Why Bother with
Partnership?
Positive Examples of Partnership in
European Funds from Central
and Eastern Europe
2
Table of contents
Introductory Note
3
The Approach
4
List of Abbreviations
5
Executive Summary
6
Themes and Case Studies
10
Access to Information
10
Bottom-up and Coordinated Planning
15
Participation in Programming
26
Financing for Sustainability
40
Delegation in Committees
48
Participation of NGOs in Project Evaluation
61
Cooperation among NGOs
79
Information about SFteam
89
3
Introductory Note
Two and a half years after publishing “Structural Funds and Partnership”, SFteam
made another attempt to examine how much progress had been made in the
partnership between civil society and the authorities in CEE countries within the
confi nes of the implementation of EU Regional/Cohesion policy and the use of EU
funds. There had been a great deal of development in this period – both in positive
and negative terms. However, we must admit that in spite of the growing number of
positive cases and signs, there is still time left before we can learn all the lessons
on how to work together.
The political development in some countries has verifi ed our anxiety about the
attitudes of governments and politicians towards the broader involvement of civil
society in decision-making. Some optimism, however, may spring from the fact that
there are positive cases of cooperation even under these hard conditions. Such
cases are still in progress and we are planning to continue to follow them.
SFteam’s mission is to promote and support processes leading to the utilization
of structural funds with the aim of maintaining sustainable development. We are
convinced that the involvement of non-profi t civil organizations in decision-making
and partnership is the essential requirement for such processes. Since we are at
the beginning of the programming of the next fi nancial period for EU funds (2014 –
2020), we believe that our publication will help all our colleagues in CEE countries as
well as our partners at the institutions and other stakeholders to set up meaningful
and fruitful processes in their countries.
SFteam is a network of non-profi t organizations from Bulgaria, the Czech Republic,
Hungary, Latvia, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, and Slovakia. I would hereby
like to express my gratitude to our partners, and also thank for the data, with the
help of which I could compile this publication.
Sofi a, 29th April 2011
Petko Kovachev
4
The Approach
The partner organizations of SFteam in Central and Eastern Europe (in Bulgaria,
the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Poland, Romania, and Slovakia) participated
in the research.
At the fi rst stage, the team discussed the basic issues – goal, themes, organisation
of work, and created the work plan.
The partners searched for cases not only from the experience of their own
organisations, but also looked at examples of partnership practice in a broader
range of environmental and other NGO communities in their countries and provided
a description of the cases they were aware of. Although there have not been many
such cases so far, we expect that good practices will grow in number with the
progress of operational programmes.
Each partner prepared case studies, based on which the editor then compiled short
introductory texts on each theme. Apart from these cases, further information was
collected and used about other activities related to participation of NGOs in EU
funds - from the editor’s own experience, SFteam partners and desk research.
5
List of Abbreviations
CAP
Common Agricultural Policy
CBA
cost-benefi t analysis
CEE
Central and Eastern Europe
CF
Cohesion Fund
CRESC
Regional Steering Committee (RO)
CSO
Civil Society Organisation
CSUEUF
Coalition for Sustainable Use of EU funds (BG)
EAB
Environmental Advisory Board (LT)
EC
European Commission
EE
energy effi ciency
EIA
environmental impact assessment
EP
European Parliament
ERDF
European Regional Development Fund
ESF
European Social Fund
EU
European Union
IA
impact assessment
JROP
Joint Regional Operational Programme
LAG
Local Action Group (LEADER approach)
MA
Managing Authority
MC
Monitoring Committee
MOEW
Ministry of Environment and Waters
NDP
National Development Plan
NGOs
Non Governmental Organizations
NSC
National Society of Conservationists
NSRF
National Strategic Reference Framework
NTNP
National Thematic Network for Partnership (PL)
OP
Operational Programme
RES
Renewable Energy Source
ROP
Regional Operational Programme
SCF
Structural and Cohesion Funds
SEA
strategic environmental assessment
SF
Structural Funds
SFteam
Structural Funds Team for Sustainable Future
SNER
systems for nomination and election of representatives
UMIS
Unifi ed Management Information System
WFD
Water Framework Directive
WG
working group
6
Executive Summary
The third report of the SFteam on implementation of the partnership principle with
regard to the use of EU funds in CEE countries comes in the middle of the fi nancial
period 2007 – 2013, thus provides relevant information on the implementation of
this important tool for EU policies. It may also serve as a guide for groups which
monitor EU fi nancial assistance on local, national or international levels.
