Introduction

1.  NGOs from the Mediterranean Region welcome the opportunity to attend this conference and address the distinguished delegates. Our participation in this conference continues the precedents set long ago by UNEP/MAP at the meetings of the Contracting Parties of the Barcelona Convention and followed more recently by the Athens Mediterranean NGO Conference (22-23 November 1991), the 2nd Ministerial Conference of European-Mediterranean Cooperation in Cairo (26-27 April 1992) and the 2nd Mediterranean Ministerial Conference on Water in Rome (24-27 October 1992) We trust that our participation In the METAP II Conference will contribute positively to the objectives of METAP-which we share- to increase the capacity o1 the region to deal with pressing environmental problems

2. Our Memorandum is in two parts corresponding to the principal conference documents, namely the METAP 1 Activity report for 1992 and the METAP Cycle II Document “Investing in the Mediterranean Environment”

Metap I: Activity Report 1992

3 Notwithstanding our participation in various Ministerial Conferences mentioned above. NGOs have been largely excluded until now in the METAP process. This is despite the tact that NGOs are major donors , sometimes in the form of financial support for projects, but also in terms of expertise and investment of time and talent, some of it paid and much of it voluntary. We estimate that more than 300 projects corresponding to the four METAP priorities, from small to large. are carried out by more than 320 local national and international NGOs working. in the region The large international NGOs are financial donors in their own right. The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), for example. Is spending US $3 million per year in the Mediterranean region. the Friends of the Earth Mediterranean network US $1.5 million on 23 projects and other NGOs a similar amount

4 It is curious therefore. that the NGO contribution to the METAP objectives is barely mentioned in the 1992 Activity Report. This runs counter to the increasingly accepted objective of securing public participation in the activities of multilateral financial institutions and bilateral aid agencies. It also runs counter to the participatory principles enshrined in the UNCED process and Agenda 21

5. Participation of the NGOs in the METAP process should not be seen as an afterthought. The fact is that NGOs are able to provide a sounding board for the value and usefulness of some projects proposed for funding. The priorities for funding and ranking of projects will benefit from the widest possible public discourse. including the views of affected communities.

METAP II: "Investing In The Mediterranean Environment'

7. NGOs are aware that the METAP process is ao essential element for increasing the capacity of the region to absorb that large sums of investment finance destined for the environmental sector. We support the priority programming areas and the project activity types. METAP It Is building sensibly on the experience and validation of these priorities from METAP I

8. NGOs are surprised by the relatively small scale of the staff resources committed to METAP II in the four participating agencies We compare the staff commitments in the four agencies to the number of METAP projects, the level of coordination required among the four agencies. the amounts of finance being pledged to the region and the scale of the environment problems looming in the Mediterranean region. We conclude that the Institutional commitment to METAP must be strengthened especially through untapping and harnessing resources at the local. regional and national levels to the METAP effort.

9. It is difficult to assess how the initiative list of projects and priorities for METAP II has been drawn up. It seems unusual for very general intentions to be given the status of proposed project activities in the METAP II list. Some of these general intentions appear to us to be misconceived. others are old projects dressed up as new. Still others, we believe. could be financed from sources other than METAP. Therefore. we would propose at the every least that participating countries should be required to explain publicly how the various priorities have been arrived at.

10. The METAP II document is curiously old-fashioned in its top-down approach to priority selection and project execution. The language of the document reflects institutional perspectives of the environment and development problem in the region. However. there does not appear to be much attempt to balance this with economic and social realities. Also we notice an old-fashioned reliance on external consultant services rather than the development of in-country expertise

11. It is clear that METAP has resulted in interesting studies and research reports. It is not readily apparent, however, how these ideas are translated into projects and practical application. Some clearer mechanisms are needed to turn METAP initiatives into results. Success stories In the region. including the small and often local successes also need a mechanism for replication in different situations.

Conclusion

12. Despite some of the criticisms in this statement, the overall reaction of NGOs to the METAP process is positive. In summary, we are not necessarily asking for more finance fo be made available Rather we are asking for a greater institutional and managerial commitment fo be made within the participating institutions to lift METAP II into the fully operational phase

13 We recognise that additional staff and budgetary resources are difficult to find. Therefore. the greater commitment we are calling for probably entails staff redeployment and harnessing staff resources in the Mediterranean countries themselves. This is necessary. we believe. to allow improved coordination among the agencies and to bring new participatory approaches to bear on METAP activities. Improved monitoring and evaluation of METAP I projects will be required to ensure that project selection for METAP II is based on objective and transparent criteria. More modern approaches to involving citizen groups in the development process should be encouraged