Report for the Euro Citizen Action Service July 2004Euro Citizen Action Service: The Illusion of...

Euro Citizen Action Service: The Illusion of inclusion: - access by NGOs to the structural funds in the new member states of eastern and central Europe

1

The illusion of inclusion Access by NGOs to the structural funds

in the new member states of eastern and central Europe

Report for the Euro Citizen Action Service

July 2004

Brian Harvey Social Research 2 Rathdown crescent

Terenure Dublin 6W

Tel 353 1 4903039 Fax 353 1 4903076

E-mail: [email protected] VAT IE 301311 8 V

Summary


2

The purpose of this study was to examine the experience of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) of the pre-structural funds in the eight new European Union member states in eastern and central Europe; their experience of participation in the negotiations for the current structural funds programming period; and the prospects of their delivering structural funds over 2004-6. This experience was measured to the standard of existing European Union policies, protocols and procedures for consultations with NGOs and to the principles of the structural fund regulations. NGOs in eastern and central Europe were beneficiaries of the PHARE pre-accession programmes, especially the democracy and civil society programmes and learned much from the handling and delivery of these programmes. By the time the planning of present structural funds began in 2002, there was a core of NGOs familiar with the structural funds and policies for European integration. NGOs prepared a menu of policies and proposals for their involvement in the planning of the 2004-6 structural funds, negotiations for which took place over 2002-4. The consultation process The consultation process has fallen far short of the policies, procedures and protocols set down by the European Commission for the role of non-governmental organizations either in civil society generally or in the structural funds processes in particular:

In several countries, NGOs had little or no involvement in the design of national or sectoral operational programmes. The national development plans and operational programmes were, in four countries, substantially changed at a very late stage, negating the value of the earlier consultations. The consultation process was, in one country, launched too late to permit an effective involvement of NGOs. Where consultation was offered on late changes, periods of consultation were unreasonably short (e.g. five days). There is little convincing evidence that the voice of NGOs was respected. Several refer to what they call ‘the illusion of inclusion’. Neither the Commission nor the member state governments appear prepared to give an account of nor to evaluate the consultation process. The Commission does not appear to be prepared to defend or protect NGOs or their role in this process. Asymmetric relationships between NGOs and government within partnerships are unchanged.

The negotiations As for the involvement of NGOs in the structural funds negotiations:

With a few exceptions, the overall outcome for NGOs has been unsatisfactory; The prospects of NGOs obtaining a substantial share of the structural funds over 2004-6 are poor. NGOs were named as beneficiaries in too few measures. In several countries, unrealistic requirements for co-funding were set down. Little effort was made to facilitate their access. NGOs were denied places on some monitoring committees, working groups and steering groups. A system of global grants exists in only one country (Czech Republic) out of eight, even though the system is encouraged in the European Union’s regulations and policies. A system of global grants was proposed for NGOs in Poland, but was not approved. NGOs appear to have been ruled out of the possibility of obtaining technical assistance, although there is nothing in the regulations to permit member states to do so.

The consequences The consequences of this outcome are as follows:

European Union policies, procedures and protocols for consultation of the non-governmental sector have been compromised. The absorption of the structural funds in many of the countries of the region may fall far short of what is possible. The likelihood of the structural funds reaching their most needy beneficiaries has been diminished. The ability of the European Union to achieve its horizontal objectives in such areas as social policy, civil society, environmental protection, equality between men and women and the Lisbon and Gothenburg agenda has been undermined because crucial actors to this process have been excluded. NGOs have itemized a series of negative consequences, such as lack of transparency. Combined with the end of PHARE and the withdrawal of foreign donors, the financial sustainability of the NGO sector in several countries is in some doubt.

Policy issues A number of significant policy issues were identified. These were:


3

- The unevenness of the consultation process not only between countries but within individual administrations. A universal driving up of standards is required. - The role of the Commission. With rare exceptions, the Commission has not been interested to ensure the upholding of the proper and full recognition of the partnership principle. The Commission’s interventions have been administrative, limited to the simplification of programming documents. - The need to upgrade the capacity of the non-governmental sector so that it may play an effective role in the delivery of European Union objectives in the 2007-13 round.

Positive outcomes Positively, the report identified a number of countries where the structural fund process was:

- Largely satisfactory, as was the case in the Czech Republic; - Partially satisfactory, where consultative and partnership processes were observed and where there were positive outcomes for NGOs (for example Poland, were NGOs have places on all significant monitoring committees); - Characterized by imaginative systems designed to facilitate a role for non-governmental organizations (e.g. Project Generation Facility in Hungary). Several examples of good practice were identified, including some in member states where the experience of NGOs was otherwise negative.

Recommendations Four recommendations are made:

- The European Ombudsman investigate whether the European delegations and Commission observed the Commission’s own policies, protocols and procedures for relationships with NGOs; whether the partnership principle was respected; and whether the structural fund regulations have been observed; - In advance of the next round of the structural funds, a Commission Communication be issued. Its purpose should be to apply the lessons learned in order to drive up of standards of consultation for the future; - The regulations for the next round to be strengthened in such a way as to systematize consultation, enhance the role of NGOs and deepen the principle of partnership; - A funding programme to build up the capacity, infrastructure and skills of NGOs for structural fund operations, both within the individual members states and in cooperation across them.

Key messages Several key messages go out from this report:

- For the European Commission, the need to take appropriate administrative and institutional steps to ensure that its own policies, procedures and protocols are actually observed and enforced during structural fund consultations, negotiations and subsequent operations; - For the new European Parliament, Committee of the Regions and Economic and Social Committee, the need for operation of the structural funds and the role of civil society to be a top policy concern. They must ensure that the new regulations improve the role and prospects for the non-governmental community; - For the member states, the importance of a proper and resourced involvement of NGOs in the structural fund processes so that the funds are transparent, can reach the most needy, absorption is maximized and economic and social balance maintained; - For civil society and the non-governmental community, the need to begin mobilization now for the new programming period of 2007-2013; - For the continuing candidate countries, a warning that the shortcomings identified in respect of the states that joined in 2004 should be avoided as they close their processes of accession.


4

Contents Introduction 5 Terms of reference 5 Method 5 Acknowledgements 6 1 The consultation process at European level 7 1.1 Policies, protocols and procedures 7 1.2 Observation of policies, protocols and procedures 8 1.3 Conclusions 9 2 Experience of the pre-accession funds before 2004 10 2.1 The experience 10 2.2 Conclusions 13 3 Involvement in the structural fund design and planning for 2004-6 14 3.1 Participation in design and planning 14 3.2 Conclusions 23 4 Prospects for access to the structural funds for 2004-6 27 4.1 Prospects 27 4.2 The next programming period, 2007-2013 29 4.3 Conclusions 30 5 Policy issues arising 31 5.1 The consultation problem 31 5.2 Related policy issues arising 32 5.3 Conclusions 34 6 Conclusions and recommendations 36 References 40


5

Introduction The structural funds are one of the most important aspects of European policy and instruments of European integration. The focus of this study is on the role of Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in the structural funds and on their involvement in the structural funds in the new member states of eastern and central Europe. We know that in the old 15 European Union member states, non-governmental organizations are already engaged with the structural funds, through their design, planning, delivery, monitoring and evaluation, although the level and nature of that involvement of NGOs varies from one country to another. Not only are NGOs important as a voice of civil society, but because of their close involvement with local communities, NGOs are ideal instruments for the efficient and effective delivery of the structural funds in such areas as social inclusion, employment, equal opportunities and the environment. The Euro Citizen Action Service (ECAS) undertook this research for the following reasons:

- To examine whether in this fresh context, European policy in general and the structural funds in particular have been able to integrate civil society and non-governmental organizations into their operations; - To assess whether NGOs have been able to make a smooth transition from European Union and foundation pre-accession funding to the mainstream of the structural funds. - To test whether the voice of civil society and participatory democracy has been listened to, acknowledged or heard during this final stage of the accession process.

The level, nature and quality of this involvement is an important test of European commitment to civil society. This research has implications as to how candidate countries should - or should not - be integrated into European Union policies and operations in the future: Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia; and in the fulness of time, Macedonia and and Turkey. For ECAS, this project takes place in the context of the Cooperate! project which is currently building a training, cooperation and capacity-building programme with non-governmental organizations in eastern and central Europe. Terms of reference In detail, the purpose of the research is to ascertain:

- The experience of NGOs in eastern and central Europe accession countries of the pre-structural funds programmes, e.g. PHARE. - The present level of knowledge of the structural funds by NGOs. - The level and quality of contact, relationship and consultation between NGOs and (1) the Commission delegations and (2) national governments during the structural funds negotiations. - What involvement would NGOs in eastern and central Europe like in the structural funds (e.g. design, planning, delivery, monitoring, evaluation)? What would the structural funds look like if there were a strong involvement by civil society? What should be the systems for consultation and partnership for the operation of the structural funds? How can the structural funds facilitate an involvement by NGOs (e.g. the use of intermediary funding bodies, global grants)? - How would the NGOs like the structural funds to operate in their countries (e.g. who would benefit, how, what priorities, objectives, orientations)? - What would be the consequences if NGOs did not have a meaningful role in the structural funds in their countries? - Are there particular practical ways in which the structural funds should operate in eastern and central Europe? (e.g. application forms, accounts, payments, auditing, the use of technical assistance)

The timeline of the research is in three dimensions:

- Look back: to the pre-accession structural funds up to May 2004 and the negotiations that took place over 2002-4; - Present: the current programming period for May 2004 to December 2006; - Look forward: the future programming period for 2007-2013.

The geographical focus of the project is the eight new member states in eastern and central Europe: Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia. Method The research was carried out in consultation with NGOs, umbrella bodies and civil society organizations in eastern and central Europe. A range of NGOs was contacted and asked for views on the questions listed above. Information was obtained through personal interview, telephone interview, e-mail and documentation. The researcher met a group of NGO structural fund experts in Warsaw, Poland in May 2004. This report relies in large measure on the comments of these informants. Personal interviews were done on a not-for-attribution basis. Their comments have been supplemented by a number of documentary reports, which are cited at appropriate points in the text. Research was carried out over April - May 2004. Acknowledgements The researcher who would like to thank the following who contributed generously to this research:

Personal interview Robert Levicar, Agencija za razvojne iniciative (Agency for Development Initiatives), Lyubljana, Slovenia


6

Milena Marega, Regionalni center za okolje za srednjo in vzhodno Evropa (Regional Environment Centre), Lyubljana, Slovenia Hanna Fristenska, Secretary, Government Council for Non-State Non-Profit Organizations, Prague, Czech Republic David Stulik, Nadace rozvoje obcanske spolecnosti (NROS), Prague, Czech Republic Radim Burkon, Nadace rozvoje obcanske spolecnosti (NROS), Prague, Czech Republic Oto Potluka, Institut pro strukturalni politiku (Institute for Structural Policy), Prague, Czech Republic Vladimir Sodomka, Interel, Prague, Czech Republic Renata Kozlicka, Polish NGO office, Warsaw, Poland Telephone interview Vaidotus Ilgius, NGO Information and Support Centre, Vilnius, Lithuania Tiit Riisalo, Network of Estonian Nonprofit Organizations (NENO), Tallinn, Estonia Kristina Mand, Network of Estonian Non-profit Organizations (NENO), Tallinn, Estonia Aniko Porkolab, NIOK, Budapest, Hungary Andras Nun, Autonomia, Budapest, Hungary Nilda Bullein, International Centre for Non-Profit Law, Budapest, Hungary Provision of information by e-mail and post Tereza Horska, Government of Slovakia, Council of Non-Governmental Organizations, Bratislava, Slovakia Julija Skarabot, Zavod center za informiranje, sodelovanje in ravoj nevladnih organizacij, Lyubljana, Slovenia Marjan Huc, Zavod center za informiranje, sodelovanje in ravoj nevladnih organizacij, Ljubljana, Slovenia Judit Geszti, Soros Foundation, Budapest, Hungary Katarina Vajdova, Civil Society Development Foundation, Bratislava, Slovakia Mall Hellam, Open Estonia Foundation, Tallinn, Estonia Elzbieta Dydak, Foundation for the Support of Local Democracy, Warsaw, Poland Marcin Konieczny, Regional Training Centre, Olsztyn, Poland Radka Havlova, Nadace rozvoje obcanske spolecnosti (NROS), Prague, Czech Republic Katarina Kostalova, SAIA, Bratislava, Slovakia Tomas Findra and Danica Hollova, CNCO - vzdelávanie pre rozvoj, Banska Bystrica, Slovakia

All of these went to considerable efforts to assist this research and the researcher is doubly grateful to them for their preparedness and ability to work through English. A special thank you is owed to David Stulik who arranged the interviews in the Czech Republic; and Renata Kozlicka, for arranging the meeting with NGO structural fund experts in Poland. Thanks are also due to Tereza Vajdova, NROS, for the provision of translation. In ECAS I would like to thank Tony Venables, Cecilia Liljegren and Joanna Boguslawska for their help with this project. Thanks for assistance are also due to Dr Jeremy Kendall, London School of Economics, London, England. A draft text was circulated in June 2004 to all those who assisted in the research. Comments and further information were were received back from Tony Venables, Joanna Boguslawska, Cecilia Liljegren, Tereza Horska, Aniko Porkolab, David Stulik, Gabriel Chanan (Community Development Foundation, London) and Pawel Krzeczunowicz (Polish NGO office in Brussels). ECAS wishes to acknowledge and thank the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust for its financial support for this project. Researcher’s note: This report attempted to compile, synthesize and analyse the experience of NGOs in the structural funds process from as many sources as possible, based primarily on ECAS’ contact points in the region. The aim was to collect the best possible ground truth of that experience, so that a picture could emerge. The research was limited by the short time available, two months, and by a dependance on English-speaking informants and documentation. Non-governmental organizations contacted operated principally in the social policy, environmental, civil society and human rights areas. There is, inevitably, an unevenness of data from the different countries, though this does not affect the broad thrust or essential outcome of the research. Some inconsistencies of treatment and gaps were unavoidable and these are referenced at appropriate points in the text.

1 The consultation process at European level First, the report examines the policies and procedures for the European Commission to consult with NGOs generally and specifically in respect of structural fund operations (1.1). Second, it examines whether those procedures were observed at European level in respect of the structural fund programming period 2007-2013, for which consultation took place in 2003-4 (1.2). Conclusions are drawn (1.3). 1.1 Policies, protocols and procedures The European Union has developed a policy for cooperation with the Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and citizens in the past decade. The key points are:

The treaty of Maastricht (1992), which refers to cooperation between the Union and charitable associations. The Union’s policy Promoting the role of voluntary organizations and foundations in Europe (1997). The Aarhus convention (1998), which sets down detailed procedures for the consultation of citizens in decision-making of environmental impact.