In the fi rst two reports (20041, 20092), our experiences regarding the application
of the partnership principle are summarised and used to shed light on practices
that were found controversial or problematic. With the present report in general,
we decided to take a positive approach and show examples of good practice and
its benefi ts. Still it is to be admitted that there are hardly any cases that could be
considered a hundred percent positive; one could always identify points or factors
worth improving. Nonetheless, we hope that this collection of cases will give some
incentive for the adaptation of good practice examples to national conditions and for
the implementation of partnership in a broader sense.
As described in our previous report,
“the demand for the implementation of a partnership principle in programmes
originates from several sources. One of them is the reformation of the
European administration, which has, for 8 years, been a priority of the
European Commission . The European Commission3 laid the EU under
an obligation to cooperate more closely with regional and local authorities,
and (besides these formal constructs) also with the wider civil society. This
cooperation is not intended to be one way and communication among
concerned parties should not be established merely for the implementation of
European policies, which have been already agreed.“
Two years after publishing this report, we could conclude that the partnership
principle was playing a more important role in programming, implementation and
monitoring of EU funds. No doubt, there is still a lot to be done in making partnership
a steady practice at all levels of governance and self-governance in our countries.
But we found some promising results of joint stakeholders activities in Poland,
Bulgaria, Hungary, Latvia, the Czech Republic, Romania and Slovakia. And even
further ones could not be included in the current report for various reasons. There
are cases in progress that may result in even better schemes of public involvement,
thus securing a higher impact of the use of public money.
1
Partnerships for Sustainable Development?, National Society of Conservationists, Budapest, 2004
2
Structural Funds and Partnership, Center for Community Organizing, Prague, 2009
3
See the White Book of the EC on European Control of Public Issues, 2001.
Examples of good practice that can already be highlighted in the middle of the
7
fi nancial period include the initiative of the Marshal’s Offi ce of the Lodz region
(Lodzkie voivodship) to introduce a model for participation of NGOs in regional annual
action plans, which was subsequently recommended by the Polish government to
be implemented in all regions as a good practice (see theme 3). Another case, also
from Poland, is the establishment of the National Thematic Network for Partnership
(NTNP) in June 2010 by the Coordinating Committee for the National Strategic
Framework 2007-2013. The aim of the Network is to provide concrete support for
the members of Monitoring Committees (MCs), especially to those which represent
socio-economic partners. The aim of the support is to make their activities more
effective and eliminate problems related to the implementation of structural funds in
Poland. (see theme 2)
Authorities in the Czech Republic and Hungary also devoted some resources to
support the involvement of NGOs in issues related to EU funds.
After 12 years of campaigning, there has been some positive progress in the
well-known case of Kresna gorge in Bulgaria. Following the initiative of Bulgarian
authorities, the long-tunnel option for the NATURA 2000 zone of the gorge has been
accepted and a special monitoring committee for the project (Struma motorway, part
of TEN-T corridor No 4) is going to be established.
Of course, we see the existing weaknesses and problems hindering broader and
deeper partnership in CEE, too. While civil society is under pressure by the crisis
on the one hand, on the other hand, government initiatives for a “strong state” have
gained momentum, including the more centralised management of the shrinking
fi nancial resources. But hard times are also the best ones to motivate civil groups
for leadership and be active in proposing positive solutions for the problems.
It is not surprising that most of the partnership schemes described in the cases
were initiated and promoted by civil society. We are aiming to acknowledge our
colleagues’ efforts in all countries of the region to introduce innovative practices for
meaningful partnership for better and sustainable use of EU funds. Such practices
would also easily serve the general transition towards post-crisis states and the EU
in general.
Even with this promising background, we still have to voice our concerns regarding
attempts of authorities which would ruin existing good practices. One such example
is that of the Ministry of Environment and Waters in Bulgaria which, by disregarding
the established internal election system of environmental NGOs, would open the
door for the participation of “NGOs” representing corporate or political interests.
