http://www.eap.pauci.org/file/ZWFwX3BhdWNpX2ZpbGVzMjY5MA__

Minutes of CSF working group meeting on environment, climate change and energy on 10 September 2010 in Brussels Chair: Irene Lucious Minutes: Anna Golubovska-Onisimova Participants: see attached document Missing: Vitali Silitski, Iurie Hurmuhachi, Vugar Babayev, Murat Zongur, Ewa Konchanska, Wojtek Borodzicz, Karoly Benes.

Maciej Stadejek, DG RELEX, opened the meeting and participants introduced themselves. WG members accepted as guest Maria Manuela Chican , Vice-president of Paneuropa Foundation.

Paloma Argasot of the WWF European Policy Office also participated as guest.

Participants voiced their objectives and expectations of the meeting: · How CSO can become more effective in influencing the EaP process · Preparation of and clear joint position of 2nd CSF event in Berlin, · Better coordination of work, how to work together · To understand better how can influence decisions in policy of our own countries · Extending understanding of energy security issues, distribution of resources, energy policy reform agenda · Common energy policy with respect to energy efficiency and clean energy · Links between energy issues and social dimension Irene gave an overview of the structure and work of the CSF Steering Committee (see attached power point presentation). She also announced the other Coordinator of WG 3, Michael Gonchar has resigned due to other obligations.

While the participation in Platform 3 meeting was rather frustrating, because the WG 3 Coordinators could only participate for 30 min and there was little interest shown by participants, the Environment Panel, in which Irene and Anna participated, was a more encouraging experience. How and whether the CSF will participate in future meetings is not yet clear.

Anna added that we were supposed to be kept informed on a SEIS event in September but we never heard back. The information platform CIRCABC, to which Irene and Anna received access, was upgraded and currently not functioning. This is why Anna and Irene could not distribute further information to the WG members.

During the following discussion, participants made the following suggestions: ·

· ·

In order to be efficient, we need permanent staff. Irene confirmed that this is increasingly also the impression of SC members. Effective lobby work needs time of dedicated staff and a travel budget. Maciej replied that currently DG RELEX can’t fund it, first they need to see how it works and how to make the participation effective. Independence of the CSF and its SC from Commission would be preferable but it is not easy to secure funding Need for greater transparency of bilateral process, NGOs involvement into EaP process needs to be strengthened.

We need to work more closely together, not only from forum-to-forum, permanently, e.g. to create e-mail list-serve, to have interim meetings.

1

· · · · ·

Disappointed, we have important role, but not allowed to fully participate in Platform meetings although the topics discussed are not at all confidential, e.g. energy performance in buildings. We need to change this.

We have to better define our potential role in the process but we also need to hear the ideas of our governmental counterparts how they see the role of CSOs, otherwise is it difficult for us to show we are worth something.

We should consider writing to the EC that we want to be taken more seriously. We have important role to play as we have a more longterm-perspective while governments are often ruled by short terms interests.

Sometimes WG participants did not have enough time to reply to request by Coordinators (apologies) Maciej confirmed that DG RELEX is taking CSF seriously, otherwise they would not call and financially support the CSF, but the process takes time. Commission can’t force governmental partners to act in a certain way, CSOs have to influence governmental themselves. A professional web-site will help to a certain degree and next week a contract will be signed to create such a website. EC has budget limitations, cannot fund a secretariat right now. Next budget period will start after 2013. Before this, unlikely more funds will be put into CSF.

Andrzej Januszewski, DG Environment, gave an update of the work of the EaP Panel on environment and climate change. Since Feb 2010 the Env. Panel supports the Flagship initiative on Governance. The first phase is to set up the date sharing mechanism SEIS. EEA, EIB (European Investment Bank) are members of the Panel as well. Other topics are Green economy and eco-innovation and Climate change.

A transition to a Green economy is the response to resources depletion and scarcity. Also good for the economy creating green jobs and improving competitiveness. Eco-innovation promotes eco-friendly production pattern. A report is in preparation on the possibilities of developing elements of a green economy in partner countries to be published mid January. After this, a seminar (mid spring) will be held to discuss the results.

A seminar on Climate change on 4th November will take place in Brussels, the agenda is under preparation. Topics: developing common financing platform, developing adaptation programme.

The EEA plans a SEIS meeting in November too. The aim is to make data of countries comparable and provide access. First step is to analyse how data are being collected, what are the capacity, formats of data management in the various countries. Mid spring will be the 2nd Panel meeting. REC is also launching a shared information system. There will be a highest level meeting on 11 and 12 Nov in Copenhagen or Brussels on SEIS with all partner countries to agree on next steps.

He appreciates the role of NGOs in spreading information, awareness raising, and as watchdogs and promised to draw attention of the EC to the importance of involving CSF representatives into work on green economy (possibly the report) and seminars. DG CLIM is responsible for climate change seminar, but DG RELEX and DG ENV will check out whether it is possible to invite CSOs. Aarhus Convention activities were planned, but delayed to later financial period.

DG ENV stated that they are taking Aarhus and Espoo Conventions extremely seriously, but is decided to start with SEIS and then we go further.

Before leaving, Maria thanked the participants for letting her sit in. She said many of the issues discussed are familiar to her and that she will share the policy paper they will present to Commissioner Fule next week.