7

The directive on strategic environmental assessment (2001/42) , for the consideration of environmental matters in local, regional and national planning. The white paper on governance (2002), putting forward the axiom that citizens and organizations be involved in the formulation and implementation of European policy at multiple levels. The Commission’s Building a stronger partnership, promoting the involvement of NGOs in decisions affecting them and encouraging partnerships between the state and non-governmental organizations. Commission decision COM 2002/704 Toward a reinforced culture of consultation and dialogue - general principles and minimum standards for consultation (2002). Draft European constitution, article 46, Participatory democracy, which commits the European Union to open, transparent and regular dialogue with representative association and civil society.

These documents are unambiguous about the role which they map out for civil society and non-governmental organizations. Working from the general to the particular, European governance - a white paper refers, in the working of the Union, to the importance of ensuring ‘wide participation throughout the policy chain - from conception to implementation’. The white paper advocates ‘a stronger engagement of people and grass root organizations in local democracy’ in a multi-level partnership. The Union had already encouraged the development of civil society in the applicant countries as part of their preparation for membership. Civil society offered the European Union a ‘structured channel for feedback, criticism and protest’. There must be a ‘reinforced culture of consultation and dialogue’. Promoting the role of voluntary organizations and foundations in Europe states that voluntary organizations should be facilitated in access to the structural funds and should be designated as beneficiaries of global grants. It commits the Commission to ‘systematic and regular dialogue and consultation with the sector’. The Commission will actively explore ways of facilitating access by NGOs to the structural funds, including global grant finance and encourage a broad interpretation of the concept of partnership. Building a stronger partnership refers specifically to the way in which ‘NGOs can make an important contribution to the development of democracy and civil society in the candidate countries’. The Commission draws attention to the ability of NGOs to reach the poorest and most disadvantaged, their contribution to policy-making and their role in ‘managing, monitoring and evaluating projects financed by the EU’. Building a stronger partnership refers to the need for improved communication between the Commission and NGOs and the importance of good practice in consultation, openness and transparency. COM 2002/704 is of particular relevance here, for it specifies that Commission consultation must be characterized by ‘wide participation’; that target groups should be identified; and that there should be adequate coverage of those affected by policies, either because they have an interest or are affected by the policies concerned. COM 2002/704 specifies that there must be a proper balance of consultees, a representation of both social and economic interests, large and small organizations, wider constituencies and target groups. Communications should be clear and concise and include all necessary information to facilitate responses. The cooperation process has been fortified by policies developed over many years for access to policy documents in the European Union. These policies are designed, inter alia, to enable non-governmental and civil society organizations, as well as citizens, to have timely access to policy proposals so that they may have the opportunity to make a meaningful and useful contribution. The key reference point here is regulation 1049/2001 on access to documents.

The structural funds have been a pivotal aspect of the policy and operation of the European Communities since their reform in the late 1980s. NGOs have the potential to play an important role in structural fund policy through the design of structural funds, participation in the structural fund operations, the delivery of individual measures and in commentaries on the manner in which structural fund operations fulfil the Union’s objectives. Such a contribution was most likely to be evident, but not limited to, such areas as environmental protection, training, education, non-discrimination, peace and reconciliation, cross-border integration and social inclusion. A number of important principles govern the operation of the structural funds that are relevant to the role of NGOs and to the principle of participation. These are set down in the structural funds general regulation (1260/1999) and related regulations (e.g. 1159/2000):

- Administrative bodies handling the funds must make target groups, potential and final beneficiaries aware of the possibilities of aid; - Under the partnership principle, relevant actors must be included in the procedures for the preparation and implementation of structural aid; - In the course of programme planning, there must be consultation with partners as to its content;


8

- Governments must consult with partners in respect of the programme complement and monitoring committees.

The regulations also envisage funding for technical assistance, innovative measures and global grants implemented by intermediary institutions.

1.2 Observation of policies and procedures for 2007-2013 programming period consultation In advance of the accession of ten new member states for the enlargement of 2004, the Euro Citizen Action Service (ECAS) enquired of the Commission as to the manner in which it planned to consult with the non-governmental community concerning structural fund operations in the new member states, especially for the forthcoming programming period of 2007-2013. These enquiries focussed on the degree to which the Commission adhered to its own, already established procedures. In the preparation of the policy outlining the new programming period, called the Third cohesion report, the Commission had carried out a series of consultations in 2003. It was not obvious, by the end of the year, how either NGOs or social interests had been consulted, if at all. Although the directorate general for regional policy had hosted a consultative website, only four of the 200 responses received came from NGOs. There is no evidence that the Commission made any significant effort to target NGOs or involve them in the consultation (Crook, 2004). On 9th January 2004, ECAS enquired of the Secretary General of the Commission, under regulation 1049/2001 on access to documents, for a copy of the Third cohesion report, which was due to outline details of the programming period for 2007-2013; and asked the Commission for its consultation plan on the new round of the structural funds and how it followed the terms of COM 2002/704. Following the failure of the Commission to respond, ECAS resubmitted its enquiry on 9th March 2004, asking why the procedures and deadlines in the regulation for the request had not been respected. ECAS again requested the consultation plan. Following the exhaustion of these procedures, ECAS made a formal complaint to the European Ombudsman, Mr Diamandouros, on 24th March. ECAS stressed that, in summary:

Not only is access to the structural funds of strategic importance to the future development of civil society in accession countries, but there are issues on which NGOs in all EU countries should be consulted. So far, there has been a serious imbalance between the involvement of regional authorities on one hand and NGOs and local community development interests on the other.

The substance of ECAS’ complaint was that the draft Third cohesion report had not been made available, contrary to regulation 1049/2001; and that the consultation plan had not been made available, nor did it appear that consultations had taken place, contrary to COM 2002/704. Because of the urgency of the matter, ECAS asked that the ombudsman expedite the matter in less than the normal, extended timescale for the processing of complaints. The consultation plan has still not been made available, if indeed it exists. By this stage, March 2004, the Third cohesion report had now been published. The Third cohesion report had significant implications for non-governmental organizations, for example because of the abolition of Community Initiative Programmes (e.g. EQUAL, LEADER, INTERREG, URBAN), their principal point of access to the structural funds. The failure of the Commission to consult with the non-governmental sector continued to be evident when the Commission organized the cohesion forum in Brussels on 11th May 2004. It became evident that the Commission had not invited NGOs to attend and some wishing to do so were initially refused, eventually having to argue on a case by case basis for their eventual admission. An explanation, though not an excuse for these developments is that the consultation on the new round of the structural funds was led by the directorate general for regional policy, DG REGIO. The main interface between NGOs and the Commission is through other directorates general, for example, Employment and Social Affairs (DG EMPL) or for the environment (ENVIR). DG EMPL was almost absent from the debate on the new programming period and by association, some of the NGO voice. As its programme of debate showed, DG REGIO’s main relationships have been with regional consultation bodies and municipal organizations. Still, the internal division of administrative responsibilities within the Commission is no reason for its policies, procedures protocols to be set aside in respect of NGOs and civil society.


9

In a commentary on a related accession issue, on 1st June 2004 ECAS contacted the European Ombudsman in connexion with restrictions introduced by the 15 member states against the free movement of workers from the ten new member states. ECAS’ report The unfinished enlargement - free movement of people in the EU25 raised questions as to whether the transitional measures introduced by the EU15 complied with principles of good administration, free movement, the Charter of fundamental rights and due Community procedures. While respecting the inability of the European Ombudsman to intervene in national matters, ECAS drew attention to the right and responsibility of the European Ombudsman, in cooperation with the networks of liaison officers of national ombudsman or similar bodies, to ask questions as to whether the Commission had acted according to principles of good administration in drawing the attention of the member states to their obligations under European Union law, procedures and protocols.

1.3 Conclusions From this, it is clear that the European Commission has laid down enlightened, consistent, broad-ranging principles and standards for the participation of civil society and non-governmental organizations in policy-making and implementation in the European Union. These are evident in white papers, regulations and Commission documents. These standards do not appear to have been followed in the case of the consultation for the structural funds programming period 2007-2013 preparatory period for 2003-4.

- There is no evidence that European NGOs were consulted in a systematic way; - The Commission failed to respond to the timely request for the draft of the Third cohesion report, even though the implications of the report for NGOs were significant; - The consultative procedure appears to have been limited essentially to regional and economic interests only, contrary to the Commission’s standards; - The Commission failed to present a consultation plan for its relationship with NGOs, despite repeated requests to do so. At this stage, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that no such plan was ever drafted.

It is important that the Commission address and resolve these problems. One would have expected that in introducing new member states to the structural funds, model standards of consultation would have been followed. The Commission’s behaviour sends an important signal as to the standing of civil society and the non-governmental community. Now this report turns to the situation in the eight new member states in eastern and central Europe, beginning with their access to the pre-structural funds before May 2004.


10

2 Experience of the pre-accession funds Independent NGOs played an important role in the transition to democracy of the new member states in eastern and central Europe. The research attempted to gain a picture of the experience of NGOs of the pre-accession funds in the eight new member states of eastern and central Europe. This is done on a country by country basis, addressing both the financial benefits to NGOs and, where information is available, their contribution to broader pre-accession fund planning and development (2.1). Conclusions are then drawn (2.2). 2.1 The experience PHARE was the over-arching title for European Union programmes of assistance to the countries of the region.1 NGOs were clearly identified as beneficiaries of a number of PHARE pre-accession programmes, though their precise terminology and nature varied from one country to another. As for the NGO role in the planning and development of the pre-accession fund, the guidelines for the pre-accession funds said that public participation should be carried out where appropriate, but did not set down further details. There was an expectation of consultation in at least some parts of the NGO community. Detailed documentation on the pre-accession funds is available in a number of countries, such as the Czech Republic and Poland. Information on Poland was selected here:

Source: Boguslawska These programmes were very competitive. For example, the PHARE social dialogue programme in 1992-6 had 1,062 applications and was oversubscribed by 3:1. According to the European Commission, the total value of PHARE for NGOs for 1991-2001 was estimated at €40.63m, though that figure is many times higher than what the table would suggest. The Foundation for the Support of Local Democracy in Poland gives us information on the type of work pre-accession work funded. This provides some concrete detail within the bigger picture:

- €31,623 to the Youth Educational Academy (PHARE European integration programme). - €7,446 to Individual Rights Defence, €9,377 for education for democracy programme (PHARE democracy programme). - PHARE partnership programme (€2,999 for consumer rights promotion). - €6,618 on training on European issues, €25,079 for secondary school education on European issues (PHARE small grants programme). - €2,965,696 for training for rural and unemployed youth (PHARE 2000). - €464,296 for promoting entrepreneurship in high schools (PHARE 2001). - Polish Czech joint small grants fund (€15,915). - €5,120 for volunteers club in Kielce; €7,360 for youth in the natural ands rural environment) (EU Youth programme) (Source: Dydak).

In what appears to be an exception in the region, the Polish PHARE programme was delivered by the government, through an office in the public administration appointed by the prime minister. The NGO experience is considered to be a positive one, NGOs becoming familiar with European Union rules, regulations and procedures for the handling of grants. Many good projects were supported. The absorption rate was 100% and the programmes were extremely

1 Additional programmes referred to later were SAPARD (agriculture and rural development) and ISPA (Instrument for

Structural Policies for Pre-Accession Aid) a precursor of the Cohesion Funds,supporting projects for transport and the environment.


11

competitive. Sectoral projects were funded for NGOs in environmental, social policy areas and civil society. In the later stages, grants were more focussed on issues of European standards and integration. The small projects facility run by the EU delegation was less successful, for it required 50% co-funding and the working language was in English. A small number of specialized NGOs may have obtained SAPARD grants. It is doubtful if any obtained support from ISPA. The main practical problem area was delays in payment, sometimes as long as 300 days. As for their involvement in policy issues, Polish NGOs challenged the predisposition by government toward large infrastructure projects in the pre-accession funds, arguing for more investment in human development measures. In the Czech Republic, about €25m was provided for civil society from 1993 to 2004 under PHARE through its various strands. The main one was the civil society development programme, followed by the ACCESS, LIEN and democracy programmes, as well as support for the Roma community. Over 2,230 NGO projects were supported. Environmental, social and health NGOs were probably the most successful in accessing the programme and there was a high rate of application from projects in Prague or from national associations based there (Potluka & Sumpikova, 2004). Evaluations were favourable in showing that the programme had strengthened the role and capacity of NGOs. NGOs in the Czech Republic have since benefited from the EQUAL programme (10 proposals were successful). Some NGOs have availed of the PHARE cross-border programme (e.g. cycling paths, tourist trails) and in the people-to-people strands. A positive development to record is that the PHARE small projects programme provided funding for a detailed analysis of the role of Czech NGOs in the process over 2000-2. The Czech Republic prepared a regional development strategy (1999), designed, inter alia, to identify those projects and priorities most desirable for future structural funds support (Pribyl, 1999). PHARE 2001 funded a project to prepare a project list for each of country’s 14 regions in the area of human resources development and industry . This was a flagship preparation project and received the backing of the deputy prime minister and the minister for regional development. NGOs actively participated in this exercise and presented prospective projects. In advance of the structural funds, the government established a national programme committee and managing and monitoring committees for the pre-accession funds. NGOs were represented on only one such committee (human resource development) and their meetings were held in private. The PHARE Civil Society Development Programme in Slovakia provided €3m over 1998-200, funding 400 NGO projects. NGOs participated in the design of the SAPARD programme and in:

SAPARD monitoring committee. PHARE preparatory programme Pilot project for rural development. Sectoral operational plan Agriculture and rural development.

The representatives on the SAPARD monitoring committee were the Vidiecky Rural Parliament, the DAPHNE association and the Gremium of the Third Sector. NGOs regarded their participation in planning, monitoring and partnership as a significant development for them. NGOs were also involved in the human rights and minorities strands of the pre-accession programmes. >From 1999, the PHARE programme operated the Minority tolerance programme which supported 33 projects and 77 training events for NGOs and municipalities and also in anti-discrimination and Roma education campaigns. Despite these financial gains, NGOs were critical of the lack of systematic consultation and a lack of rules governing public participation in the broader pre-accession funds. In Slovenia, the level of pre-accession funding for NGOs was evident in:

PHARE democracy programme (1994-8: 8 projects). PHARE partnership programme (1997: 4 projects). PHARE LIEN (1996-8: 30 projects). The cross border cooperation programme small projects fund. PHARE ACCESS programme (2000: 8 projects successful; 1999: 14 projects, €310,000; 2003, 7 projects). SAPARD. PHARE small projects: (2000: 6 projects, €149,000; 2001: 6 projects, €198,144; 2002: €250,000; 2003: 6 projects, €300,000. These grants funded civil society development, debate on accession issues and ecological activities. Project Preparation Facility, about 20 grants a year. PHARE LIEN.