8
To make the examples of good practice more useful, we combined them in seven
thematic groups:
Access to information;
Bottom-up and coordinated planning;
Participation in programming;
Financing for sustainability;
Delegation in committees;
Participation of NGOs in project evaluation;
Cooperation among NGOs.
Each theme starts with an introduction that summarises the fi ndings from the
experience of the SFteam members.
The following messages may be gathered from the case studies:
•
The partnership between NGOs and institutions is still mainly a result
of civil initiatives, but there are examples of good cases on activities
initiated by various authorities, too.
•
Effective, formally organised schemes for partnership often result
from single issue projects or programmes, not from long theoretical
debates.
•
Partnership principle is not yet effectively implemented in the
development phase of regional policy. This is a crucial problem, as EU
funds should be planned on the basis of or alongside regional plans
and strategies. This is to be a great opportunity to spread partnership
on local and regional levels, to promote real decentralisation in the
planning of needs and funds that would support solutions for them.
•
Within the partnership initiatives, NGOs, (or CSOs in a broader
sense) may provide very good expertise in a number of areas related
to EU funding:
•
independent monitoring and control;
•
qualifi ed experts in regional planning, programming of OPs, project
and programme evaluation;
•
various services under outsourcing schemes (e.g. social issues);
•
managing projects in specifi c areas, e.g., nature protection;
•
moderating dialogue and communication with communities
concerned, etc.
•
For a fruitful partnership, it is crucial that all partners be treated equally
– providing information in time and in full scale, equal opportunities
for comments and other input, taking these alternative proposals as
seriously as the ones that come from institutions, etc.
It is worth discussing further whether a more balanced structure of
9
working groups, monitoring committees or other bodies with more
representatives of stakeholders (e.g. 50:50 percent) would improve
the work on EU funds in our countries.
The rest of the fi ndings, conclusions and recommendations of the SFteam can be
found in the presented themes and case studies.
Let me again refer back to the previous SFteam report:
“Partnership principle became one of the key principles of EU cohesion
policy. Based on this principle, the partners take part in programming,
implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of cohesion policy on more levels
(regional, national and multinational) and by involving more participants
(local/regional authorities, private organizations and organizations of civil
society). Partnership principle again gained importance when the fi nancial
and operational framework for regional policy for the 2007–2013 period was
established. It also includes organizations and civil societies, ecological
partners, non-governmental partners, and authorities responsible for equality
between women and men.” 4
The cases SFteam partners observed in 2010 – 2011 fully reaffi rm this conclusion.
Nowadays CEE countries face the next challenge: to organise and conduct the
programming of EU funding for their second full fi nancial cycle (2014 – 2020) on the
basis of lessons learnt in the last 7 years. Having in mind the vast number of recent
problems, partly resulting from the global crisis and further economic challenges,
like the energy crisis between the EU and Russia, the nuclear disaster in Japan and
revision of the EU Common Agriculture Policy among others, partners of SFteam
are confi dent that effective and meaningful partnership would bring strong impetus
for the development of the regions towards an effective use of resources, thus
paving the path for sustainability.
4
See also paragraph 11 of General Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006.
10
Themes and Case Studies
Theme 1: Access to Information
Access to information is one of the most crucial tools for civil society to understand
whether authorities and businesses are making good or bad investments and
their potential impact on citizens and their lives. Timely access to information is a
precondition of meaningful public participation. Not surprisingly, EU is a member
of Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-
making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters. The EU’s own legislation
on Access to information5 existed even before the Convention itself was signed,
ratifi ed and put in force.
In the domain of EU funds, access to information is essential. The EU Regional
policy and related structural and Cohesion funds support projects with diverse,
but defi nitely signifi cant impact on the local, regional or national public. Therefore,
using the procedures for access to information, citizens and NGOs could analyse
independently potential benefi ts and losses, and to propose better alternatives at
an early stage.
Although SFteam found only one clear example of good access to information
(Slovakia), virtually all cases in this brochure include this topic in one way or
another. Moreover, the practice of NGOs that monitor EU funds countrywide show
that there is a growing number of good initiatives and practices, initiated by different
stakeholders. The problematic point is to turn those into a long-term steady practice
elsewhere.
The Slovak case seems to be an average one for CEE countries. Although authorities
are obliged by law to publish most of the documents regarding implementation and
control of EU funds, there are many obstacles preventing access to information
about EU funded projects and the processes of monitoring and implementation.
