Paper: CSO Policy Standpoint

Hello to everyone, I would like to suggest that the last paragraph before the beginning of the last Chapter on tactical considerations be rephrased in a following manner: "Ensure that environmental protection is duly taken into account as a must in WB6, at all stages of the decision making process (policy and strategic level, plans and programs, project proposal and development consent), via strict and effective application of the SEA, EIA and other pertinent procedures and legislation (IPPC, AA, Seveso etc.) in accordance with the EU standards."

Kind regards, Stefan Sipka

Dear Marko,

Please find attached my comments and
suggestions for changes. They are in tracked changes, I hope you
can see them ok.

Kind regards,

Pippa

CEE Bankwatch Network

Hello Marko,

We suggest to formulate this paragraph:

Strategic Issue:
Adopting and promoting circular economy in WB6, ensure full and unobstructed implementation of national environmental legislation, work on environmental fiscal reform concerning subsidies for green companies/green employment/innovations and address topical issues of relevance.

With the following sentence:

Creation of a common market for the circular economy of the WB6 countries with emphasis on harmonization of environmental policies, subsidies, fiscal regulations, innovations research and development (R&D) all in accordance with the EU Action Plan for Circular Economy.

Please do the spelling check of the document.

Good job! :thumbsup:
Best,
Sophie

Dear Marko,
Thank you for the great job.
Please find few ideas from our perspective.
1. The fiscal incentives and subsidies for renewables or efficieny do not contribute to energy sustainablity and Spain is a great example how not to do it. So, if we really want that renewables and green economy be competitive for the market and green jobs we as CSF should not push for subsidies. The feed in tariff in hydro energy is an indication of bad projects across the Balkans.
2. We could add under strategic issue 3 the exploration of green economy and renewables as a contribution for energy security in WB6, considering green jobs, external costs, and costs for the future.
I thank you for your efforts and looking forward to the forum.
Regards,
Margarita

Dear Marko,

Thank you for sharing the paper. Before we submit our comments, we would first like to ask about the exact way the Policy standpoint is planned to be used in Trieste? After we understand the purpose of this broader approach we will certainly provide the comments about the content of the paper and the way it reflects the previous engagement on the platform and the voted issues. We would also appreciate if we would get a sufficient time to work on a consolidated text that we consider a crucial outcome of the whole process. Jasminka and Aleksandar, RES Foundation

Dear Jasminka, this policy document will be used as the starting point for discussions in Trieste. We would aim to list concrete priorities and actions to be taken in the forthcoming period during our two panels at the CSF. I am afraid that we have to submit this paper to EBF today by 4 PM.
Anyhow, we will have plenty of opportunities to address concrete issues in Trieste,

Best, SS

Dear Srdjan,

Thank you for your reply.

We thought that our process on the platform was meant to " to list concrete priorities and actions to be taken in the forthcoming period" and that we would use the Trieste forum to advocate for the concrete priorities selected through voting in this participatory process.

The paper contains almost all mentioned issues without structured prioritisation ( mentioning energy poverty and then listing numerous different activities as" related actions" in our view does not represent prioritisation) not reflecting the outcome of the voting and participatory process.

Therefore we would like to ask you on whose behalf will the paper be submitted to EBF?

Dear Aleksandar, this paper will be submitted to EBF on behalf of HBS as the coordinating organisation of the consultative process and the "environmental" pillar of the Trieste CSF.
Let me reiterate that the document in question is a broad policy background paper based on the results of the online consultative process. I will also remind you that there are many topics that were discussed and put up for voting that did not end up in the final document.
Our meeting in Trieste will be used to address top priority issues (energy poverty, air pollution and perhaps one more) in two panels that will discuss strategic/tactical and action aspects of these issues. Ideally, outcomes of the Trieste meeting will be concrete indicators and identified actions in the mentioned areas.
I hope this answers your questions.

BR, Srdjan

Dear Srdjan,

Thank you for your post.

I see much more than three priority issues in the paper. "Strategic issue" and "related actions" do not correlate in my view and are actually to a great extent topics linked only at higher level.

After the end of the process that served to narrow down number of priorities we ended up with around 30 discussible items. The list includes already resolved issues such as Inclusion of MMR legislation ( Having this in the agenda though, may help CSO claim wins later since it is already done deal, with or without us ). We go to Trieste (travelling from different places and using I do not know exactly, but probably more than 50 man days) without sufficient focus and I feel worried about our chances to come up with the Agenda for London.

Here is why I think so:
a) The paper is submitted and the process seem to be irreversible.
b) We do not have more time to strategise before Trieste in participative manner.
c) If I read the agenda carefully, three of our countries will not be represented by CSOs in the panels.
d) Available time in Trieste is far more shorter than time we used to narrow down to 30 items with everyone able to participate.

The opportunity for the creation of the Agenda to London as visioned by Nenad, seems to me to be endangered, if not lost.

Still I hope that the discussion in Trieste might be a good learning experience for majority of participants.

Best regards,

Aleksandar

For those preparing for Trieste wanting to learn more on MMR and missing the information here is the link on the conclusion of the Environment Task Force held on 08 June in Vienna https://www.energy-community.org/dam/jcr:c6579690-0119-45e3-84b8-ac6ca24410ea/ENVTF062017_Conclusions.pdf
I have heard the information that the adoption of MMR might experience difficulties despite the agreement reached in Vienna. It is not official though.
Best,
Aleksandar