These programmes were delivered by different agencies, operating on two to three-year contracts. Some associations involved in tourism and culture obtained limited funding from local government regional development offices in regional development programmes. The pre-accession funds provided significant financial benefits to a small group of NGOs.


12

In Lithuania, NGOs had access to a number of pre-accession funds. These worked well and a survey showed a high satisfaction rate. Advance payments facilitated the projects developed by NGOs. In Hungary, NGOs were able to benefit from the democracy programme (1994-9), then the LIEN programme (1998-9) and from 2000, the ACCESS programme. Funds for NGOs in Hungary were especially valued because they assisted unpopular issues, such as the rights of minorities promoted by the democracy programme, a programme that may have ended prematurely. The PHARE programme was originally handled by the Commission delegation and this was done well. From 2001, PHARE was transferred to the relevant government ministries, in order to give them experience of handling the structural funds in advance of accession. This was less than satisfactory, for the funds were then administered in an excessively bureaucratic manner. For example, rural community development projects were expected to be able to present applications using EXCEL-generated spreadsheet budget tables. Ministries neither empowered nor assisted them in their making applications. A further criticism is that no one collected or analyzed the policy and operational issues arising from the pre-accession programmes. Many had different implementers, with resultant discontinuities. Estonian NGOs were successful in obtaining PHARE funding over 1999-2003 under the ACCESS and small grant programmes. There were some cash flow problems and some NGOs found the programmes bureaucratic, with many project decisions taken in Estonia referred to Brussels for re-confirmation, slowing things down. The democracy programme was a problem in Estonia, where it was called the EU Initiative for human rights and democracy. The programme was managed by the EU delegation but there was much confusion in the management of the programme between the delegation and the Commission in Brussels, with considerable delays in payments. Delivery of the programme was extremely slow. Relationships with the delegation became poor, although the problems were eventually resolved. There was virtually no participation by NGOs in the first Estonian national development plan (1999-2004), though there was some involvement in the updating of the plan in 2001, especially by environmental NGOs. NGOs attempted to contribute to the updating of ISPA in 2001, but participation was less than satisfactory. NGOs had no presence on the environmental or transport ISPA monitoring committees. In May 2001, Friends of the Earth Estonia applied for a seat on the ISPA environment monitoring committee. Although this was supported by the ministries of finance and environment, it was not approved by the Commission delegation, which proposed alternate means of information exchange. Eventually, Friends of the Earth Estonia won support for such a change from regional affairs commissioner Michel Barnier, who was prepared to accept NGOs as observers.

An overall picture picture has been assembled of NGO participation in the planning and implementing of the pre-accession funds. Although NGOs clearly benefited financially from the pre-accession programmes, the quality of consultation with NGOs about pre-accession programmes was considered to be poor. Positively, NGOs were represented on most of the SAPARD monitoring committees, in at least one of the ISPA environment monitoring committees, but not on the ISPA transport monitoring committees, so far as is known. NGOs are especially critical of the ISPA environment and transport programmes, both because NGOs were not able to participate and because the information available the operation of ISPA was so limited. The following table shows the level of NGOs participation on SAPARD monitoring committees:

NGO membership of SAPARD monitoring committees


13

Source: Boguslawska From this it is evident that non-state organizations such as professional bodies, social partners and academic institutes achieved good representation on the SAPARD monitoring committees. This is qualified by the fact that the representation of what might be called ‘third sector’, ‘civil society’ and ‘voluntary and community sector’ organizations was actually quite small. Equivalent data are not available in respect of other monitoring committees.

2.2 Conclusions Dealing first with financial issues, it is evident that NGOs in the new member states did benefit from pre-accession funds, principally the PHARE democracy and civil society programmes. ACCESS and LIEN were also named by a number of countries. Thousands of projects were funded. The grants given were, in comparison to the main pre-accession funds, quite small, but nevertheless very useful. They enabled important work to be done, built up the capacity of a number of NGOs and enabled them to develop the experience of handling European Union funds. From the information available, NGOs seem to have also benefited, though to a lesser extent, from the cross-border programmes and SAPARD. Although difficulties were apparent, the overall experience was a positive one. Outside of these programmes, NGOs do not seem to have had a strong presence in the design, planning, consultation, or monitoring of the main pre-accession funds and from the information available, governments were not eager to involve NGOs in them. One example of where progress was made is the regional development strategy in the Czech Republic, where NGOs specifically sought participation in the preparation of programme documents, the ex ante assessment of the programme documents, project selection and project delivery. The ex-ante assessment is particularly important in determining the likely impact of a programme on, for example, the environment and the balanced role of men and women (Prybl, 1999). This was a far-sighted move by the NGOs which led to some limited success and eventually, some environmental NGOs managed to win a state contract for conducting strategic environmental assessments for some operational programmes. Just as the use of PHARE and related programmes had important effects on the non-governmental sector, so too was it an important one for government. Structural funds represented a significant shift in the way public money was handled. Instead of decisions being taken purely internally by ministries, the pre-accession programmes required the putting in place of systems of calling for proposals, assessment of proposals, scoring, evaluation, accounting, project management and the application of horizontal principles. These administrative changes were quite a shock to the governmental system. In the Czech Republic, it is estimated that an additional 2,000 public servants were taken on to handle the structural funds.


14

3 Involvement in structural fund design for the 2004-6 programming period This long chapter is the core of the report, addressing the involvement by NGOs in the processes that led by. This chapter attempts to answer the following questions:

- What was the level of knowledge by NGOs of the structural fund process? - Were NGOs consulted in the preparation of the structural funds? - Were they involved in their design? What was the nature of this experience? - Were they satisfied with the outcomes of the design (balance of objectives, priorities)? - Was their role in monitoring and evaluation acknowledged?

This is done, country by country (3.1). Conclusions are then drawn (3.2).

3.1 Participation in design and planning First, it is relevant to ask the question, what were the hopes and expectations for involvement before the process started? When the structural funds for 2004-6 were planned and organized, NGOs sought to be involved in a number of ways and a number of levels. This research asked NGOs what level of involvement did they wish to obtain in this process and this is what they said. Country specific details are added later (e.g. Slovenia, Poland, Slovakia).

A level of knowledge and information that would enable them to participate meaningfully in the design process; Consultation - from the earliest stage of document preparation to the final stage; Participation on monitoring committees; Participation on steering committees responsible for deciding on projects; Opportunities to obtain funds (the prospects for this are addressed in the next chapter, 4). In the Czech Republic, for example, NGOs specifically sought a system of global grants through the Government Council for Non-State Non-Profit Organizations; Policy impact. For example, environmental NGOs sought a ‘greening’ of the structural funds and that considerations of sustainability be taken into account throughout.

Before looking at the negotiation process in detail, it may be worth sketching some of the stages of the negotiations. This is a broad schematic and there are many variations on it in the different member states (schematic, over). The key elements of of it are:

- The holding of information campaigns at the start of the process; - The setting up of working groups of civil servants to draft the structural funds plan; - The first draft of a national structural funds plan. This may be called the National Development Plan (NDP), the Community Support Framework (CSF), or, in simplified version, the Single Programming Document (SPD) (Note: In some countries, an NDP is devised first, with the CSF or SPD subsequently derived from it). These all have subordinate documents, called operational programmes (e.g. one for human resources, one for agriculture, one for industry, one for infrastructure). - The main consultation phase, following which a final draft is adopted; - A second consultation phase, following which the final documents are adopted; - The setting up of monitoring committees, normally one national one (for the NDP, CSF, or SPD) and normally one for each operational programme; - The adoption of the Programme Complement, which specifies in detail how each operational programme will work, measure by measure, indicator by indicator; - Call for proposals and commencing of operations.


15

3.1.1 Czech Republic We start with the Czech Republic. There are 40,000 NGOs in the Czech Republic. NGOs cover such fields as civil society, the elderly, groups at risk such as substance abusers, the Roma, culture, sports, physical education, youth and children. Most are still quite small, many having a membership in single figures. The main interface between the NGO community and the government is the Government Council for Non-State Non-Profit Organizations, which operates from the office of the deputy prime minister. This comprises between 50 and 60 people, half coming from the government side, the other half from the civil society side. The weak point of the Council is that its NGO members are appointed, rather than elected. Generally, though, the government goes to some effort to ensure a representative cross-section of the non-governmental community. The council includes what is called a Europe committee (its full title is Committee on cooperation with the European Union). Although this committee deals with all aspect of NGO, government and European Union relations, in practice its work in recent years has had a strong focus on the structural funds. This committee comprised NGOs, regional authorities, managing bodies for structural fund programmes, government ministries and the police. In an important breakthrough in the recognition of the sector, several NGOs are now represented on the European Union’s Economic and Social Committee. The government facilitated a nomination process, in which 25 NGOs registered. Clear nomination criteria were set down and approved by the government. In the Economic and Social Committee, civil society was allocated three of the four seats for the ‘various interests’ college of the committee (group III). Following the nomination, the three places were won by the Civil Society Development Foundation (NROS), the representative body for consumers and an NGO for older people and the social sector, SKOK. The level of knowledge of the structural funds in the Czech Republic is considered to be very good. Extensive training programmes were carried out in the period leading up to accession. In some ways, NGOs possibly became more familiar with the structural fund architecture than some people on the government side or the business community. The PHARE experience had a strongly educational effect, NGOs learning how European Union procedures, administration and funding operated. In the course of PHARE, NGOs learned to work horizontally and share their knowledge. NROS ran an extensive training programme in the republic’s 14 regions, in which 210 NGO representatives participated. So did others, such as the Institute for Structural Policy (IREAS). Czech NGOs, principally NROS, ran a number of websites with structural funds content whose purpose was to provide and share information on the evolution of the forthcoming structural funds for the benefit of NGOs (Stulik, 2003). NGOs do now recognize that the structural funds will be more difficult than PHARE. NGOs are not yet familiar with many of the details of structural fund operations, for the reason that many of the detailed documents have not yet been published. Even where calls for proposals have now been published, the financial conditions have yet to be made available. Each operational programme was prepared by a working group of ministerial officials. One NGO was represented on the working group for the operational programme for human resources as an independent expert, one on the working group for the operational programme for agriculture and rural development (the hunting association) and one of each of the regional operational programmes working groups, following their own requests. The manner in which officials shared their draft documents varied considerably, some working groups sharing all drafts, others not doing so. Although the programming guidelines referred to the importance of the partnership principle, some officials were more prepared to work with NGOs than others. One NGO representative reported that documents were sent out in such a short period before meetings that consultations with colleagues were not possible (Pelcl, Hargitai, Brizga, Handerek & Zamovsky (2004)). In a welcome and significant development, the Ministry of the Environment organized public hearings to discuss environmental aspects of the operational programme documents. A feature in the later stage of evolution of the national development plan in the Czech Republic was simplification. The original plan was for 14 operational programmes, with one each for environment and transport and regional programmes for each region. On Commission insistence, the environmental and transport programmes were merged into one (infrastructure) and the regional programmes collapsed into a single joint regional operational programme. They were reduced to five. A second feature in the evolution was that as the national development plan neared conclusion, ministries tended to lock themselves in and close off consultation. This was later observed in a number of countries of the region. Whilst NGOs accept that at a certain stage documents must be finalized, the problem is that significant changes were often made at the very end, changes which were never put out for consultation. The Commission is seen as partly responsible, for not having set out a detailed choreography of the steps to the taken, nor the timetable in advance. The Czech national development plan included a chapter on the role of non-governmental organizations. This had an overview of the role of NGOs; their number, typology and legal forms; the experience of the PHARE programme; and the role of NGOs in structural fund programming. NGOs are generally satisfied with the balance between the programmes, the exceptions being the operational programme for agriculture and rural development (which is criticized for the lack of attention to rural development) and the joint regional programme (for its excessive emphasis


16

on hard projects). NGOs accept that there is a need for infrastructural investment, which is counterbalanced by a substantial allocation to the European Social Fund. A global grant has been provided to build the capacity of the non-governmental sector. This operates through the Ministry for Labour and Social Affairs and is available only to NGOs. The global grant is:

- 1% of the ESF allocation of the operational programme for human resource development (€4.22m) and - 1% of the ESF allocation to the single programming document for Prague (€1.17m).

The global grants scheme will provide training and capacity building for NGOs with financial assistance in the range €5,000 to €20,000 for a period of up to 24 months. Although these grants are small in size, they are nonetheless expected to be very useful. It is expected that about 300 NGO projects may benefit from the first global grant and a smaller number for the Prague special programme. NGOs are now represented on each of the monitoring committees of the structural funds. The criteria for their appointment was drawn up by the Government Council for Non-State Non-Profit Organizations, with the persons concerned being selected by the European Union committee through a process of open competition. The criteria included experience and knowledge of structural funds, reliability; and the preparedness of the parent organization to meet expenses. A CV was submitted and taken into consideration. The following is the representation.

- Human resource development: 2, with 1 substitute (SKOK; Centre for the Environment; Green Club)). - Joint regional programme: 1, with 2 substitutes (Omega civic association; Foundation for Partnership Development; Brno Ecological Institute)). - Infrastructure: 1, with 2 substitutes (Centre for the Environment; Association for Sustainability; AGORA association for public participation). - Agriculture and rural development: 1, with 1 substitute (including organic farmers). - Industry: 1 (Centre for Community Development). - Prague Objective 3 SPD: 2 full members - Community Support Framework monitoring committee: 1, with one substitute (full member: Foundation Our child; substitute member: the European Movement) - Cohesion Fund two monitoring committees: 1 environmental NGO in each - EQUAL, INTERREG: NGOs represented on each.