Current development in the country shows the progress towards more transparency
through a greater level of active publishing of information. However, barriers still
exist that prevent access to information by citizens.
The situation is more or less the same in Bulgaria, where the Law on access to public
information and the respective chapters of the Law on environmental protection
(dealing with the Aarhus convention) provides very good opportunities for citizens.
5
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the freedom of access to information on the
environment
However, under the disguise of the Law on classifi ed information, institutions are
11
trying to keep information they feel would be used against them away from the
greater public.
In mid-2010, the Unifi ed Management Information System (UMIS) was launched in
Bulgaria and subsequently its public window was also activated. It is a good step
towards the transparency of EU-funded projects.
SCFs in Hungary are also managed by a UMIS system (called EMIR). Several of its
functions are publicly accessible through the website of the National Development
Agency, the central coordinating government institution of EU funds. E.g., JELEK
system, based on GIS, UMIS and offi cial social and economic statistical data, makes
it possible to create reports about the use of EU funds since 2004 on a territorial and
funding scheme basis. The data analysed and presented there include the number
of project proposals submitted and awarded, as well as the amount of funding
applied for and granted. The system also gives access to the description of each
funded project. Another function provides a search opportunity in the database of
fi nanced projects. Here, along with basic information about the projects (benefi ciary,
name of project, amount, timeline), a short description of contracted activities and,
in some cases, even the names of the members of the project evaluation committee
are published.
Whether you have regional cooperation between civil society and institutions in
Poland or Hungary, participation in programming (Bulgaria), or campaigns against
bad infrastructure projects, funded with EU money, NGOs deserve information to
make their impact valuable. It is not easy to summarise various types of cooperation
or lack of it between civil groups and institutions, it would take pages to do so. The
variety of relations regarding EU funds and access to information, however, helps to
set up a short list of achievements, problems and recommendations.
On the basis of our long-term work and experience, we may summarise the following
achievements, problems and recommendations for improving the working of EU
funds with the public.
Achievements:
•
legislation on access to information exists in all new MC’s;
•
Aarhus Convention is in force;
•
there are experienced civil groups and individuals; which are, in all
countries, supported by lawyers with good qualifi cations in the access
to information;
12
•
NGOs are able to cooperate with EU institutions when governments/
regional authorities deny information;
•
the media are in constant search for cases that are lost and justice is
prevented due to non-access to information;
•
the costs of meeting requests for public information are typically low.6
In some countries, NGOs even enjoy some allowance in this regard.
The costs of court cases against information denial are also generally
low in most countries.
Problems:
•
governments often do not provide „passive“ information (obligatory
publications, registers, etc.);
•
too broad defi nitions of terms like „national security“, „business and/
or trade confi dentiality“ attempt to hide sensitive information on
environmental, social and fi nancial problems;
•
often the rule of overriding public interest is not used;
•
institutions do their best to delay information in order to cover some
occurring problems.
Recommendations:
•
institutions should make an effort to fulfi l their obligations to provide
as much passive information as possible;
•
clear and straightforward defi nitions should be provided for national
security, business and trade confi dentiality;
•
the rule of overriding public interest should be obligatory in all court
cases against the denial of information;
•
no confi dentiality should exist for public utilities and national/regional
monopolies, funded by public money;
•
there should be a rule not to use EU money for programmes/projects
that deny access to information.
6
It is only in some isolated cases that data owners abuse their position by imposing extreme costs.
Case Study (Slovakia):
13
Access to Information on the Implemen-
tation of EU Funds in Slovakia
Background
Effective public control depends on detailed information about the activities
and decisions carried out by public authorities and projects fi nanced by funds.
Although authorities are obliged by law to publish most of the documents regarding
implementation and control of EU funds, there are many obstacles to gain
access to information about EU funded projects and the process of monitoring
and implementation of EU funds. Current development in Slovakia shows the
progress towards more transparency through a greater level of active publishing of
information. Even with these steps, barriers exist preventing access to information
for citizens, which are summarized in this case study.