1

For the working group session, participants split up into: WG subgroup 1 Environment / climate change adapatation (Anna: chair, Natalia: rapporteur).

WG subgroup 2 Energy / climate change mitigation (Yaroslav: chair, Gayane: rapporteur) Olivier Silla, DG Energy, informed on the Platform 3 process. Since Moldova (and soon Ukraine) became full member of the European Energy Community, the situation is changing. EU legislation has to be implemented such as EIA, IPPC etc. The EU is working on the implementation of a new directive on energy efficiency in buildings. In Ukraine, local and EU companies are jointly working towards increasing energy efficiency, especially in buildings (we should ask for the website address). There will be a workshop on electricity interconnection in July. The Covenant of Mayors is a partner to the Platform. The EBRD is funding Energy efficiency projects in Eastern partner countries and the EU INOGATE programme supports cooperation. Energy efficiency will remain on the agenda of the Platform. The EU is also financing projects to ensure greater resilience of the gas sector. The discussion on Energy in the Black Sea area was postponed. At the next meeting, the countries should discuss who to take on board of CSF recommendations.

At the workshop on electricity interconnection it became obvious that all countries have concrete projects but they do not discuss them in a regional context. As a new obligation for network operators they now have to develop 10 year network development plans, make them public, and update them every 2 yrs. Investment planning information is to be shared.

The EIB presented their general policy towards financing electricity interconnections and discussed regulatory environment. Access and tariff regimes are difficult topics. The EBRD is co-financing projects in and around Georgia.

For some issues, the EaP might consider looking beyond EaP countries, e.g. to Turkey.

While the need to increase transparency is acknowledged, renewable energy technologies are not given much attention yet, this could be changed through technical workshops, but the situation is quite different in various countries. DG Energy is interested in receiving our suggestions how to tackle this topic in a concrete manner.

We have to appreciate that compliance with European energy and environmental legislation requires huge investments, but that the new rule only applies to new power projects. CSOs have a role to play in monitoring, both during planning and implementation phase.

John O’Rourke, DG RELEX, informed about the process of reviewing the European Neighourhood Policy, of which the EaP is a part of. The annual progress reports are accompanied by Commission Communications. This year, as there are changes (Lisbon Treaty etc), this will involved a stock taking exercise of the implementation of the NP since its inception. The major conclusion is that the policy is working, but there is insufficient ambition on both sides in particular in the area of governance and democracy. There is standstill and even regression in some cases.

The Foreign Affairs Council had asked the Commission and Lady Ashton to undertake consultations with partner countries on how to better respond to the challenges. They have launched a consultation process with set of letters to partner countries and Member States about: 1) where each partner sees the relationship between EU and partner countries in 10-15 yrs 2) where should we be in 5 yrs time, intermediate goals, structure of joint work 3) what are the resources and tools.

1

There is also the intention to consult with Civil Society. For beginning of November, a meeting with groups of NGOs is foreseen. A ministerial conference will take place beginning of 2011 after which the EC will draw conclusions and publish a Communication about the whole NP incl Med. We are welcome to contribute by formulating our vision and suggestions - most useful is what is practical, achievable and feasible in the given context. If we highlight problems, we should propose solutions. Convincing arguments are in particular those that show a win-win to different stakeholders, only then can we move beyond paradigms.

Discussion: · Society often wants more reforms than governments, but there is no standard solution for this, impact of Commission limited · One of the reasons of NP decline is that CS is not enough involved, need capacity building, e.g. for monitoring, how governments spend money, CSOs need more meetings, e.g. on monitoring, are there resources for trainings? DG RELEX agrees that limited CS involvement affected ENP effectiveness. If we are clever, let´s not ask directly for more resources for ourselves. However, there are programmes for education and capacity building activities under Platform 4. We have to show examples of where investment into CSO activities have paid off, have worked particularly well, not just statement of needs but point out solutions; · We can´t set the Commission or EU to settle the questions of relationship between governments and CS, EC can only be advocate, but our role has to be accepted by our governments. · Sometimes it seems that the better the EU cooperates with partner countries economically, the weaker democracy gets. Maybe one reason is that NP/EaP took long time to get off the ground, and there are geopolitical developments which run counter to processes that Commission tries to encourage · There is the problem of marginalization of legitimate NGOs while organizations set up by governmental players scoop up all the money and attention. It is sometimes difficult for the Commission to find common language with legitimate NGOs while it is easier to cooperate with the others. · Impossible to implement all points, we can improve the quality of recommendations and make them implementable · Without knowledge of what the EaP players plan the CSF cannot make meaningful contributions. The minutes of Platform meetings cannot be shared with the CSF, this is the current decision. · At a meeting in November after our Forum event, the Commission will give its view of coming years.

Marciej will pass on information on next round of Platform meetings to Irene for distribution.

As an outcome of working sessions on Environment/Climate Change Adaptation and Energy/Cimate Change Mitigation, a series of focus issues were identified which will be further elaborated by sub-groups (see annex “guidance”). By 24 September first draft discussion papers will be ready and shared by all.

Gayane will set up a google group information sharing platform after 23 September.

Irene thanked everybody for the valuable contributions and closed the meeting.

Annex: Power point presentation of Irene Lucius; minutes of Environment working session; Minutes of Energy working session 1

1