Travel expenses for NGOs are covered in the case of the agricultural monitoring committee. NGOs expected to be invited to participate in the project selection committee appointed by the Ministry of the Environment, but not the others. 3.1.2 Slovenia Slovenia has up to 16,000 NGOs. Many are small. About 10% deal with health and social issues and 9% with environmental issues. Slovenian NGOs were permitted under the Federal Yugoslav constitution of 1974 and were well established by the end of the 1980s. There was no big explosion of NGOs following Slovenian independence in 1991. With the exception of Soros, foundation support for NGOs in Slovenia was low compared to either the Visegrad countries (Poland, Hungary, Czech Rep, Slovakia) or the other Yugoslav countries affected by the war. Health and disability NGOs were subsequently able to attract government grants to deliver social services and an NGO information centre was set up in 2001. The total number of paid staff in the sector is estimated at 2,900. NGOs experienced a serious difficulty with government in the elections to the European Economic and Social Committee in 2004. Slovenia was allocated seven seats. NGOs were allocated two of the seven. Two were duly elected by NGOs who registered at the NGO information centre for the purpose of the election. Having done this, the government then amended the decision, reducing the NGO seats to one, requiring a fresh election and applying fresh conditions to the single candidate (e.g. ability to provide back up, knowledge of languages). These conditions applied only to the NGO seat. An appeal to Brussels against the government’s intervention was dismissed. A second election was duly organized, but relationships with government have disimproved as a result. In preparation for the 2004-6 programming period, the Slovenian government asked for ideas, proposals and projects. It ran three national seminars and ten regional presentations. These information seminars focussed on the broad architecture of the structural funds. NGOs were not closely involved in the process. The non-governmental sector itself ran 30 seminars, in which about 500 people participated. A small number of NGOs, compared to the overall national total, is considered to be well informed about the structural funds, but in general the level of knowledge is poor. Contacts with the EU delegation in Slovenia were minimal, the delegation making it clear that relationships between NGOs and their national government, even in the context of the structural funds, was exclusively a national matter. NGOs did not have any confidence that the Commission delegation was prepared to listen to its representations concerning their involvement in programme design.


17

The structural funds were designed by a preparatory committee. About 30 NGOs came together in January 2003 to present a joint position on the single programming document. NGOs were awarded four seats and these were chosen through an elective process organized by the NGO information centre. About 70% of the preparatory committee comprised government representatives. Five meetings were held. It was an unsatisfactory experience for NGOs, for the government representatives did not appear to be well-briefed or knowledgeable. On the preparatory committee, NGOs pressed for:

NGOs to be designated as final beneficiaries across a broad range of programmes. A minimum percentage allocation for NGOs. NGOs to be eligible to receive technical assistance. Room for small projects. In-kind and voluntary assistance to be recognized for purposes of NGO co-funding.

One has the impression that NGOs were little approached by government, but had to make the running entirely themselves. When the draft single programming document was presented in June 2003, comment was invited, but consultees were given between seven and ten days in which to respond. NGOs were invited to attend a presentation of the SPD in July 2003 and ten did so. Despite two years contribution to the preparatory committee, the outcome was disappointing. NGOs were designated as final beneficiaries in only two measures:

EQUAL The measure for social inclusion, where aid could be provided for ‘employers, NGOs, non-profit organizations for aid to unemployed people, especially women, assistance in the home to elderly and disabled people, people with health problems’.

At one stage, assistance to NGOs was stated as one of five priorities for local development, but this was eliminated in the final text. EQUAL is a small part of the structural funds in Slovenia, only 488m SLT in 2004, compared to 1798 for INTERREG, 13,381m for the structural funds as a whole and 14,824m for the cohesion fund. NGOs are concerned that the government will be able to demonstrate that it had ‘involved’ NGOs, even though it had delivered nothing to them. NGOs termed this ‘the illusion of inclusion’. The focus of the government’s attention, during the preparation of the single programming document, was on compliance with regulation, maximizing access to objective 1 spending and the security of structural fund investment. Environmental NGOs in Slovenia campaigned to ‘green’ the structural funds in their country, working hard with the Ministry of the Environment and other government departments. The outcomes were mixed:

Positively, sustainable development was accepted as a horizontal principle for the funds. There should be sustainability indicators for structural fund projects. The Ministry for the Environment recommended that all projects be proofed for their impact on the environment. However, there is no evidence yet that this recommendation has been followed up with concrete proposals for criteria for project assessment. There are no environmental priorities or measures in their own right, with the exception of cohesion fund allocations for waste water treatment.

Slovenian NGOs obtained three seats on the single national monitoring committee:

Social inclusion Environment Gender

At first, the NGOs were told they were observers only, but after a protest, they were admitted as full members. NGOs are concerned at the manner in which administrators act as gatekeepers, apparently trying to keep NGOs out. 3.1.3 Poland The relationship between NGOs and government has been revised in Poland, with long-awaited legislation now governing their operation, the Law on public benefit activity and volunteerism (24th April 2003). What is called the Council of Public Benefit Activities was established. These developments should enable Polish NGOs to develop better working relationships with government and diversify their resources. Polish NGOs have been successful in winning seats on the EU Economic and Social Committee. Of Poland’s 21 seats, eight were awarded to ‘various


18

interests’ including the Consumers’ Federation, the Institute for Sustainable Development, the Students’ Parliament, Polish Women’s League and the Polish Federation of Non-Governmental Organizations. In advance of accession, Polish NGOs:

Established a liaison office in Brussels Set up a system of regional coordination for NGOs interested in influencing or accessing the structural funds. Two persons were selected from each of the 16 regions. This was funded by the Stefan Batory foundation. Trained 200 people in the structural funds. This is a training-the-trainer programme for the persons are expected to share their knowledge and skills with other NGOs. This is supported by the Polish-American Freedom Foundation.

Partly as a result, the level of knowledge of the structural funds in considered to be good in Poland. A core of NGOs is extremely well informed, possibly more so than the business community, or even the public administration. There is an outer group with some knowledge of the structural funds, but probably little knowledge in the very small, distant NGOs. NGOs had contacts with the managing body for the structural funds, the Ministry of Economy, Labour and Social Policy and also with regional government offices and the Polish Agency for Enterprise Development. These varied in quality - some responding fully to requests for information and documentation, but others not. Environmental policy was an area of difficulty, for in Poland NGOs had to put considerable pressure on government to make available one of the main documents governing the pre-accession funds, the Strategy for using the ISPA fund for the implementation of national environmental policy There were some limited contacts between NGOs and the EU delegation. There were some exchanges between NGOs and the delegation in which NGOs raised their concerns about their involvement in structural fund negotiations and they were unsatisfactory. Polish NGOs were told to apply to national programmes, if they found EU structural funds too difficult; that the Copenhagen criteria on democracy for entry to the European Union had already been fulfilled; and that the role of the Commission in supporting civil society and NGOs was very limited. Later, though, the Commission did ask the government about the manner in which it had consulted with NGOs. Polish NGOs held a meeting with the government Minister for the Economy in early 2002 to discuss their role in the forthcoming structural funds. NGOs pressed for:

The role for NGOs as a potential deliverer of structural funds to be recognized. A significant level of investment in human resources development, principally through the European Social Fund (e.g. training, assisting people unemployed). NGOs to be eligible for European Regional Development Fund support. The mainstreaming of LEADER within the structural funds. Global grants to facilitate the involvement of NGOs. NGO participation in monitoring and selection committees. NGOs to be eligible for technical assistance to build their capacity to participate in structural fund operations

NGOs received an initially positive response to these proposals. In the event, NGOs were not involved in the committees drafting the structural funds documents. There were no joint working groups between government and voluntary organizations, which might have been more effective. Positively, NGOs did see drafts at an early stage (government ministries published on their websites not only operational programmes, but also the consultative working documents that informed them). Once they did, NGOs ensured that the relevant draft documents were widely circulated to the appropriate parts of the NGO community for comment. The views of the individual sectors was then fed back to government and the appropriate ministers. The European Commission made a point of asking the Polish government whether NGOs had been consulted and NGOs were able to confirm this. NGOs participated in the formal consultative meetings held in 2003. The government ran an extensive information campaign for five months. These discussions were often unsatisfactory: big meetings of 200 people, with less than a half hour for discussion after presentations. In the case of the regional operational programme, 30 NGOs attended; for the operational programme for competitive growth, 16 NGOs attended; 13 attended the consultation on the operational programme for agriculture, rural development and fisheries; while 20 attended the discussion on the operational programme for human resources (Zamovsky, Farkas, Donsz & Kosterink (2003)). One area had an especially poor outcome: environment. The Ministry for the Environment refused NGO participation, despite many requests. The Commission eventually rejected the programming document as insufficient and its elements were redistributed across other operational programmes - but there is now no operational programme for the environment (Zamovsky, Farkas, Donsz & Kosterink (2003)). Although NGOs made many recommendations to government, they were not convinced that much attention was paid to their views. Many local


19

authorities took a similar view, feeling that their views too were ignored by central government. The national development plan was substantially amended by the government at the very end of the process. The government unexpectedly added a public health priority, taking funding that would have been allocated to human resource development. There was no effective consultation on this decision, nor an explanation. NGOs agreed a procedure with the government for the election of NGO representatives to the monitoring committees. These procedures were as follows:

The availability of NGOs places on the committees is publicly advertised on the internet and mass circulation newspapers; NGOs apply, putting forward both a male and female candidate; Candidates are recommended for appointment by the Council for Public Benefit Activities and confirmed by government; One third of monitoring committees comprise social partners, of which a third are allocated to NGOs. NGOs therefore have a ninth of all places on all monitoring committees.

NGO representation is now as follows: No of places Operational programme monitoring committee for... 3 Enterprise 6 Human resource development 7 Regional development 1 Technical assistance 7 EQUAL 10 Community Support Framework 2 Transport Recruitment to the monitoring committees for the operational programmes for agriculture and rural development; fisheries; and the cohesion fund was done separately. The only monitoring committee where NGOs are not represented is the committee for fisheries. NGOs are full members on the steering committee on the environmental part of the cohesion fund. These were selected by the Ministry of Environment after an open competition and vote. Travel expenses and per diems are not covered, which is a problem for NGO participation. In each of the regions, a liaison system has been established to ensure information flow between the regions and environmental organizations concerning the development of structural fund operations (two persons on each side). In practice, the operation of the system has fallen short and some regions still do not wish to cooperate with NGOs. 3.1.4 Slovakia In Slovakia, the government formally declared (November 2002) that it wished to work with NGOs in a spirit of partnership. This it does through the involvement of NGOs in advisory, consultative and decision-making bodies, common projects and programme and ad hoc conferences, consultations and public discussions. Resolution #738 of the Slovak Republic of 31st August 1999 created a Council for Non-Governmental, Non-Profit Organizations. Its role is to consider policies, proposals and legislation by the government that may affect non-governmental organizations; to draft legislation for the operation of NGOs; to advise all layers of government on the relationships with NGOs, defining procedures and criteria of access to public funds; to propose representation of NGOs on decision-making, monitoring and evaluation bodies; to improve information about the work of NGOs; and to establish working groups dealing with particular problems. The council comprises 18 governmental and 22 non-governmental organizations, being chaired by the deputy prime minister who has responsibility for European integration, human rights and minorities. The quality of the government - NGO partnership varies. It is considered positively in the case of the Rural Parliament, where there has been good cooperation in the planning, implementation and monitoring of pre-structural funds and also positive in education and training. Although they still consider themselves to be in a weak position, NGOs in Slovakia have welcomed the improvement of relations with government in recent years and the growing recognition of the value of the sector. Knowledge of the structural funds in the non-governmental sector was probably better than in business and the public sector. Larger NGOs had an especially good knowledge of the structural funds. For small organizations unlikely to participate in the funds, there was naturally much less interest. Slovak NGOs sought the following role in the new structural funds in their country:

Social partnership and a recognition of their role. Delivery of structural fund programmes in education, regional development and tourism.


20

Participation in monitoring. As the voice of civil society, a role in evaluation to improve the transparency of the funds.

NGOs participated in 2002-3 in preparations for the structural funds at national and regional level and also in the national commission to evaluate proposals for aid to regions of high unemployment and the joint commission for cross-border cooperation. The Slovakian national development plan contains a chapter outlining the commitment to the partnership principle. The national development plan was prepared by a number of working groups. Here, one NGO participated in the working group for the operational programme for the environment; another in the working group for the operational programme for agriculture and rural development. NGOs were not invited to participate in the working groups responsible for the operational programmes for regional development, industry & services, human resources or transport. Even when NGOs were represented, there were difficulties with paperwork and attending meetings. The elaboration of the programming documents was disorganized, late and rushed, with poor information flow. There was difficulty obtaining key documents. The national development plan was changed substantially following the elections of September 2002. According to Zamovsky, Farkas, Donsz & Kosterink (2003), there was no realistic opportunity for anyone to comment on these substantial changes. Three operational programmes - environment, transport and regional development - were merged into one, basic infrastructure. The managing bodies put out some brief information on the operational programmes, but there was little opportunity to study the documentation available. Confidence that it would be treated seriously was low. These suspicions were confirmed when the programme complements were prepared in a hurried and, in their view, untransparent manner. Managing authorities stated that they had an obligation to ensure that state agencies should fulfil their tasks and the development of programme complements did not involve NGOs. Once the structural funds got under way, application forms have been inconsistent, unstandardized, difficult to understand and confusing, their designers themselves apparently not understanding the terminology or the issues involved. Questions have been raised about how the funds will be evaluated and standards and transparency involved in the process. For the monitoring committees, NGOs requested a seat on the monitoring committee for the operational programme for industry and services. This was refused by the Ministry for the Economy. Following an appeal, the matter has been reopened, with the nominee’s qualifications under scrutiny. NGOs will not be present on the monitoring committee for the cohesion fund, nor were they present on the ISPA programme before it. NGOs will have one member of the Community Support Framework national monitoring committee. 3.1.5 Estonia The Ministry of Finance 16 organized road shows in several parts of Estonia in 2003. These were well received and a thousand people participated. A training programme was also offered for consultants and NGO representatives. Several NGOs and foundations ran seminars and training days (for example, Open Estonia Foundation and the European Movement). Information about the structural funds was also made available by the Ministry of Social Affairs, the Ministry of Education and Research, the Ministry of Economic Affairs, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of the Environment, Enterprise Estonia, the Estonian Labour Market Board and the State Chancellery. There was a wide level of consultation. ‘Anyone who wanted to know [about the structural funds] would have been able to find out what they needed’. The 15 county development centres carried out an extensive programme of structural funds orientation and training for NGOs, local authorities, and businesses, with the result that the knowledge of the structural funds was good. The Estonian Single Programming Document outlined the process of consultation as follows:

- From October 2001, drawing up a list of consultation partners, including NGOs (103 partners by end 2002); - Consultation about objectives and priorities of the programme, October 2001; - Outline of SPD circulated, February 2002, with comments requested in a month (100 received within the period, 100 more subsequently); - Second round of consultation on full draft of SPD, November 2002, a month given for comments; - In addition, sectoral consultations took place. For example, 40 organizations took part in a sectoral consultation on the human resource development aspects of the SPD.

According to the Ministry for Finance, it was possible to take into consideration about half the comments received and amend the SPD accordingly. Information on these amendments was posted by the Ministry of Finance.