Publishing of Information
Low accessibility of information is one of the key issues that hinder the monitoring
of the implementation of EU funds. Civic control of funds is often hampered by
the lack of information about the projects, the activities and decisions of ministries,
monitoring and evaluation committees. Slovak citizens have two ways of obtaining
information that is not published on the web of the OPs:
A. Through requests for information.
B. Through the central registry of contracts.
A. Information requests:
In accordance with the Law on free access to information, passed in 2000, state
bodies, self-governing bodies and other public institutions are obliged to provide
any information at their disposal when requested, with the exception of classifi ed
information (state or trade secret or copyrights). Information can be requested by
any citizen without stating their purpose.
14
Thanks to this mechanism, citizens and NGOs are able to obtain detailed information
about approved projects, which would otherwise be inaccessible to them. In practice,
there are, however, various problems in obtaining information. Offi cial bodies in
some cases refuse to provide information referring to trade secrets and copyrights,
or stating that they don’t have the information in the form and structure required.
B. Publishing of State Contracts:
In 2010, as an effort to increase transparency of the utilisation of public fi nance, an
obligation for all public bodies and institutions to publish all their contracts related
to public procurement was put into practice by a series of act amendments. This
dramatically improved accessibility of information on EU funds.
A central registry of contracts was launched in January 2011. Citizens may fi nd
prompt information on what amount and under what conditions is being spent, for
example, on technical assistance. The validity of all contracts is dependent on being
published in the register. This also refers to contracts with fi nancial contribution from
EU funds. The contract between the provider and the benefi ciary has a standard
form and doesn’t include any detailed information about the project. However, one
of the appendices, the so-called “subject of support” contains information on the
goals and targets of the project, the activities, the impact and output indicators, as
well as the budget overview.
Conclusions
Compared to the level of information provision before 2010 (the majority of MAs
published only the project title, the applicant and the amount applied for), the reform
presents a great progress. There is still need for some information necessary to
evaluate the quality and effi ciency of projects thoroughly. The information needed
includes: the project summary which is a part of the project application, and contains
the justifi cation of the project, the description of activities, outputs and results, as
well as a detailed budget.
Theme 2: Bottom-up and coordinated planning
15
This chapter consists of two closely related sub themes: “Coordination between
local/regional and national priorities, cooperation between these levels” and
“Bottom-up planning of programmes/participation in programming”. The cases for
both themes came from Poland, which is another reason to treat them in one
chapter.
Coordination between Local /
Regional and National Priorities,
Cooperation between these Levels
Coordination between local and regional priorities on the one hand and national
ones on the other hand is not well developed in the new Member states. Having a
long-lasting tradition of centralization in political life and the economy, some time
would be needed to accomplish the total decentralisation of decision-making and
realize meaningful coordination between local/regional and national priorities.
Well managed cooperation between the two (or three) levels of territorial
administration (and therefore, appropriate defi nition and implementation of their
priorities) is a key to a good regional policy. Regional policy is the one, in which
local and regional priorities are defi ned, strategised, prioritised and implemented.
Financial planning and sources are also done on this level.
A recent study in Bulgaria shows that there hasn’t been any coherent approach
between regional policy planning and programming of EU funds. This situation
led to a lot of confusion, preventing bottom-up approach and resulting in many
problems between Managing Authorities, Monitoring Committees and local/regional
authorities all having their own plans, expectations and political games.
Our team hasn’t been able to fi nd many examples of good cooperation between
these two (or three) levels. The case chosen from Poland shows, however, that it
is possible to organise positive and feasible partnership initiatives/schemes across
programmes, in particular, EU-funded ones.
16
The National Thematic Network for Partnership (NTNP) was established in June
2010 by the
Coordinating Committee for the National Strategic Framework 2007-
2013. The Network will be in force till the end of the current programming period.
The aim of the Network is to provide concrete support for the members of Monitoring
Committees (MCs), especially those, which represent socio-economic partners. The
aim of the support is to make their activities more effective and eliminate problems
connected with the implementation of structural funds in Poland. The term “socio-
economic partners” includes employers’ and employees’ unions, non-governmental
organizations and representatives of academic institutions. They make up about
30% of the members of the Polish MCs.
The NTNP focuses on all stakeholders in the Monitoring Committees and is aimed
to promote partnership among the members of the MCs, working out tools for
partnership, opening room for a wider discussion on structural funds, increasing
effectiveness of all stakeholders, monitoring the legislation on regional development,
etc.
