Conflicting EU Funds - WWF

6
European Union at the Crossroads
Introduction to current challenges within the EU
The budgetary delay may slow down but will not
stop the work on the development of the new
regulations and guidelines that will come into
force at the beginning of 2007 and will channel
the budgetary amounts that are finally agreed
upon. In that sense, WWF’s current work on
influencing and shaping regulations for Life+
and Natura 2000, rural development, the structural
funds, various water and mining directives,
fisheries regulations and so on will continue
relatively unscathed. In fact, the feeling in Brussels
in the immediate aftermath of the 16/17th
June European Council is to some extent one of
renewed vigour in working on these framework
regulations and policy guidance so that normal
business can resume as soon as the budget is
settled.
As far as agriculture is concerned, Tony Blair’s
showdown with France and Germany in particular
was over the 2002 agreement to keep agricultural
spending guaranteed at a 40 billion euro
per year level until 2013. This bilateral Franco-
German agreement was announced with little
pre-warning and was subsequently endorsed by
Blair in 2003 – but it is clear that he now wants
to retract. The modernisation of the EU agenda
in line with the Lisbon agenda – Europe as the
most dynamic, knowledge based economy in the
world – means that a diversion of agricultural
funds into research and development, technological
innovation, competitiveness issues makes
more sense in the UK view. It is the speed of the
reform – rather than whether reform is necessary
– which is the real root of the difference between
the UK Government (and some important
allies) and some other European countries.
One of the casualties of reduced agricultural
spending is likely to be rural development. Under
a compromise promoted by the Luxembourg
Government, the amount of money for rural
development was already foreseen to go down
from almost 90 billion euro in the 2007–2013
period to 73–75 billion euro. The newly adopted
rural development regulation, and the draft rural
development strategic programming guidelines,
now include WWF priorities for implementation
of the Water Framework Directive, the implementation
of Natura 2000, the promotion of high
nature conservation value farming and forestry
systems and renewables for energy production.
Any cutbacks in funding for this programme, and
any delays in approving the guidelines, could
have negative consequences for WWF’s thematic
and eco-region objectives in Europe.
The rural development fund and the structural
funds could in the best of circumstances become
the main funding mechanisms for implementing
Natura 2000. The much smaller Life+
programme and budget line will also make an
important contribution, especially for funding
species, habitats and broader nature conservation
objectives that would fall outside these two
large development programmes. Since the existing
Life Nature budget line and regulation is due
to expire at the end of 2006, the Natura 2000
programme is especially vulnerable if a budgetary
impasse continues too much longer.