21

There were a number of problems in the programming process in Estonia. The consultative process had a good start, with the preparation of the national development plan being well advertised. The process was led by the Ministry of Finance, with the European delegation withdrawing from view. NGOs did have discussions with government and their comments appeared to be considered carefully. This stage concluded in May 2003. When the plan was sent forward to the ministries and the European Union for further consultation, a lot was changed and there was little consultation on the later stages of the design of the single programming document. Ministerial changes were made in the last few days. Five days were given for comments on the final draft document. NGOs were taken out of the measure for tourism and when NGOs complained, they were told that there was no money for them. Other important references won by NGOs were taken out and, after argument, were restored. There are no global grants for NGOs, though there is funding for an organization for special state education (legally, it is an NGO, but it is established by government and is not part of the third sector or civil society). The national development plan in Estonia has four priorities with 26 measures, of which two are effectively for voluntary and community, third sector, civil society organizations. Nine mention NGOs as possible final beneficiaries. This was not done without a battle, for at one stage they were taken out of the single programme document draft and had to be put back in again. These include measures for:

- economic competitiveness (three); - vocational education; - labour market; - local development; environmental infrastructure; - educational infrastructure; and - local infrastructural development.

Six non-governmental groups are represented on the national monitoring committee. These are the trade unions, the chamber of commerce, the chamber of agriculture, the council of rectors of the universities, an environmental non-governmental network (the Estonian Fund for Nature) and the Network of Estonian NGOs. 2.1.6 Latvia Knowledge of the structural funds in Latvia is considered to be low (Pelcl, Hargitai, Brizga, Handerek & Zamovsky (2004). The NGO sector is not well organized around policy issues. The public policy centre Providus did organize an informal NGO working group to promote better knowledge and understanding of the structural funds process. Latvia was a number of countries where the elaboration of the programming documents fell behind schedule. NGO involvement in the planning process appears to have been quite limited (Pelcl, Hargitai, Brizga, Handerek & Zamovsky (2004)). NFOs were not represented on the management groups responsible for the single programming document nor the programme complement. On their own initiative, NGOs organized seminars on the structural funds. The government organized a public hearing and four seminars at the beginning of the planning process, to which NGOs and business organizations were invited. The problem is that consultation applied only to the first draft of the single programming document. The final version adopted was quite different and there was no consultation at this stage. For the operation of the structural funds in Latvia, the government established a Community Support Framework national monitoring committee, four steering committee (one for each European fund) and four project selection committees (one for each fund). Several NGOs are members of the national monitoring committee:

- World Wide Fund for nature Latvia - Soros Foundation - The Adult Education Centre - Transparency International.

NGOs have asked for membership of the cohesion fund monitoring committee and this is expected to be granted. In its predecessor, ISPA committee, the Environmental Protection Club was an observer member. NGOs were invited for consultation in the design of the EQUAL Community Initiative Programme in Latvia. 3.1.7 Lithuania For the 2004-6 programming period, the government ran a number of information days by invitation. The consultation took about a year over 2002-3 and about 70 meetings were held. The minimum requirement for consultation was definitely met. Some consultations were also held at regional level, though NGOs do not appear to have been consulted in this case. The level of knowledge of Lithuanian NGOs of the structural funds is considered to be poor. The dynamics and complexities of the evolution of structural fund planning have proved difficult to follow.


22

This is a problem not limited to NGOs, for the level of familiarity in government also appears to be low. The only group with a good working knowledge of the structural funds appears to be the community of consultants. Involvement by NGOs in structural fund programme design has been uneven - low in some places, better in others. Two non-governmental groups are represented on the monitoring committee, the Association of Industrialists and the Association of Agriculturalists. There was some discussion on the representation of green groups and people with disabilities, but this did not happen. Although the Association of Industrialists is the official NGO representative, no systems have been put in place as to how it should report back to or communicate with the sector. 3.1.8 Hungary In Hungary, the bigger and longest-established NGOs were familiar with the structural funds. The majority, though, were less familiar and took some time to come to terms with the different methodologies of the funds. The experience of using pre-accession funds was a positive one. The programmes had a high absorption rate. NGOs learned how to write proposals and manage projects. By 2004, about 400 NGOs had received training in how to prepare structural fund applications. The most striking feature of the Hungarian experience is the Project Generation Facility I (2003), which had a budget of €27m. designed for local government and non-governmental organizations. Developed by the Ministry for Accession, this was an especially welcome development, for it facilitated NGOs to develop quality ideas and prepare proposals for when the structural funds would arrive. According to the National Development Office, typical uses of the project generation facility could be for ‘the introduction of successful projects, the organization of project preparation workshops, the contribution to the development of potential project consortiums, the preparation of needs assessment, financial and technical studies, environmental impact assessments, construction permits and tender documentation’. Four consortia were given responsibility to work with NGOs to help them to develop project ideas and develop proposals for structural funds. In the 2003 round, 2,791 proposals were made, of which 403 were approved for funding, 391 in the area of the human resources programme, the rest for economic competitiveness. The round was so successful that the government launched a second programme for 2004, valued at €25.5m, financed entirely from the Hungarian government’s budget. The only criticism of the Project Generation Facility is that it is insufficiently outgoing to the rural and more distant areas of the country. In passing, it should be mentioned that there was a similar but smaller (€3m) facility in the Czech Republic, but it applied only to the regional operational programme, with applications limited to cities and municipal authorities, not NGOs. According to Zamovsky, Farkas, Donsz & Kosterink (2003), the government consultation on the structural funds was launched far too late. After little initial consultation, all documentation was suddenly made available in June 2002, leaving little time for a broad discussion. Some extensive public debates then took place, in which governmental and NGO representatives participated together. The government eventually organized a large-scale public information and awareness raising campaign, inviting and receiving comments from local authorities, professional groups, associations and NGOs. Twenty environmental NGOs presented Green views on the NDP. The main issues that arose during the information and preparation phase were as follows:

Issues of VAT payments; The lack of a practical guide as to how to prepare a project. Guidelines are needed on all the requirements for managing a project, making financial reports and handling the administrative protocols; The interaction between Hungarian and European law when handling structural funds.

The involvement of Hungarian NGOs in programming was limited. Initially, they felt that the government saw NGOs as marginal to the process. The Hungarian structural funds for 2004-6 have five operational programmes: agriculture & rural development; economic competitiveness; environmental protection and infrastructure; human resources development and regional development. A working group was set up to plan each operational programme. Although professional bodies and research institutes were involved, NGOs were not invited, with the exception of the working group in the Ministry of Environment and Water. NGOs were given the opportunity to comment at a very late stage of the process. The situation improved with a change of government, the new government setting up a civil society fund for NGOs and being more committed to consultation. A substantial volume of comments from the non-governmental sector was compiled and submitted. The present government is considered to be more supportive of the partnership principle and dialogue with civil society. The government received over 4,000 comments on its national development plan. The economic - social balance of the priorities of the funds was considered to be satisfactory, though cultural measures are regrettably absent. About twenty NGOs organized a presentation of their views on the structural funds in April 2004, held in the EU delegation


23

offices, with government ministry representatives also present. NGOs are concerned that decisions will be taken on projects based purely on the paper proposals without visiting the promoters in person. There is a Community Support Framework monitoring committee and one for each of the operational programmes . NGOs are represented on each of the five operational programme monitoring committees. The CSF monitoring committee comprises eight government departments, operational programme committees, regional development councils, employers and employees. Several NGOs are represented, covering:

Roma people The environment Women People with physical disabilities

Also present are representatives of higher education and the Academy of Sciences. NGOs understand that they will not be invited to participate in project selection committees, nor will they be invited to participate in the monitoring committee for the cohesion fund.

3.2 Conclusions The experience of NGOs in the structural fund programming process clearly varied considerably. The impact of NGOs has been most evident in the following ways. NGOs have:

Participated in working groups drawing up operational programmes and the national development plans. Won seats on a number of monitoring and selection committee places. To a limited degree, influenced the policies and priorities of the national development plans. The plans appear to be most permeable to influence in the environmental area. Opened a number of measures to possible funding in the future In a small number of countries, won funding for building the capacity of the sector.

Looking at the outcomes geographically, at one extreme, there has been a high level of productive involvement. The Czech example is perhaps the best and has been noticed further afield (Bullain & Toftisova, 2004). NGOs in the Czech Republic appears to have been much the most successful. Here, the NGO community appears to have built successfully on its experience of the pre-accession programmes and developed a high level of knowledge of the structural funds architecture and processes. NGOs were involved in the some of the working groups preparing the funds, the consultation process and the monitoring committees. There was a chapter on the role of NGOs in the national development plan. Two global grants were established to build the capacity of NGOs, although the actual size of the grants is quite small. NGOs have been satisfied with the balance and priorities of the funds. There was an organized and open system for the selection of NGO members of the monitoring committees. At the other extreme, the involvement of NGOs has been minimal. Slovenia is an example of a country where the non-governmental sector invested considerable effort into influencing the structural funds. NGOs were strategic in what they sought. Despite this, the outcomes were disappointing. NGOs did not have the sense that they were listened to. They were designated as final beneficiaries in only two of the measures of the entire single programming document. Administrators sought to restrict NGO participation in monitoring committees to observer status only. In Lithuania, third sector NGOs do not appear to have achieved any monitoring committee places. Several governments have resisted the presence of non-governmental organizations in the monitoring process for the large cohesion fund (except Poland, the Czech Rep. and possibly Latvia). In several countries, national and operational programmes were designed by working groups and committees that did not include NGOs (e.g. Poland, Latvia) or where their involvement was minimal (e.g. Hungary). Many other countries fall in between. There are no clinical models of purely ‘good’ or ’bad’. Even in the positive examples, there are problem areas. For example, in the Czech Republic, NGOs were not involved in all the working groups of all the operational programmes and the NGO community was badly treated in the operational programme for agriculture and rural development. Although Polish NGOs were successful in influencing parts of the structural funds, the Ministry for the Environment was resolute in keeping non-governmental organizations out. Conversely, even in the countries where the outcomes are poor, there were some gains. For example, in Slovenia, environmental concerns were accepted as a horizontal principle in the funds; and the Slovenian NGOs managed to obtain three places on the national monitoring committee. Similarly, although the consultation process in Hungary was poor at the beginning, NGOs managed to obtain four places on the national monitoring committee, allocated to Roma, women, people with disabilities and environmental interests.


24

It is evident that government handling of the consultative process around the structural funds varied widely. All governments appeared to have a sense that there should be some consultation. All governments seem to have organized information campaigns of some kind and a minimum was achieved in all countries. Some appear to have been extensive, imaginative and reached saturation level (e.g. Estonia). After this, practice diverged:

- Some governments began the process quite late, Hungary being the classic case; - Few governments appeared to have a coherent strategy of consultation ; - They did not have a sense that they should give an account as to how they handled the consultative process or evaluate it (Again, Estonia is the only known exception); - Many gave unrealistically short time periods for consultation on key documents (as few as five days). - Although the internet was used extensively, government information services were poor at ensuring that recent versions of documents were posted. An exception here was Poland, where the government not only published operational programme documents but also the related research and working papers.

In many countries, the completion of the programming process was an unsatisfactory process. A pattern was evident in several countries where:

Broad-based programme design began in good time. The process slipped behind time due to inter-ministerial rivalry. NGOs had an impression of considerable territoriality and competition between and within government departments. The European Union rejected a number of programming documents for their complexity and insisted on a simplification. All this had to be done within the original time frame set down in order to meet accession deadlines. When time pressures built up, it was consultation that suffered. By this stage, the time frame had almost expired. As a result, there was a rush to finalize the programming documents. There was no time for consultation at this stage.

NGOs derived a number of clear lessons from this experience. First was the need for formality in consultation rules. One NGO said that there should be ‘clear, binding, enforceable regulations on public participation’. To make it discretionary or to permit national authorities to consult only ‘where appropriate’ means that it will not be done. Second, NGOs stressed that good information flow was an essential part of the process. Governments should be faster to make documents available on the internet. Third, there should be complaint and appeal mechanisms, a whistle-blower hotline, with clear structures where citizens can send complaints. The nature of complaints should be documented and published. There appears to be a relationship between the organizational maturity of the non-governmental sector and its ability to participate in the structural fund process. In the Czech Republic, NGOs are well embedded in the governmental system, with the Council of Non-State Non-Profit Organizations at the heart of government and a route to the European Economic and Social Committee. In Slovenia by contrast, a country where NGOs had experienced much disappointment, the NGO sector does not see itself as well developed and the government was able to intervene in its system for choosing representatives to the Economic and Social Committee. A disposition to involve NGOs in the structure funds varies not only across the member states but within governments. It is possible to have countries where the government disposition to NGOs is favourable - but individual government ministries are hostile. Conversely, there are countries where the national government has not been supportive of NGOs - but individual ministries have been. As one person put it: ‘Some ministries view us as troublemakers who complicate their work and are greedy for their money’. Pelcl, Hargitai, Brizga, Handerek & Zamovsky (2004) quoted one managing authority as saying that ‘involving NGOs would add more chaos and problems to the proceeds’. Some government ministries did not and still do not have a tradition or culture of consulting with NGOs and resented being told to ‘consult with target groups’. Across government departments, attitudes toward the NGO sector vary a lot: from the progressive, to those hostile and wishing to keep NGOs out. Only a few appear to value NGOs for their knowledge, role and skills. As a general statement, most of the governments of the region appear to underestimate the potential of NGOs to contribute to the structural funds. Evidence that governments value the participation of the non-governmental sector is hard to find. In most but not all countries, NGO have had to argue their way into the structural fund by robust lobbying. They have made progress not by invitation, but through their own unaided efforts. Most governments have made it clear that if NGOs are to participate, they must fund the costs of participation themselves. Some governments have even required NGOs to


25

sign up to such costs before they can be admitted to committees. In some countries, though, a more sympathetic approach to the role of non-governmental organizations is in evidence:

In the Czech Republic, through the work of the Council for Non-State Non-Profit Organizations and the European affairs committee; and through the global grant programme; In Hungary, through the Project Generation Facility; The preparedness by some countries to allocate places to NGOs in the most important national monitoring committee (e.g. Hungary, Slovenia, Slovakia); Preparedness to allocate a place to a transparency organization (Latvia); Covering travel expenses (agricultural operational programme, Czech Rep).

