Environmental NGO cooperation on the preparation of the Single Programming Document in Estonia 08.11.2004
Introduction
Estonia completed its
first National Development Plan (NDP) in September 1999 with almost no public
participation or NGO involvement. The second plan, the Single Programming
Document - SPD for 2004-2006, had a better organised process with NGOs participating
as social partners. National-level environmental NGOs organised under the
umbrella of the Council of Environmental NGOs. Numerous joint analyses and
comments were provided under the leadership of the Estonian Green Movement -
both to the SPD analytical part as well as the programme complement. At certain
stages, 1/3 of ENGO comments were accepted. A Strategic Environmental
Assessment (SEA) was also carried out; ENGOs participated in the SEA
preparation stage and issued joint comments.
Description
In the fall of 2001, the
Ministry of Finance began preparations for a new Single Programming Document
(SPD), a key framework document for the utilisation of EU Structural Funds
assistance in 2004-2006. Unlike the 1999 NDP programming process, the SPD was designed
as more participative. Apart from governmental agencies, about 80 different
social partners, such as NGOs, professional unions, local municipalities and
universities, were identified to be consulted throughout the SPD process. As
far as the environmental sector is concerned, eleven social partners were
identified, including several ENGOs such as the Estonian Green Movement (a
member of the Friends of the Earth), the Estonian Fund for Nature and the Estonian
Ornithological Society.
The SPD’s strategic basis
constituted the first document to which comments from social partners were
requested (in February 2002). Ten ENGOs collaborated on the drafting of the
ENGO comments, which were presented on behalf of the umbrella organisation, the
Council of Environmental NGOs. ENGO comments dealt with a large number of
sectors, including: environment, transport, energy, agriculture, tourism,
forestry, food processing, services and human resources. Around twenty five
social partners commented on the draft of the SPD strategic basis. Of these,
ENGOs were among the very few that commented on nearly all the chapters of the document.
One-third of ENGO comments were taken into account and incorporated into the
SPD draft. Another positive issue was the fact that a summary of all comments,
including the reasons for not incorporating certain comments, was published on
the Ministry of Finance’s website.
This first stage of SPD
programming in Estonia provides an example worth following and propagating in
other countries. Unfortunately, although Estonian authorities proved that
including social partners in the programming dialogue is possible and worthwhile,
they did not manage to follow their own example through to the end of the
process.
Indeed, during the summer
of 2002, the SPD participative process took a downturn. The priorities for
2004-2006 Structural Funds assistance agreed in the early stage of the SPD
programming process were suddenly altered and the entire process started from the
beginning. The schedule for the entire programming process was regularly
changed, introducing much confusion. ENGOs, however, continued to submit their
comments even without being requested to do so. As in the beginning of the
process, ENGOs cooperated under the umbrella organisation . the Council of Environmental
NGOs . and kept submitting joint comments to influence the process to a greater
extent. In the second half of 2002, ENGOs concentrated their attention on the
SPD programme complement, which identified thirty one sub-sectors for SF assistance
in 2004-2006 and described eligible activities. After pressure by ENGOs, a few
vital areas, such as development of renewable energy, made their way onto the
list of eligible subsectors. Also, due to ENGO pressure, NGOs were listed in
many measures as eligible partners for implementation of SF projects.
After pressure from ENGOs
and other partners, the Ministry of Finance launched a Strategic Environmental
Assessment (SEA) process for the SPD. ENGOs provided comments to the SEA as
well. Even though according to the good SEA practice, this assessment should be
carried out in parallel to the SPD process, it was decided to finalise the SEA
report several months before completing the SPD drafting. After ENGO lobbying
(including meetings with the Prime Minister), the SEA process was prolonged
until the end of the entire SPD process.
Conclusions
Drafting the SPD for
2004-2006 has been relatively participative. Especially the first part of the
process included many characteristics of a proper social dialogue, e.g.
thorough analysis of all comments together with justification if they were not
included. Social partners were identified and most draft documents were
provided on Ministry of Finance’s website. Despite the aforementioned problems and
changing rules, ENGOs were able to maintain some influence on the process,
demonstrating their keen interest in becoming involved by providing joint
analyses and comments and uniting the voices of the ten largest national organisations.