Started as an answer to the problem of the low sense of infl uence on real decision-
making among the civic and social representatives of MCs, the NTNP got the
support of the Coordinating Committee of the NSRF and the
Polish Ministry for
Regional Development. The costs of the Network are covered from the
Technical
Assistance Operational Program 2007-2013.
A very important side effect of the Network is that it is likely to strengthen the entire
civil society in Poland indirectly, where (as in all ex-communist countries) the lack
of trust in relations between different groups and institutions can still be recognised.
One of the advantages of the Network is that it provides six practicable instruments:
•
a national annual conference;
•
regional meetings – held every 2/3 months in one of the 16 Polish
regions;
•
analysis and expertise (thematic studies);
•
competition for the monitoring committee with best partnership
practices
•
horizontal exchange of information using the Knowledge Base,
administered by the Ministry for Regional Development;
•
various educational activities, depending on needs.
NGOs and other stakeholders are awaiting the results of this experiment. 150 out of
17
about 800 people are already involved in the Network and the ambitious plan is to
involve all members of the MCs and their alternates, as well.
Recommendations
Ultimately, SFteam calls on all governments to synchronise the processes of
developing regional policies in their countries with the programming of EU funds
both on framework and operational levels. The principles of the recommended
synchronisation are:
•
strong regional policy oriented towards sustainable development of
regions and communities;
•
decentralisation of responsibilities, rights and obligations in developing
regional policies;
•
bottom-up planning of both regional development and funding (incl.
EU funding) as much as appropriate;
•
continuous coordination.
18
Case Study (Poland):
National Thematic Network for
Partnership – Bottom-up Initiative
to Enhance Partnership across
EU-funded Programmes
The National Thematic Network for Partnership was established in June 2010 by
the Coordinating Committee for the National Strategic Framework 2007-2013.
The Network is to be in force till the end of the current programming period. The
aim of the Network is to provide concrete support for the members of Monitoring
Committees (MCs), especially those which represent socio-economic partners. The
aim of the support is to make their activities more effective and eliminate problems
connected to the implementation of structural funds in Poland. The term ‘socio-
economic partners’ includes employers’ and employees’ unions, non-governmental
organizations and representatives of academic institutions. They make up about
30% of the members of the Polish MCs.
The operational objectives of the Network are as follows:
•
popularisation of the idea of partnership among members of
Monitoring Committees,
•
working out a system of instruments for implementing the partnership
principle,
•
providing opportunity for a wider discussion of important and urgent
issues related to structural funds,
•
increasing the effectiveness of the participation of socio-economic
partners, the government, regional and local authorities in MCs,
•
strengthening the relations between social and civil partners in order
to avoid neglecting important civil and social needs,
•
raising public acceptance of the decisions of the MCs and the activities
of the institutions in the context of cohesion policy,
•
monitoring legislation on regional development, especially the
elements concerning partnership,
•
working out recommendations.
The National Thematic Network for Partnership was established as an answer to the
19
problem of low sense of infl uence on real decision-making among civic and social
representatives of MCs. The
Working Group for Civil Society within the
Coordinating
Committee of National Strategic Reference Framework decided to address this
issue. The
Polish Ministry for Regional Development gave its strong support for the
establishment of the Network. It is to be mentioned that the costs of maintaining
the Network are covered by the Ministry by the Technical Assistance Operational
Program 2007-2013.
The Network also strives to strengthen the entire civil society in Poland indirectly. In
a country with a communist heritage, the lack of trust in relations between different
groups can still be felt.
The fi rst step for the solution of this problem came in the form of a training course
organized by the Working group and the Ministry for Regional Development
in 2009. About 10% of the civil and social partners – members of the MCs –
participated in this event. The conference set a precedent. It was the fi rst meeting
of the representatives of NGOs, employers’ and employees’ unions as well as
representatives of the academic circles from all over Poland, where they had an
opportunity to talk and share experiences. The meeting focused on important issues
for the entire Operational Program 2007-2013. At the end of the conference, the
opinions of the participants were summed up as recommendations in the following
fi elds:
•
civil society,
•
selection criteria of projects,
•
evaluation,
•
equal treatment/gender policy.
However, the most important recommendation was the idea of establishing the
National Thematic Network for Partnership.