So far, we have focussed on the gains to NGOs as a result of participation. What about the costs and consequences of non-participation? NGOs were asked what would be the consequences of their non-involvement in the structural funds. The principal negative consequences were considered to be:

An even greater domination of the structural funds by infrastructure and hard projects; Less attention being paid to social objectives. Some social programmes might even be lost. There would be a democratic deficit in the operation of structural funds; The principle of social partnership would be devalued and in danger of being lost; A lower rate of absorption. In one country, for example, the absorption rate predicted for infrastructure (ERDF and cohesion fund) was expected to be in the order of 80% to 90%. The absorption rate may be lower in the case of the European Social Fund, but this is an area where NGOs could in a position to assist government; The funds would not reach those communities and groups in most need; ‘There would be more cases of corruption, fraud, misuse and manipulation of funds’. Conversely, NGO participation in monitoring would ensure greater transparency and democracy; A difficult financial future for NGOs. The sector may lose an important element in its sustainability.

By way of a small example, NGOs in Poland sought a road safety measure within the operational programme for transport, a ‘soft’ objective within a ‘hard’ infrastructural programme, but this was turned down. For many NGOs in the region, the financial consequences of being locked out the structural funds may be dire. 2004 saw the end of PHARE - related programmes and most foreign foundations, which provided substantial funding for the region from 1989 have either withdrawn from the region or are in the final stages of doing so. The observations of this research match those of Zamovsky, Farkas, Donsz & Kosterink (2003). They examined the manner in which the structural funds programming process had observed, in the four Visegrad countries, both the partnership principle and the requirements for consultation set down by the Aarhus convention. It was difficult to find evidence of government concern at the costs of non-participation by the non-governmental community. Even though NGO participation could be a significant help in addressing the problem of absorption, this seems to feature little in government thinking. The case for NGOs assisting government by absorbing the structural funds was made by NGOs in a number of countries. The Polish government initially appeared to find the argument a convincing one, but the roll out of the regulations in 2004 indicates that this was not in fact the case. In seeking a consultative role in the structural funds, NGOs are seen to enter contested political terrain, intrude on traditional administrative practice and convenience, providing little value added. For governments, the priority was always to complete the programming documents on time, adhere to the legal requirements and maximize national receipts from the funds. Facilitating NGOs featured little in their considerations. There appears to be a poor appreciation by government of the benefits of involving NGOs in structural fund programming. Sporar, Marega, Znidarsic, Leskosek, Greif & Maksimovic with Levicar, Skarabot, Wagner & Klemec (2003) listed a set of reasons outlining the case for NGO involvement. These were the benefits of NGO knowledge of target groups and issues, the development of trust and social capital, the promotion of solidarity and cohesion and ensuring that programming is aligned with European legislation and procedures. Convincing government remains a challenge for the non-governmental community. It is interesting - and hardly a coincidence - to note that NGO satisfaction with the outcome of the structural funds package was highest in those countries where NGO participation was greatest (e.g. Czech Republic). Where NGOs do make progress, it is often due to the presence at key points in administration, of isolated individual ‘champions’ of civil society, rather than due to an institutional acceptance of their role. How much may we reasonably expect non-governmental organizations to benefit financially from the present 2004-6 structural funds? This is the topic of the next chapter, 4.


26

4 Prospects for access to the structural funds Now that the design and planning process for the structural funds has been completed, what are the prospects that NGOs will actually obtain funding from them? NGOs were asked to assess their prospects and here is the outcome on a country by country basis (4.1). NGOs were then asked to rate their prospects for involvement in the design of the structural funds for the following programming period, 2007-2013 and for convenience, this issue will be dealt with here (4.2). Conclusions are then drawn (4.3). 4.1 Prospects In the Czech Republic, the number of NGOs expected to put forward structural fund projects over 2004-6 is expected to be small - about 50, accounting for less than 5% of the total structural fund budget. Many more may benefit as partners in projects run by the state, regional or local authorities. The number of NGOs in the Czech Republic large and sophisticated enough to handle structural fund programming is still quite limited. NGOs expect to benefit most from the operational programme for human resource development, specifically:

- Priority 1: active employment measures; - Priority 2; social inclusion, including 2.2, equal opportunities - Priority 3: lifelong learning.

Some may obtain projects under the joint regional operational programme (e.g. tourism projects) and others for rural development under the operational programme for agriculture and rural development. NGOs have also been advised to be partners in structural fund proposals promoted by others, for example for social economy projects. In their analysis of the Czech national development plan, Zamovsky, Farkas, Donsz & Kosterink (2003) estimate that NGOs could be eligible to apply for 7 of the 17 measures of the joint regional operational programme, 9 of the 12 measures of the operational programme for human resource development, one sub-measure out of 19 in the operational programme for agriculture and rural development, three out of the six measures for infrastructure and none of the seven measures for industry. However, this takes a generous view of the term ‘eligible’ for they include measures where NGOs are inactive, unfamiliar areas of work, or others where they may be squeezed out by more competitive organizations. Work has been devoted to anticipating the problems that NGOs may experience in accessing structural funds. The Ministry of Finance approved procedures and criteria for advance payments to be made to NGOs handling structural fund projects. The main problems that NGOs anticipate are:

The technical challenge of following the detailed project and financial terms and conditions; Issues of reimbursement and bank guarantees; Demands for accounting, monitoring and evaluation; Understanding compliance with horizontal principles.

25% advance payments will be available from national co-funding, but many of the financial arrangements must still be solved. Expectations of obtaining structural funds are high and there is a concern that several NGOs may well be disappointed. In the Czech Republic, there are mixed views on additionality. Some experts believe that a good range of innovative projects have been designed over the past number of years and that they will now get the opportunity to go ahead. Others are more sceptical and point to the way in which some active labour market programmes were cut - in anticipation that they would now be funded as ‘new’ programmes under the structural funds. Prospects for access to the structural funds in Slovenia are poor, NGOs being designated the final beneficiary only in EQUAL and the measure for social inclusion. There are four priorities for the structural funds: the productive sector; knowledge, human resources and employment; economic infrastructure; and technical assistance. NGOs anticipate that almost all of the allocations will go to government programmes and projects. When the first call for proposals was issued in spring 2004, a 60% level of co-funding was required, which effectively ruled out NGOs (except, possibly some paragovernmental ones). Technically, no procedures have been set down for bank guarantees to enable NGOs to participate. The level of additionality in the structural funds is questionable, for the call for proposals puts a premium on the applicant’s existing activities and does not seek innovation. NGOs now feel very much shut out of the structural funds process. The government does not seem them as a structural fund partner. Although Slovenian NGOs produced a report on their engagement with the structural fund process, the government did not respond. There are no global grants and NGOs have been told that technical assistance will not be made available to them. A small number of Slovenian NGOs may obtain structural funds in 2004-6 in partnership with other organizations. The best candidate areas are European Social Fund allocations for employment and social inclusion under the priority


27

for knowledge, employment and human resources; and European Regional Development Fund, for tourism. One estimate is that about ten NGOs will prepare all-up proposals. There is concern that the call for proposals, which was delayed several months, will now be rushed, giving NGOs little time to prepare their projects and search for partners. The National Agency for Regional Development has indicated its interest only in big projects, but does welcome multiple partners. In Slovakia, NGOs are defined as final beneficiaries in:

- one of the 11 measures in the operational programme for agriculture and rural development; - 6 of the 8 measures for ESF grants in the operational programme for human resources; - 2 of the 4 measures in the operational programme for industry and services; - 3 of the 9 measures in the operational programme for infrastructure.

Again, this should be treated cautiously, for the operational programme for industry and services makes it clear that it expects applications from business partnerships and associations (Zamovsky, Farkas, Donsz & Kosterink (2003)). The government has made proposals to facilitate the involvement of NGOs in structural fund operations. In its basic document for the funds, outlined in August 2003, the requirement for NGOs to provide co-funding is reduced to 5%. NGOs remain critical, though, of the failure by the government to make possible advance payments for approved project funds. The prospects for NGOs in Lithuania accessing the structural funds are poor. Although the pre-accession funds gave NGOs a familiarity with how European Union funding operates, the rules for the operation of the structural funds are perceived to be very different and a lot tougher. They will probably be disappointed. Some private organizations may obtain funding. NGOs in Estonia believe that they will be disappointed in the 2004-6 round of the structural funds. If we return to the measures where NGOs are designated as final beneficiaries:

- In the measure for vocational education, project promoters must present a large project with a public sector partner; - For the three competitiveness measures, the NGOs will be business or professional ones (e.g. the Association of Construction Companies); - The local development measure is very small, only €8m; - The measure for environmental infrastructure is aimed at larger organizations; - Under the measure for the development of educational infrastructure, eight to ten big projects will be funded and they are likely to be municipal rather than sponsored by voluntary and community organizations; - For the measure for local infrastructural development, NGOs may promote projects, but they must do so in cooperation with local authorities. Only a few are expected to benefit.

In Poland, NGOs originally had high hopes for access to the funds, with an expectation of delivering at least €300m of programmes each year (some figures were much higher). Now, there has been great disappointment with the detailed regulations issued concerning access to the structural funds. Although the terms and conditions have not been finalized, the emerging regulations appear to set down terms for co-financing (25%) and eligibility that very few, if any, NGOs will be able to meet. NGOs appear to be ruled out of application to many measures. They appear to have been ruled out of ERDF funding. No effort appears to have been made to facilitate NGO involvement in the areas of co-financing, eligibility criteria, consideration of contributions in kind, or advance payments. They has been disappointment that there will be no global grant available. The concept was supported by the Minister for the Economy in 2002. It is reported that the proposal was resisted by the European Commission which argued that it was ‘premature’ and that because the PHARE programme for NGOs was run by government, there was no basis in experience for handling a global grant. There is also disappointment about technical assistance. This has been allocated largely to the public administration, the only exception being the Entrepreneurship Development Agency. Here, some NGOs may be eligible to apply for some regional training work for the European Social Fund, but details are still awaited. Hungarian NGOs are optimistic than some will be able to avail of the structural funds. Not as many will benefit as availed of the pre-accession funds and some may be disappointed. There are concerns that many of the smaller, rural NGOs do not have the capacity to make successful applications. An unwelcome development has been the appearance of consultants offering to make applications for excessive fees. NGOs are also worried about the administrative burdens in handling structural fund money and excessive accounting demands. The government has providing a helpful level of co-financing. Several of these problems could have been overcome by the use of global grants delivered through intermediary bodies. NGOs are hopeful of accessing the structural funds in the priorities for employment, regional development and the environment, but less positive in accessing funds for health and education


28

services. Some are less optimistic about the possibility of Hungarian NGOs obtaining the structural funds, attributing this to their slowness to see their potential and their inexperience of working in partnership.

4.2 The next programming period This is an opportune moment to look forward beyond the 2004-6 time frame to the next programming period, 2007-2013, as outlined in the Third cohesion report (see chapter 1). Czech NGOs have a working group with the government to address structural fund issues. The working group comprises NGOs and invited representatives of respective ministries. As early as April 2004, this group formed a view on the Third cohesion report, which it presented to the European cohesion forum in Brussels the following month. The group will be following structural fund issues closely, from the issuing of the regulations onward. The Ministry for Regional Development has given a commitment that NGOs will be regularly consulted on the new programming period 2007-2013. The Civil Society Development Foundation (NROS), working with the Green Circle (environmental NGOs umbrella), SKOK (social NGOs umbrella) and the Centre for Community Organization is working on a model on public consultative processes and how NGOs should be consulted in the future, based on the principles of the Aarhus convention and Commission policy Toward a reinforced culture of consultation. This model will then be presented to the Government council for NGOs for endorsement as the national system for public consultation. Slovenian NGOs are disappointed that their government does not appear prepared to observe the partnership principle and that it sees such a subordinate role for civil society. NGOs there will put more effort into the better organization of the civil society sector. They hope to develop better contact with the Brussels desk officers responsible for Slovenia. The first meeting of Slovenian NGOs to address the 2007-2013 programming period was convened in May 2004. Government representatives were invited and were expected to attend. Despite their disappointment with the outcome of the single programming document, they are hopeful of making an impact on the design of the next round. They value the Aarhus Convention, which obliges governments to report on their consultative procedures in respect of environmental aspects of the funds; and the requirement that each country report to the Commission on its observation of the partnership principle. NGOs intend to draw to the attention of government the importance of observing European requirements for visibility, transparency, environmental consultation and the partnership principle in order to ensure a set of ground rules where NGOs can contribute effectively. NGOs in Estonia intend follow the current programming period carefully through their membership of the monitoring committee. NGOs called a meeting in early May 2004 to examine their strategy for the 2007-2013 round, starting with a round table of umbrella bodies. Despite their disappointment, NGOs in Estonia believed that they learned a lot from their participation in the 2004-6 campaign. They found out that the structural funds were ‘big and complicated’ and a campaign in the area required considerable human resources to undertake. It was important not to take on too much. The challenge for the sector is to develop people with knowledge and expertise on the structural funds over at least a medium period of time and able to speak out about them articulately. Lithuanian NGOs intend to obtain a stronger place for NGOs in the preparation of the next programming period. They intend to work through the permanent NGO commission in the prime minister’s office. They plan that the committee will set down recommendations for the rules of engagement and consultation. No moves have yet been taken to mount a Hungarian campaign for 2007-2013, but one will more than likely. No information is yet available from the other countries. Even though many issues around access to the current funds are very much unresolved, NGOs in Poland are currently giving attention to the post-2006 situation. None imagine that the process of involvement in the new round will be any easier. Their hope is that the places that NGOs have won in the process will now be accepted as the ground rules for 2007-2013 and that they will not have to ‘argue for their role from ground zero all over again’.

4.3 Conclusions NGOs take a sober view about their likelihood of obtaining structural funds money over the period 2004-6. The key elements in the picture are:

The number of measures for which NGOs are designated final beneficiaries is, overall, quite small;


29

These are concentrated in the social, environmental and rural development areas; Where they are, NGOs are designated alongside many other non-state players (e.g. private sector, business community, professional associations), whose prospects are considered to be much brighter; There is a concern that governments will opt for large-scale, hard projects to the extent that there will be little scope for smaller scale, social ventures. There is a fear in some countries that the principle of additionality will not be observed. In some countries, the structural funds may be administered in such a way as to make NGO participation difficult, if not impossible. Having said that, the governments of other countries have made distinct efforts to address NGO concerns (e.g. Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia).

NGOs recognize that the structural funds will present a more difficult application and operational process than the pre-accession funds. They appreciate that applying for and operating structural fund programmes requires a certain level of sophistication and organizational maturity. Some will put their faith in partnership projects with other organizations. As for the future, it is interesting that the non-governmental sector in some countries has already looked to the period after 2006, with preparatory meetings already under way in Slovenia and Estonia. A working group with government has been established in the Czech Republic. Despite its disappointing experience of the 2004-6 round, Slovenian NGOs have demonstrated a considerable sanguinity, resilience and a long-term perspective, resolving to apply the lessons of the present to making an impact in the future. The process for the period 2004-6 was demonstrably an improvement over that for the 1999-2004 period, so there is a natural optimism that the next programming period will be a further step forward.


