection of modules State of workshop planning Timing of the workshops (+/- 50%)

 Problem: Benefit for target groups? To late for influencing national programming: What could be the benefit for authorities? To early for concrete national funding information: What could be the benefit for stakeholders / multipliers?  Solutions: Discussing first arguments, e.g. Raising awareness about integration option of Natura 2000 Presenting a complete (all funds), fresh (March 06) and approved (all relevant DGs) analysis of EU-funding options Checking / influencing programming now where possible, but after the mid-term review at the latest. Understand it as the beginning of a process that opens dialogues and networks for Natura  But: more arguments needed! State of workshop planning

 Problem: Distribution of roles and tasks? National authorities: How to convince them that they should host and support national workshops? National partners: Not enough resources to do all necessary preparation tasks / investigations  Solutions: Changing the approach, e.g. More and direct support by EC (letter to national authority?, active roles at the national workshops) Self-image of national partners as contractors of the EC Identify the right persons in the ministries that are responsible for programming (not for Natura 2000): they must have an overview and should contribute their knowledge If there is no interest and support at all: cancel the workshop, because they are only an offer to MS. State of workshop planning

 Problem: Selection of modules Many national partners did not look into the guidelines (modules first draft) until the Berlin meeting. Difficulties with the complexity of some modules (due to the preparation tasks or due to the application) Difficulties to select and use the modules near to the national specifics and needs.  Solution: Working groups on modules Modules were explained and discussed Problems and needs were identified New aspects / modules were added Results were implemented into improved description of modules after the Berlin meeting (second draft). State of workshop planning

Guidelines second draft: general improvements  Benefit of national workshops Arguments included which benefit could be generated by the workshops Links to modules for a better understanding of the workshop concept  Distribution of tasks and roles Overview on tasks and responsibilities within schedule Some hints about roles and approaches  Description of modules More concrete clues to targets and main target groups of each module to facilitate the selection of modules Many revised and more concrete details concerning content, performance and preparation of each module

Guidelines second draft: overview and changes  Compulsory modules >> Core modules 1.Integration of Natura 2000 (new after Berlin) 2.Guidance handbook 3.Framework conditions  Voluntary modules >> Optional modules 1.National funding information (combination of “Information for multipliers” and “Funding shortfalls”; new after Berlin) 2.Good practice 3.Success factors 4.Using LEADER for nature conservation (new for Steering group) 5.Follow up actions (new for Steering Group)

New core module: Integration of Natura 2000  Background and target Need to stress integration as introduction Explaining the logic of the “integration option” to finance Natura 2000 by speakers of the EC Creating a motivating atmosphere for the workshop  Questions New core module accepted by Steering Group? Could EC provide this input in all MS?

Core module: Guidance handbook  Target and recommendations Information about EU funding opportunities to finance Natura 2000 Presentation of the handbook (structure, application) should be conducted by national partners It is not expected of national partners to be experts for EU- funding and to go into details of funded measures, but rather to present a new “product” as support form the EC to the MS.  Question How to deal with specific questions of participants that could not be answered during the workshops?

Core module: Framework conditions  Target, content and distribution of tasks Presenting national programming approach of EU funds to integrate Natura 2000 financing Overview on programme planning should be prepared and conducted by national authority Overview on realisation of Natura 2000 (designation, management, funding needs) should be prepared and conducted by national authority or national partner

1.Information for multipliers (to beneficiaries) Presenting eligible measures in the MS Funding requirements Contact addresses... 2.Funding shortfalls Identify national funding shortfalls Results could be used to be integrated into the programming process to approach other financial sources to improve programmes after the mid-term review Optional module: National funding information Complementary approach: analysing funding leads to funding gaps

Optional module: National funding information  2 main focusses allow flexible approach Selection of main focus depends on state of programming: Co-funded measures if quite advanced; main target group will be multipliers / stakeholders Funding gaps if additions are still possible; main target group will be authorities Module needs to be well prepared (analysis of co-funded measures in all national programmes resp. funding gaps)  Questions Should this module rather be a core module (due to evaluation and overview on funding in all MS?) Who will do those analysis if not supported by national authority?

 Target and criteria for selection of examples: Showing that integration of Natura 2000 can work: Integration aspect of projects (e.g. win-win-situations) Integration aspect of funding (e.g. successful application of different funds) Authentic speakers who could convince and motivate participants (“Ice breaker”) Optional module: Good practice

Optional module: Success factors  Target and recommendations Kick-off process competence and long-term learning effects for successful financing of Natura 2000 Could provide a very quick picture of the situation Improvements could be reached only in the long-term view Performance of this module needs competence in moderating and good knowledge of the method Only few MS shows interest yet; thus, support will be provided more individually by nova ©WWF DCP-B & C Promberger

Optional module: Using LEADER  Target and target group Drawing attention to special funding opportunities which promotes integration of Natura 2000 within complex regional development strategies Main target group will be stakeholders and local authorities Instead of an own module examples of LEADER-projects could also be integrated in the module “Good practice” This module could be prepared by responsible persons from Ministries of Agriculture ©WWF DCP

Optional module: Follow-up actions  Target Initiating networks for integration of Natura 2000, because integration needs dialogue This module should be well prepared: Need for action and benefits have to be identified in advance Strong link to other modules could be helpful (e.g. funding gaps or success factors) Organisation of co-operation and next steps must be binding Intentions must be supported by national authority  Question Could there be announced the provision of further support by EC that will help MS for capacity building within those networks?

Next steps  EU level (nova) Submit adopted guidelines Preparation of standard material (draft invitation letter, ppt-presentation of handbook etc.) Providing help desk  National level (NGO-partners, authorities) Selection of modules Fixing date, location, costs Fixing programme, participants, speakers Preparing and sending of invitations Preparation of lectures and materials

Forecast: Evaluation of workshops  Proposal of criteria for national workshop reports Targets and target groups of the workshops Selected modules (workshop programme) Results of each module, particularly National framework conditions (programming, Natura 2000) National funding information (Natura 2000 measures eligible for co-financing respectively funding gaps) Follow-up actions (unresolved issues and starting points for solutions and networks) Feedback from participants (Guidance handbook, benefit of workshop, wishes for the future) Feedback form national partners and national authorities (Was EC tender project helpful for MS? Strengths and weaknesses? Lessons learnt?)  Question: Are all relevant issues covered?

nova-Institute for ecological and political innovation Dirk Schubert: Barbara Vay: Thank you for your attention!

Questions / discussion 1.Benefit of workshops? More arguments needed ! 2.New core module “Integration of Natura 2000”:  New core module accepted by Steering Group?  Could EC provide this input in all MS? 3.Core module “Guidance handbook”:  How to deal with specific questions of participants that could not be answered during the workshops? 4.Optional module “National funding information”:  Should this module rather be a core module (due to evaluation and overview on funding in all MS?)  Who will do those analysis if not supported by national authority? 5.Optional module “Follow-up activities”:  Could there be announced the provision of further support by EC that will help MS for capacity building in the framework of follow-up activities? 6.Evaluation of workshops: What are important issues?