Enlargement Enriches the EU: Taking the Challenge[1]

International Conference, ViennaCity Hall, September 26-27, 2002

“Conclusions”

Following are – in the opinion of the conference organizers – the main conclusions distilled from the two days of presentations and discussion. Most points were raised by a number of people and in a number of contexts. A summary of proceedings and presentations from which these conclusions have been drawn is available from .

Rich countries are entering the EU

  • Enlargement enriches the EU. The candidate countries bring with them a rich store of natural wealth to an enlarged European Union, including valuable cultural landscapes and many of the continent’s last remaining wilderness areas.
  • Valuing and protecting a common European heritage. This natural wealth is and will become part of the European heritage, and should be valued as such – protected during and after the accession process, not only by the candidate countries themselves but by all EU member states.
  • Need for depth. Much of the effort of EU accession in the candidate countries is directed at harmonizing the legal framework, while other, more fundamental aspects, such as developing a vision, or building a civil society, are marginalized.
  • Need for vision. Lacking in the current accession process is a broader vision for the future of candidate countries, including but not limited to biodiversity components. Without this vision, it is difficult to assess whether programmes and policies – indeed EU accession in general – are in fact appropriate.
  • Policy integration. Continuing loss of biodiversity has clearly shown that a narrow approach to environmental protection is insufficient; environment must be integrated urgently into different sectoral policies, in particular agriculture, transportation including the Trans-European Networks (TENs), regional development, energy, etc. Despite continuing significant challenges, the direction of EU policy making is increasingly moving toward integration and sustainable development, with high-level commitment from EU leaders and regular reporting on sustainability at each spring summit.
  • Sustainable EU. To ensure that natural values in the candidate countries do not suffer similar degradation as in existing member states, it is essential that the EU moves quickly forward with its Sustainable Development Strategy, including policy integration and fundamental reforms with regard to agriculture/rural development (reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP), regional development, transportation (e.g. Trans European Networks, TENs), and other areas. At the same time, greater attention must be devoted by the European Commission, member states, and European institutions including the European Investment Bank, to ensuring that sustainability criteria are fully integrated into programmes, projects, and financial tools.
  • Sustainable candidates. At the same time, the candidate countries must make concerted efforts toward integration and sustainability – something that so far few have begun to do at a strategic and long-term level. Their progress in this area will ultimately not only save biodiversity, but also save costs as the candidate countries have the unique chance to jump to the fore of trends in EU policymaking. In Slovenia, for example, policy integration in agriculture and environment is already helping re-value nature conservation and thus balance the needs of present and future generations.

Comparative advantages of candidate countries

  • Win-win situations. Developing such situations and processes in which conservation of natural resources goes hand in hand with socio-economic development is critically important, particularly in relatively poor rural areas of Central and Eastern Europe. Establishment of the Natura 2000 conservation network in the candidate countries, for example, will require the support of local populations. It will only succeed if there is commitment from local stakeholders and farmers, and a convincing vision for common regional or local development. At the same time, the natural capital of the candidate countries presents a “comparative advantage” that the countries can turn into economic and social benefit – not only in terms of tourism, production of food and other sustainable products and resources, but also increasingly services including water and flood management, sequestration of carbon dioxide, and biological and landscape stability. Such complex benefits related to nature protection must be clearly communicated and explained to the public.

Empowerment

  • Bottom-up development. Mobilizing and empowering local people is critical for addressing the daunting challenges that are facing rural areas in the candidate countries, both in terms of environmental protection, economic development, but also social development, i.e. creation of a civil society. The challenge for rural development above all is creating structures that can encourage and facilitate individual initiative and participation, and enabling local communities and regions to determine their own futures according to specific needs and circumstances.
  • Top-down structures. Unfortunately, most EU and national development programmes in the candidate countries – notably SAPARD – have missed the great opportunity to involve and empower local people. The programmes are often too large or too centrally-controlled to respond to local needs and initiative. Too much emphasis is placed on “hard” infrastructure projects, and too little on developing human resources and social infrastructure. One notable exception is the EU’s LEADER programme.
  • Assisting but not imposing development. Local people usually know best what is good for their community and environment, though they may need technical assistance, support, and facilitation to make appropriate decisions and act on them. There are already networks of experienced organisations (ranging from local NGOs and community networks to regional foundations) and good models (including Landscape Stewardship programmes, rural leaders programmes, community foundations and community development initiatives) in the candidate countries for empowering local communities and regions.
  • CAP reforms and suggestions on rural development welcome. With their cleaner environment, more traditional societies and culture, the candidate countries of Central and Eastern Europe are in a good position to develop a large-scale, integrated rural development strategy. In a number of countries and regions, there already is a strong infrastructure of organizations, communities, and regions (such as the “Rural Parliament” in Slovakia or networks of microregions in Hungary) that are capable of supporting and facilitating bottom-up development. However, to become successful, appropriate strategic decisions must be made at the respective governmental level, for example in favour of rural development and diversification versus agricultural mass production.
  • Public administration. A number of participants noted the poor preparation and attitudes of many public administrators in candidate countries, who often seem more part of the problem than the solution. Investment is needed not only in civil society, but also in public administration.
  • Significance of NGOs. NGOs have a vital role to play in the accession process, as experts, watchdogs, communicators and educators. NGOs are important e.g. for determining national interests or (as for example in Austrian experience) providing an essential force to push forward implementation of the Natura 2000 network. According to Austrian public servants at the conference, NGO involvement in the country’s accession process has been very valuable, if not always easy.
  • Learning from Greek NGOs. The experience of recent accession countries such as Spain, Portugal and Greece, where NGO movements managed to move very cleverly in networking from the local level to Brussels, could be instructive for the newest members of the EU. Modern communication technologies have considerably facilitated the transparency of all information flows, greatly facilitating development of NGO networks, from the very local to the Brussels levels. The Internet has also put information, for example regarding funding or policymaking, in the hands of the smalles and most rural NGOs.
  • Good and independent data including work on indicators is important for example for establishment of Natura 2000 areas as well as for monitoring and benchmarking, which will become increasingly significant for reporting on progress made toward sustainable development (regular reports to the spring summit of the European Council). The issue of green bridges and corridors between individual Natura 2000 sites was also highlighted and should be followed up at EU level by way of a strategic study looking at the situation in candidate countries and even beyond (eg. Yugoslav/Dinaric region - Slovenia).
  • Speed of change. The sheer speed of change and instability that is now in the candidate countries challenges and even puts at risk our ability to build the long-term structures and relations needed for sustainable development. We must find ways to accelerate positive change in order to outstrip negative developments!

Austrian experience

  • Impulse from accession. Though some aspects of Austrian environmental policy were more advanced than those of the EU when the country joined the Union in 1995, accession did provide a strong impulse for development in a number of areas, including nature protection.
  • No miracles. Austria’s success as a front-runner in agri-environmental programmes is thanks to a strategic decision made before and during the country’s accession to the European Union.

Useful links:

EU Enlargement – Commission website:

EU LEADER rural development programme:

SAPARD pre-accession programme:

ISPA pre-accession programme:

Natura 2000 – Commission website:

PREPARE rural development network:

Slovak “Rural Parliament”:

IEEP study on environmental integration and the CAP:

Presenting organisations

A-Projekt – Slovak rural development NGO:

BirdLife International:

Environmental Partnership for Central Europe foundations:

Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe:

Conference organisers

Austrian Federal Environmental Agency:

Austrian Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management:

Province of LowerAustria:

City and Province of Viernna:

WWF Austria:

WWF global network:

[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.