Authors of the recommendations declared their willingness to cooperate more
deeply in supporting partnership in the implementation of public policies. Their
previous experience showed that partnership between public administration and civil
institutions was effective only by means of wide consultation, respect for partners,
autonomy, as well as inclusion in the system of decision making. That is why the
objective behind the creation of the Network was the provision of an instrument
of permanent exchange of information and experiences, as well as promotion of
good practices that strengthen the role of socio-economic partners in programming,
implementation and evaluation of public policies, especially structural funds on
every level of implementation.
20
In order to carry these out, the Network has six instruments:
•
a national annual conference on various aspects of partnership (the
fi rst took place in October 2010, the second is planned for the fi rst
half of 2011),
•
regional meetings – held every 2/3 months in one of the 16 Polish
regions, meetings are dedicated to actual diffi culties in the work of
members of MCs, training, workshops and exchange of experiences
(the fi rst was held in November 2010 in Lodz, 4 more are scheduled
for 2011),
•
analysis and expertise – possibility to order thematic studies,
•
competition for monitoring committees to identify the best application
of the partnership principle,
•
horizontal exchange of information - using the Knowledge Base
administrated by the Ministry for Regional Development,
•
other educational activities, depending on needs.
The Network is still in its start-up phase. So far about 150 people attended the
Network meetings. They gradually tap into the information system. There are an
estimated 800 members of the MCs and their alternates which represent socio-
economic partners. At the same time, some people are members of several
committees.
It seems that the greatest potential lies in the regional meetings that the Network
organises. Each of these is attended by up to 80 people. Meetings are devoted to
current problems with the implementation of European funds in a particular region,
partnership principle, issues of gender mainstreaming and equal opportunities,
sustainable development and civil dialogue.
Each regional meeting is open to all socio-economic partners from all committees
in Poland, but also to representatives of public administration, especially from the
particular region. The meetings concentrate on raising awareness as well as on
information exchange between participants. The idea of the meetings is to develop
solutions and recommendations for problematic issues, both on a general level and
for a particular program.
The National Thematic Network for the Partnership is an example of real-life
implementation of partnership and good governance principles. This type of
mechanism should be used more widely, because it builds trust between the
partners in dialogue and is an investment in social capital. Regarding threats to
the successful functioning of the network: one could be the insuffi cient use by the
socio-economic partners of the opportunities created, while another one could be
the tendency of authorities to limit its role. The practical results of the Network’s
operation can be evaluated during the year 2011.
21
Bottom-up Planning of Programmes and
Participation in Programming
The bottom-up planning of programmes seems to be a desired, but not yet
implemented tool for programming of operational programmes in new Member
countries. In spite the fact that some attempts were made in this direction (e.g.
partially in Bulgaria), the main approach still in use by governments is top-down. It is
the central governments that organise processes, and very often they are preparing
the legislative framework for programming without any consultation.
The stakeholders (local and regional authorities, NGOs, business associations,
etc.) are often involved at the stage of working groups that are to prepare the drafts
of the OPs. The case of Bulgaria between 2005-07 shows that all stakeholders
other than the central authorities were placed in front of a fait accompli with the
preliminary work of the ministries that they were not able to infl uence signifi cantly.
However, there is a good case of participation in programming of the European
Social Fund in the Lodzkie Region in Poland.
The detailed plan of spending, the fi nancial breakdown between fi elds of intervention,
their forms and amounts are decided in advance for every year. Goals and indicators
of the
Operational Program Human Capital give the overall framework. This program
manages the entire ESF allocation in Poland. Each of the sixteen Polish regions has
its own Monitoring Subcommittee, which is in charge of the regional component
of the annual
Action Plan of the OP Human Capital. A Monitoring Subcommittee
consists of representatives of both regional and government authorities as well as
representatives of socio-economic partners. This category includes NGOs, trade
unions, employers’ organizations and academic institutions. The actual participation
of these different groups varies across regions and primarily depends on the attitude
of the Marshal’s Offi ce.
After a few years of neglecting the impact of socio-economic partners in the region,
in 2009 about 30 NGOs participated in a consultative meeting on the draft Action
plan. They were listened to by the representatives of Marshal’s Offi ce, the Regional
Employment Offi ce and the Managing Authority. The proposals of the NGOs were
accepted almost fully, thus, opening a meaningful future cooperation for 2010 and
beyond.
