1. Country case studies: Cohesion Policy Funding Environmental harmful subsidies – a real threat to biodiversity 11. January 2010, Brussels Franziska Mey, EU-Policy WWF Germany

2. Content 1.Funding allocations 2.Case studies Spain and Poland 3.Outlook

3. Bildleiste: Feuerfalter Funding Allocations To remind: 2007-2013 appr. 347 billion Euros for Cohesion Policy

4. Bildleiste: Feuerfalter Funding Allocations Good news 30% of cohesion policy funding is potentially for the environment for the first time funding of biodiversity and related investments amount 3,8 billion Euros (nearly twice the amount of LIFE)

5. … but 30 % environmental spending allocates for: is 2 / 3 for transport, environmental infrastructure and risk prevention! (red) Climate change investments include more than 50% for rail and risk prevention Intelligent transport and clean urban transport account for 7bio Energy efficiency and renewables account for 9bio which is only 2,6% of cohesion funding (light green) Biodiversity related investments can reach 4 bio (dark green) => 1,2% of cohesion policy funding Funding Allocations

6. Bildleiste: Feuerfalter Funding Allocations …for infrastructure equates 13% - appr. 46 billion Euros are still allocated for motorways, roads, ports and airports - railways might also harm natural habitats …for biodiversity equates 1,2% Challenging news Cohesion policy funding 2007-2013

7. National and regional authorities of the EU Member States still stick to old structures e.g. German Coalition Agreement of the new government says: ERDF investments must in future still consider classical business support 46 billion Euros are directly dedicated to traditional infrastructure investments Funding Allocations

8. Negative Impacts due to EU Regional Development Funding (ERDF) Funding for construction of dams and other infrastructure cause negative impacts on nature, including loss and fragmentation of habitats Case Studies

9. Last funding period 2000-2006 Infrastructure projects - La Breña II Dam and Arenoso Dam (both in the province of Cordoba) negative impact on the fragmentation of the territory of the Iberian lynx Case Study 1: Spain received important funding through the ERDF funds La Breña II Dam the European Union provided 79,878,501 of a total budget of 159,757,002. Arenoso Dam the total budget is 59,997,251 and the provision from the European funds is 29,998,625 WWF Publication on Conflicting EU Funds www.panda.org

10. Case Study 2: Spain Funding period 2007-2013 ERDF Operational Programm Castilla la Mancha Major project: Highway A-43 allocated total budget of 50 Mio. will negatively effect 12 Natura 2000 sites and important areas for the Iberian Lynx Proposed route of A-43 Iberian Lynx habitats

11. … but on the other hand in the same Operational Programme of the region Castilla la Mancha I 51 Mio. Euro are allocated for Categorie 51 – Promotion of biodiversity and nature protection (incl. Natura 2000)

12. Spanish Plan of Infrastructure and Transport (PEIT) 2010-2020 - Planned expenditures of appr. 250 billion euros until 2020 - 20% of the financing in the last four years came from European funds (European Regional Development Fund and Cohesion Funds) -In 2000-2006 1 / 3 ERDF funding was dedicated to infrastructure projects Will negatively affect 180 Natura 2000 sites Case Study 3: Spain

13. Natura 2000 Infrastructure planning Natura 2000 network in Spain PEIT Highway Network Horizon 2020

14. Via Baltica - 277-mile run from Warsaw to Helsinki Case => section of Via Baltica expressroad (the bypass of Augustow city) should be funded by ERDF The road was planned to cut pristine wetlands in Rospuda river Valley within a protected Natura 2000 site Due to strong efforts of different stakeholders in Poland and the rest of the EU a bypass route was found which Poland released the environmental consent for the Augustow bypass A case which could serve as startling wake-up call to infrastructure developers across central and eastern Europe Bildleiste: Biebrza Nationalpark Case Study 4: Poland

15. Still conflicting EU funding and contradictory EU policies Need of more transparency on Cohesion/ ERDF funding Need of sound information and monitoring on the impacts of Cohesion/ ERDF spending Assure a constructive participation of stakeholders in the different monitoring committee of ERDF Conclusion

16. Outlook Continously raising awarness on sustainability issues (e.g. climate protection and biodiversity) Paweł Samecki, Comissioner DG Regio Orientation paper on future cohesion December 2009 -Cohesion policy has a key role to play in smoothing transition to a low-carbon economy and enhancing environmental quality -Improving […] environmental sustainability through the Cohesion Fund Bildleiste: Altwelt-Biber

17. Outlook What needs to be done: Strenghting the use of EU cohesion funds for biodiversity and Natura 2000 -Development and implementation of successful project examples to protect habitats and contribute to nature conserveration Consideration of TEEB and ecosystem services approach in the EU budget reform Lobbying for EU policy and budget towards a more long term sustainability path Bildleiste: Altwelt-Biber

18. WWF Germany Franziska Mey mey@wwf.de Thanks for your attention!