30

5 Policy issues arising Chapter 3 has already explored the issues arising from the consultative process. We return to this central topic in this discussion of the policy issues arising (5.1). Then a number of specific issues are explored (5.2) before some conclusions are drawn (5.3). Before this, some general remarks. The process of structural fund involvement has clearly exercised the minds and the energies of the non-governmental sector in the region. Considerable effort has been applied to the process. This deserves some explanation and some are ventured here. NGOs in the new member states have a strong conviction that the battle over the structural funds is much wider than simply obtaining funding. In Slovenia, the theme of the programme of engagement with the structural funds could be summarized as ‘This is not about the money, it’s about using programming as an instrument for social change’. The structural funds are seen as opening a window into a new, more systematic planning and resource allocation process, one in which the ground rules may be redrawn around European Union concepts that appeal to the non-governmental sector, such as social inclusion, environmental protection, equality between men and women and the rights of minorities. The non-governmental community was indeed introduced to these values through the pre-accession funds, like PHARE, so it is not surprising that they seek a thematic continuity between those issues and the new structural funds. A second reason for the investment in the structural fund process is that the European Union is seen as an instrument for the driving up of standards of consultation, participation and democracy. NGOs in the region had a strong sense of European Union commitments to these values and were familiar with the European Union texts and regulations cited in 1.1 of this report, above. They take them seriously. Environmental NGOs especially valued the Union’s commitments to citizen participation and democratic control over environmental decision-making articulated through the Aarhus Convention and other instruments. For them, the structural fund programming was the first opportunity to see these principles at work and for this reason, the manner in which practice has fallen far short of these values has added to the sense of disappointment.

5.1 The consultation problem To return to the core issue of consultation, chapter 3 established the pattern that is evident. The consultative process fell, overall, far short of the European Union’s expressed aims and values, being applied inconsistently not only across member states but within member states. The finding of this report are confirmed by other independent reports. Zamovsky, Farkas, Donsz & Kosterink (2003) in their examination of the programming process likewise took a very critical view. Their view was that:

- Consultation was insufficiently extensive; - The time given was insufficient and the process was rushed at the end; - The level of consultation fell far short, even in the environmental area, of the minimum standards expected; - NGO proposals were not included in the final documents, so the practical results for NGOs were barely significant; - Some NGOs managed to find a place on working groups designing national and operational programmes, but some of these working groups functioned ineffectively.

Where NGOs were involved effectively, this seems to have taken place in countries where there is a political culture favourable to NGOs (e.g. Czech Republic at present) or where individual government ministers have responded favourably to NGOs and championed their proposals (e.g. Poland). Several NGOs in eastern and central have written about what some describe as ‘the illusion of inclusion’. NGOs have taken considerable efforts to contribute to programming documents and have done so professionally. Despite their investment, it has not been evident whether, if at all, their comments have been taken into account and the public authorities have not felt under an obligation to respond to the view presented. Sporar, Marega, Znidarsic, Leskosek, Greif & Maksimovic, with Levicar, Skarabot, Wagner & Klemec (2003) commented that sometimes NGO comments were invited well after a document had been finalized and there was no realistic opportunity for it to be changed. In at least four countries, there were very substantial changes in the final text of the programming documents compared to the stages where consultation took place (e.g. Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia). In some countries, NGOs were squeezed out of the final text (e.g. Slovenia). The consultation problem exists at a number of levels. Several governments in the region appear to have had a difficulty in devising an effective, meaningful system of consultation. Some appear to have a specific problem with


31

the non-governmental community, preferring to do business with safer institutional players only. Whether this is due to continued suspicions of civil society or a distrust of the origins, roots and motives of NGOs is unclear. These outcomes raise a serious question about the role of the European Commission in this process. The impression of the structural fund negotiations is that the Commission is not prepared to intervene to ensure that either consultation or partnership principles are observed. Commission interventions have largely been technical and administrative. The Commission has been visible only at the end of the period of drafting structural fund operational programmes, where it has intervened to simplify. The Commission delegations have not appeared to be interested to intervene to ensure that the partnership principle is respected, one exception being Poland where the Commission queried the government about its consultation with NGOs. The message appears to be that if the spirit of European rules are not observed, then NGOs can expect little help from the Commission in enforcing them. Conversely, the burden of ensuring that Commission policies, protocols and procedures on consultation are observed appears to have fallen exclusively on the non-governmental sector. Pelcl, Hargitai, Brizga, Handerek & Zamovsky (2004) are especially critical of this process, citing Slovakia in these following edited comments:

Most profound changes were made in an untransparent and non-participatory manner under strong political pressure from the EU. Such an approach discredits the whole previous planning process and questions the quality of the ex-ante evaluation. The final versions reflect the political priorities of the EU and the decisions taken by government officials rather than the result of long-term, democratic and independent programming at a national level.

The Commission does not seem to have been visible at any stage in asserting either the Lisbon, Gothenburg, social inclusion or equal opportunities agenda. In the case of Slovenia, one cannot be sure that the government’s interference in the Economic and Social Committee elections even fulfils the Copenhagen criteria for democracy. The interpretation of ‘partnership’ it seems to have delegated entirely to the national authorities as something unworthy even of comment, still less of scrutiny. Whilst NGOs do not necessarily expect the Commission to adopt a viewpoint favourable to them, there is a perception that the Commission has a uninterest in their perspective, despite the substantial body of European Union policies and regulations covering the field. Some NGOs did make appeals to Brussels for intervention in the course of the programming period, but the response appears to have been limited. It was successful in obtaining observer status on the ISPA environmental monitoring committee in Estonia. There is no public evidence that the Commission queried draft national development plans or draft operational programmes for falling short on partnership or consultation. No oversight system appears to be in operation to check that the requirements of the regulations, the partnership principle, or the proper observation of horizontal policy concerns are met. As the guardian of Community law, this function of oversight is expected of the Commission, but it seems that little attention was devoted such oversight in the face of the ever more urgent need to finalize the programming documents. Ways should be found for the Commission to exercise an active function of oversight in ensuring that the regulations, the principle of partnership and horizontal principles are observed, rather than wait for complaints to be generated. Although a small number of NGOs appealed to Commission directorates general in Brussels for intervention, none seem to have been aware of any other channels that may have been open to them. Now that the states concerned are full members, it will be possible for NGOs to pursue the range of channels open to them (formal complaint to the Commission, Ombudsman).

5.2 Related policy issues arising A number of other issues have arisen in the course of this study and they are explored here. Asymmetric partnership relationships. Many NGOs felt that they approached the partnership principle from a position of considerable weakness. This is confirmed by Sporar, Marega, Znidarsic, Leskosek, Greif & Maksimovic, with Levicar, Skarabot, Wagner & Klemec (2003). The weak position of NGOs was confirmed at many stages of the consultative process, made worse by the paucity of champions for the sector within government and the lack of preparedness of the Commission to play a role here. This asymmetric relationship will not surprise any students of the theory or practice of partnership, but it does suggest the importance of measures and resources to redress the imbalance. This brings us on to the next issues, the capacity of the non-governmental sector. NGO capacity, funding and unity. This is a priority issue (see also Bullain & Toftisova (2004). The NGO community in the region does not perceive itself to be strong. Few countries have a united, representative NGO association that is in a strong position to negotiate with government. NGOs feel that they are still at an early stage of development. A description of NGOs in Slovenia would be echoed in some of the other member states. Sporar,


32

Marega, Znidarsic, Leskosek, Greif & Maksimovic, with Levicar, Skarabot, Wagner & Klemec (2003) drew attention to the unstimulating environment in which they worked, their low level of professional staff, lack of management skills and immature infrastructure. Many characterize their sector as dominated by large numbers of uncoordinated one-person, single-figure-member organizations, with only a tiny core of larger, more professional, connected and politically aware organizations (often led by environmental and social NGOs). Even the more professional core can be divided between post and pre-1989 organizations and afflicted by territorial rivalries. A substantial upskilling and upresourcing of the sector is required if the sector is to make an impact on the next, 2007-2013 round. Campaigns on the structural funds require a considerable investment of time, skills and energies. The programming for 2004-6 took place over two years, 2002-4 and was very time intensive. NGOs have not yet reached such a level of development that they can allocate staff exclusively to the structural funds, yet following the structural funds, maintaining contact with the relevant ministries and participating in the consultative process is an intensive business. On the positive side, NGOs in the region have more than demonstrated their capacity to analyse, understand and strategize around the key issues and challenges involved. The funding picture for NGOs is a difficult one. In some countries, government funding for NGOs has improved in recent years (e.g. Hungary). In others, there has been a growth in governmental support, but limited to paragovernmental organizations performing social services traditionally provided by government (e.g. Slovenia). The early 1990s saw an infusion of funding from foreign foundations while in the late 1990s the pre-accession funds provided significant assistance to NGOs. The former is now much diminished while the latter is no longer available. NGOs in the region are in a vulnerable situation at present. In several countries, there have been discussions about forming a strong umbrella body for the sector (e.g. Czech Republic, Poland, Slovenia). Many feel that stronger organization is the only way that they can persuade government to treat them seriously for their role in the structural funds. The need for a country-wide platform has been identified as an imperative by others (Zamovsky, Farkas, Donsz & Kosterink (2003)). The lack of an organized national form for NGOs can mean that it is difficult for NGOs, once they are invited to participate in structural fund programming, to choose their delegates. As a result, selection procedures can be ad hoc and unclear. Few governments made significant efforts to resource the participation of NGOs in structural fund consultations. As a result, a considerable financial and time burden fell on the parent organizations of the individuals concerned. Simplification. The experience of simplification in the 2004-6 round was an unsatisfactory one. The one area where the Commission was most active in the 2004-6 round was in obliging member states to simplify their draft national development plans (e.g. from 14 operational programmes to 5 in the case of the Czech Republic). In the course of simplification, consultation was lost and NGOs were overlooked as ministries rushed to finalize their operational programmes. This danger will be ever more present in the 2007-2013, when the structural funds will be simplified ever further. Some countries will have as few as three operational programmes (one for the ESF, one ERDF, one agricultural). There is a real challenge for NGOs to ensure that they are heard in the simplified 2007-2013 round. Learning experience. For NGOs in the region, the campaign on the 2004-6 structural funds has been an important, formative experience. At a practical level, NGOs have learned much about structural fund programming and they should be in a good position to be prepared for the next, 2007-2013 round. They have learned to become more organized so that they can better negotiate with government in general and individual ministries in particular. Some have become quite sophisticated in how they conducted their negotiations with government. Several have elaborated their vision of how they can influence the structural funds in the future. Community Initiative Programmes. NGOs in western Europe, in the ‘old’ 15 member states are gravely concerned about the ending of the Community Initiative Programmes in 2006. In most of the ‘old 15’, Community Initiative Programmes like EQUAL have provided the only point of access to the structural funds. These programmes feature much less in the debate in the eight new member states. In their campaign on the 2004-6 round, NGOs in eastern and central Europe focussed on obtaining access to the mainstream structural funds. It is difficult at this stage to predict the outcome, though chapter 4, above, indicated the difficulties. In a pessimistic scenario, it is possible that NGOs will be greatly disappointed and obtain little from these mainstream funds. Without programmes like EQUAL, they will have no other alternatives in the future. Unless access to the mainstream measures can be guaranteed, there is a good argument for a part of the structural funds to be either a ringfenced or a protected area for NGOs over 2007-13. Examples of good practice. Despite the difficult outcomes of some of the consultative and other processes, some examples of good practice can be identified. Those that come readiest to mind are the following:


33

The Project Generation Facility in Hungary. The global grant facility in the Czech Republic. The chapter on the role of NGOs in the national development plan (Czech Rep). The presence of Transparency International on the national monitoring committee in Latvia. Presence of NGOs on all significant monitoring committees in Poland. Reporting back on the consultation process and showing how it influenced programme design (Estonian Ministry of Finance). Publication of working documents for structural funds design (Poland). Acceptance of the principle of greening (Slovenia). NGOs establishing websites to share structural fund information (Czech Republic). Training programme for NGOs (Poland). NGO presence of the environment cohesion fund (Poland, Czech Rep., expected Latvia). Places for NGOs on national, CSF monitoring committee (Hungary, Poland, Slovenia) Involvement of Roma, women, environment, people with disabilities on CSF monitoring committee (Hungary) Commission intervention to assist NGO representation on ISPA environmental monitoring committee (Latvia) Election procedures for NGO representation (Czech Republic) Commission interrogation of national government about involvement of NGOs (Poland) On-going working group on structural funds with government (Czech Republic).

5.3 Conclusions The involvement of NGOs in the structural fund process has clearly fallen far short of its potential, what is expected in European Union policies, procedures and policies and what is set down in the structural fund regulations. This chapter has attempted to explain and explore some of the features and elements of the process. In attempting to chart a way forward, our task is made easier by the number of recommendations already exist and it makes sense to build on them. Zamovsky, Farkas, Donsz & Kosterink (2003) made a number of recommendations to improve the situation. These recommendations are reproduced here, for they are the result of in-depth analysis and reflexion between NGOs, researchers and experts. These recommendations were for a future structural funds design architecture which would:

Involve NGOs in ex ante evaluations; Consult NGOs when documents are modified; Publish Commission comments on national drafts; Invite NGOs onto the planning teams, including the programme complements; Ensure NGOs are represented on monitoring and project selection committees; Build the capacity of the non-governmental sector.

Pelcl, Hargitai, Brizga, Handerek & Zamovsky (2004) took a critical perspective on the process of participation. The authors interpreted events as follows. As dates for the finalization of the programming documents approached, the negotiation process in the working groups was replaced by one-to-one negotiations among ministry officials behind closed doors to finish off the controversial areas. Although government-side preparations for preparing the structural fund documents generally started in an orderly manner, the completion process was often one of crisis management. Governments did not designate officials to receive comments, comments were not analysed or reported on and NGOs responding to web-published documents sometimes found that the version posted was an old and outdated one. Pelcl, Hargitai, Brizga, Handerek & Zamovsky (2004) describes the process in one country as ‘organizational chaos and enormous time stress’. Pelcl, Hargitai, Brizga, Handerek & Zamovsky (2004) made a number of recommendations as to how the programming process should be better organized in the future:

Guidelines should be laid down and published about the principles and stages of consultation, schedules and systems, with such clarity as to prevent arbitrary circumvention of these rules by national authorities; The partnership principle means that NGOs should be invited into the programming process from the very beginning; The information-giving process should be extensive, open, timely, pro-active, use publicly designated distribution points and use multiple methods; The outcomes of the consultation process must be reported; Consultation must include the final phase of the adoption of programming documents; NGOs should be involved in working groups, monitoring committees and project selection committees. This includes the cohesion fund monitoring committee. Transparency is a key requirement of the work of the monitoring committee.


34

Technical assistance should be available to facilitate the involvement of NGOs in programming and subsequent monitoring. Broader financial assistance should be available to build the capacity for the involvement of NGOs in structural fund operations.

Sporar, Marega, Znidarsic, Leskosek, Greif & Maksimovic, with Levicar, Skarabot, Wagner & Klemec (2003) put forward a set of detailed procedures for the improved consultation of NGOs in structural fund programming. Their proposals, whilst designed to cover the situation of Slovenia, would be equally applicable in the other member states. Key elements of their proposals are as follows:

Set down a consultation plan at the earliest stage of programming; Timely notification of NGOs, with a full outline of the time schedule and procedures; A system whereby the authorities respond to the comments made by NGOs; A post hoc assessment of the quality of participation and the results of cooperation Availability not only of strategic documents but background, analytical and contextual studies; The setting down of published criteria as to which NGOs and target groups are to be consulted and how; Resourcing the participation of NGOs in the consultation process (information, technical assistance, research and advisory services); The use of multiple forms of consultation (working groups, ad hoc consultations, internet); Documentation of the comments made by NGOs; Involvement of NGOs in the full life cycle of a programming document.


35

6 Conclusions and recommendations This report has examined the manner in which the European Commission consulted with the non-governmental sector in the preparation of the Third cohesion report, the key text outlining the 2007-2013 programming period of the European structural funds; the experience of NGOs in eight eastern and central European countries of the pre-accession structural fund programmes (1995-2004); the level of knowledge of NGOs in the region of the current 2004-6 programming period; in some detail, their experience of the preparation of the 2004-6 structural funds; and the prospects for the future. Dealing first with the Third cohesion report:

Although the Commission laid down a series of impressive commitments for consultation with civil society and the non-governmental community, these commitments were not observed during the drafting or subsequent consultation on the Third cohesion report. Although the Commission was expected to present a consultation plan in connection with the Third cohesion report, this plan was either prepared but withheld, or not prepared at all. This situation is unacceptable and is currently with the European Ombudsman for determination.

NGOs in eastern and central Europe were beneficiaries of the PHARE pre-accession programmes, especially the democracy and civil society programmes and learned much from the handling and delivery of these programmes. By the time the planning of present structural funds began in 2002, there was a core of NGOs familiar with the structural funds and policies for European integration. NGOs prepared a menu of policies and proposals for their involvement in the planning for the arrival the structural funds in their countries. The findings in regard to the involvement of NGOs in the new structural funds process are as follows:

With a few exceptions, the overall outcome for NGOs has been unsatisfactory; NGOs were named as beneficiaries in too few measures. Where they were frequently named, it was in programmes where their effective opportunities to obtain funding will be limited (e.g. measures designed for private enterprise); The prospects of NGOs obtaining a substantial share of the structural funds over 2004-6 are poor. In several countries, unrealistic requirements for co-funding were set down. Little effort was made to facilitate their access. NGOs were refused places on some monitoring committees, working groups and steering groups. A system of global grants exists in only one country (Czech Republic), one out of eight. The Commission is reported to have opposed a system of global grants for NGOs in Poland, even though global grants are encouraged in the European Union’s regulations and policies. NGOs appear to have been ruled out of the possibility of obtaining technical assistance, although there is nothing in the regulations to permit member states to do so.

The consultation process has fallen far short of the policies, procedures and protocols set down by the European Commission for the role of non-governmental organizations either in civil society generally or in the structural funds processes:

In several countries, NGOs had little or no involvement in the design of national or sectoral operational programmes. The national development plans and operational programmes were, in four countries, substantially changed at a very late stage, negating the value of the earlier consultations. The consultation process was, in one country, launched too late to permit an effective involvement of NGOs. Where consultation was offered on late changes, the periods of consultation were unreasonably short (e.g. five days) Neither the Commission nor the member state governments appear prepared to give an account of nor to evaluate the consultation process. The Commission does not appear to be interested or prepared to defend or protect NGOs in this process.

The consequences are as follows:

European Union policies, procedures and protocols for consultation of the non-governmental sector have been compromised. The absorption of the structural funds in many of the countries of the region may fall far short of what is possible. The likelihood of the structural funds reaching their most needy beneficiaries has been diminished. The ability of the European Union to achieve its horizontal objectives in such areas as social policy, civil society, environmental protection, equality between men and women and the Lisbon and Gothenburg agenda has been undermined because crucial actors to this process have been excluded. This is hardly in the Union’s interest. The financial sustainability of the non-governmental sector in several countries in the region is in doubt.

NGOs have listed a series of further consequences which may emerge over time. An even greater domination of the structural funds by infrastructure and hard projects; An imbalance between the funds’ economic and social objectives at the expense of the latter.


36

A democratic deficit in the operation of structural funds and a loss of transparency. A number of significant policy issues were identified. These were:

- The unevenness of the consultation process not only between countries but within individual administrations. A universal driving up of standards is required. - The role of the Commission. The Commission has not demonstrated a convincing interest in upholding the proper and full recognition of the partnership principle. - The need to upgrade the capacity of the non-governmental sector so that it may play an effective role in the delivery of European Union objectives in the 2007-13 round.

Positively, the report identified a number of countries where the structural fund process was:

- Largely satisfactory, as was the case in the Czech Republic; - Partially satisfactory, where consultative and partnership processes were observed and where there were positive outcomes for NGOs (e.g. Poland, where they obtained places on all significant monitoring committees); - Characterized by imaginative systems designed to facilitate a role for non-governmental organizations (e.g. Project Generation Facility in Hungary).

Examples of good practice were described in chapter 5. There is no reason why they should not be more widely applied in time for the next round of the structural funds. There are four recommendations: Ombudsman to investigate There are, within existing procedures, rules governing the role of the Ombudsman in respect of European and national matters (> 1.2, above). This study raised serious questions concerning the role of the European institutions, the Commission in particular, in its dealings with the member states; the observation of European regulations, policies, procedures and protocols; and whether the Commission drew the attention of the member states sufficiently to the need to observe these regulations, policies, procedures and protocols. These issues fall firmly into the remit of the Ombudsman at European level, although a subsequent investigation would clearly require the cooperation of the national network of liaison officers of national ombudsmen. The first recommendation of this report is that the European Ombudsman now investigate the manner in which the European Union delegations and the Commission functioned during the negotiation process, specifically whether they ensured that:

The policies, protocols and procedures for consultation with NGOs, documented in chapter 1, were observed in the structural fund negotiations; The partnership principle, article 8.1 of the general regulation, was observed; The partnership principle was observed in respect of article 8.2 of the general regulation regarding preparation, financing and monitoring; Adequate consideration was given to the possibilities of global grants, as per article 27 of the general regulation; There was observance of the partnership principle when the final stage of the drafts of the operational programmes, single programming documents and community support frameworks were agreed; Article 46.2b, requiring the informing of potential beneficiaries, including relevant non-governmental organizations, was observed; Rules and regulations were not laid down by managing authorities in such a way as to preclude these final beneficiaries from access to the structural funds. Article 4.2 of the European Social Fund regulation was taken into account, regarding a ‘reasonable amount’ of appropriations to be made available to non-governmental organizations and local partnerships.

A Commission Communication to drive up of standards of consultation for the structural funds Pending the outcome of such an investigation, there are many ways in which standards of consultation can be improved in advance of the negotiations for the next round of the structural funds. The areas where improvement is


37

warranted have already been studied and analysed by Sporar, Marega, Znidarsic, Leskosek, Greif & Maksimovic, with Levicar, Skarabot, Wagner & Klemec (2003); Zamovsky, Farkas, Donsz & Kosterink (2003); Pelcl, Hargitai, Brizga, Handerek & Zamovsky (2004). Their proposals are thoughtful, insightful and they should be endorsed. The most productive way forward is for the Commission to prepare and publish a Communication on standards of consultation to be followed during the next full cycle of structural fund negotiations. This Communication should be issued in a short period of time, taking into account the lessons learned during the 2002-4 period. The Third cohesion report gives a commitment that ‘representatives from civil society should become increasingly involved through appropriate mechanisms in the design, implementation and followup of the interventions’. Now would be an opportune time to give effect to this welcome commitment. Specifically, the Communication should set down:

Minimum standards for the consultation of final beneficiaries, target groups, non-governmental organizations and civil society groups; A model consultation plan, one adopting best practice already evident, with details concerning schedules, systems of notification, criteria, multiple forms of consultation, and the making available of documents; A defined role for the European institutions in working with the non-governmental community; The structures of NGO participation, such as working groups, steering groups, monitoring committees, selection committees; Recommendations as to how national governments may resource the participation of the non-governmental and civil society community; Systems for the post hoc reporting and evaluation of the process.

The Commission must also address, within its own administrative and institutional arrangements, how the lead directorate general for the structural funds, DG REGIO, may adopt a consultation culture when its flanking directorates general (DG EMPL, DG ENVIR) have more familiarity with the non-governmental community. Strengthen the regulations Leaving aside the issues of oversight and ensuring that regulations are properly observed, the current regulations for the structural funds demonstrate a number of weaknesses. The new regulations could be much stronger in the following respects. These are matters for the Commission to consider in the preparation of the new regulations and for the European Parliament to consider as the draft regulations go through the process of approval. The following aspects of the regulations could be strengthened. They should:

Require member states set down a consultation plan; Name NGOs as an integral part of the partnership principle; Require a full round of consultation on the first and final drafts of single programming documents, community support frameworks and operational programmes; Set down the use of global grants as a norm; Ensure that technical assistance is open to non-governmental organizations and that their participation costs are met; Require member states to prepare and publish a report on how, in the course of negotiations, the partnership principle has been observed and how requirements for consultation were met.

Build up the capacity and skills of NGOs One of the findings of this study has been the asymmetric nature of the partnership between NGOs and civil society organizations on the one hand; and national governments and the European institutions on the other. Despite rapid growth since 1989, NGOs in the region have a limited infrastructure, insecure funding and a small professional base. With the ending of the PHARE programme and the withdrawal of foreign foundation donors, many NGOs are now in an exposed situation. Participation in the structural funds process is a demanding one, requiring considerable commitments of time and high levels of skills. For both the European Union and the member states, the participation of NGOs can bring considerable advantages in respect of targeting, the absorption of funds, the refinement of horizontal objectives and bringing Europe closer to the citizen. The Third cohesion report does not appear to have paid sufficient attention as to how the role of the NGO community may best be enhanced. Indeed, the ending of the Community Initiative Programmes, especially the EQUAL programme, increases their vulnerability. Although the Third cohesion report gives a commitment to reinforcing administrative capacity, this seems to be targeted primarily at national and regional governments. It would be ironic if this proposal were to make the relationship between NGOs and civil society organizations on the one hand; and national governments and the European institutions on the other even more asymmetric. There is the real danger that it might do so. The recommendations of the Third cohesion report, in its proposals for the reinforcement of administrative capacity, should be adapted specifically to support the non-governmental sector in this way. To rectify this, there is merit in the European institutions, such as the Commission and the Parliament, giving consideration to a funding programme designed to:


38

Build up the capacity of NGOs to become involved in structural fund operations, open to NGO associations, umbrella bodies and coordinating groups within each of the member states Promote cooperation between these organizations across the member states.

This could build on the model currently in development by ECAS in the Cooperate! project. In final comment, there are key messages for several groups:

- For the European Commission, the need to take appropriate administrative and institutional steps to ensure that its own policies, procedures and protocols are actually observed and enforced during structural fund consultations, negotiations and subsequent operations; - For the new European Parliament, Committee of the Regions and Economic and Social Committee, the need to for operation of the structural funds and the role of civil society to be a top policy concern. They must ensure that the new regulations improve the role and prospects for the non-governmental community; - For the member states, the importance of a proper and resourced involvement of NGOs in the structural fund processes so that the funds are transparent, can reach the most needy, absorption is maximized and economic and social balance maintained; - For civil society and the non-governmental community, the need to begin mobilization now for the new programming period of 2007-2013; - For the continuing candidate countries, a warning that the shortcomings identified in respect of the states that joined in 2004 should be avoided as they close their processes of accession.


39

References Bullain, Nilda & Toftisova, Radost (2004) : A comparative analysis of European policies and practices of NGO - government cooperation. Budapest, European Centre for Non-for-profit law. Crook, Andrew (2004): NGOs and the structural funds. Brussels, ECAS. Potluka, Oto & Sumpikova, Marketa (2004): Multi-level cooperation on regional development in the Czech Republic. Prague, IREAS. Pribyl, Pavel (1999): Preparation for the use of the EU’s structural funds in the Czech Republic from the point of view of NGOs. CEE Bankwatch network. Sporar, Primoz; Marega, Milena; Znidarsic, Bojan; Leskosek, Vesna; Greif, Tatjana; Maksimovic, Zoran; with Levicar, Robert; Skarabot, Julija; Wagner, Vida Ogorelec; Klemec, Andrej (2003): Expertise for the programme of inclusion of non-governmental organizations in the preparation, implementation and evaluation of the development strategy documents in the Republic of Slovenia. Lyubljana, Centre for Information Service, Cooperation and Development of NGOs with Regional Environmental Centre for Central and Eastern Europe. Stulik, David (2003): NGOs and enlargement. NGO news, #22, spring/summer 2003. Zamovsky, Petr Pelcl Juraj; Farkas, Piotr Handerek Istvan; Donsz, Teodora; Kosterink, Paul (2003): Report on the structural funds programming process in central Europe. Nature Society of Conservationists, Hungary; Centre for Environmental Advocacy, Hungary; European Eco-Centre, Poland; and Centre for Community Organizing, Czech Republic. Pelcl, Petr; Hargitai, Katalin; Brizga, Janis; Handerek, Piotr; & Zamovsky, Juraj (2004): Partnerships for sustainable development? Report on the structural funds programming process in central Europe. Centre for Community Organizing (Czech Republic); National Society of Conservationists (Hungary); Green Liberty (Latvia); European Centre of Sustainable Development (Poland); Centre for Environmental Public Advocacy (Slovakia); Milieukontakt Oost Europea (Netherlands).

Date post:	24-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Report for the Euro Citizen Action Service July 2004Euro Citizen Action Service: The Illusion of...

Documents