22
Probably the best outcome of the case is that the Managing Authority of the OP
Human Capital reviewed the process in Lodzkie positively and recommended this
working method for Action Plans across all regions. But the cooperation among
national and regional NGOs and the approach of administration when civil partners
are taken seriously, are also to be sought after as good examples.
Recommendations
•
Cooperation among national and regional NGOs is useful in order
to channel information about planning processes among each other.
Their cooperation also has a potential to take joint and coordinated
action for common priorities at various levels.
•
Planning and programming should be carried out in a bottom-up
approach, where national plans rely on sub-regional and regional
planning which follow EU and national level guidelines and principles.
Adherence to national sustainable development strategies is a must.
Case Study (Poland):
23
Programming the European Social Fund
in the Lodzkie Region (Poland) – an
Example of Participatory Process
The European Social Fund in Poland is implemented both on central and regional
levels. The detailed plan of spending, the fi nancial breakdown between fi elds of
intervention, its forms and amounts are decided in advance for every year. Goals
and indicators of the Operational Program Human Capital provide the overall
framework. This program governs the entire ESF allocation in Poland. Planning on
the regional level must take into account the regional socio-economic circumstances,
e.g., unemployment rates or access to education on all levels. There are special
instruments for this annual programming called Action Plans. They are prepared by
the Monitoring Committee. In case of the regional component, each of the sixteen
Polish regions established its own Monitoring Subcommittee.
This body is responsible for the Action Plans for the particular region. The decisions
of the subcommittees need to be accepted by the central Monitoring Committee.
Final decisions regarding the Action Plans are adopted in late autumn each year.
The work on their development takes months.
The Intermediate Authority responsible for the implementation of the regional
component of the OP Human Capital in each (self-governed) region is the
Marshal’s Offi ce (provincial government). Thus, the Marshal (provincial governor)
is the Chairman of the Monitoring Subcommittee. The Monitoring Subcommittee
consists of representatives of both the regional and government authorities as well
as representatives of socio-economic partners. This category includes NGOs, trade
unions, employers’ organizations and academic institutions. The actual participation
of these different groups varies across regions and primarily depends on the attitude
of the Marshal’s Offi ce.
The system of programming the regional component of Human Capital evolved
in an interesting way in the Lodzkie region. In the fi rst few years of the Program’s
implementation, regional authorities restrained the socio-economic partners’ impact
on the fi nal shape of the annual Action Plan. In fact, consultation was limited to a
few hours of discussion during the Subcommittee meeting. In addition, the MS had
24
to work under time pressure because the Marshal’s Offi ce had little time to negotiate
the proposal with the Managing Authority.
In October 2009, representatives of the Regional NGO Council in Lodzkie, who
participate in the Subcommittee held a consultation meeting on the draft of the
Action Plan for 2010. The Council received organizational and fi nancial support
from the Polish Federation of NGOs. About 30 NGOs from the region attended
the meeting. The draft Action Plan was presented by representatives of two offi ces
responsible for the implementation of the regional component of the OP Human
Capital (Marshal’s Offi ce and the Regional Employment Offi ce). Representatives
of the Managing Authority and the Federation of NGOs were invited to the meeting
as advisors and observers. The purpose of the meeting was to conduct a real
public consultation, based on discussion and dialogue. Representatives of the non-
governmental sector actively discussed and presented a number of proposals. Most
of them concerned the importance of the points for meeting strategic criteria used
in competitions for grants. Three days after the Monitoring Subcommittee meeting,
all the recommendations were formally accepted by non-governmental members
and included into the fi nal version of the document that was sent to the Managing
Authority.
This meeting set a precedent. It allowed both parties to see and understand the
conditions under which both of them operate. The following year, the Marshal’s
Offi ce began working on the Action Plan already in spring. In April, the consultative
conference was organized. It was attended by around 100 people. Among others,
the Deputy Marshal, the Deputy Director of the Managing Authority, the Chairman
of the Regional NGOs Council in Lodzkie and a representative of the Federation
participated. As previously, a lively discussion took place. In 2010, a working group
was established by the Subcommittee to work on an Action Plan. Consultation of
different kinds (in writing, through a website, in meetings) went on from spring to late
autumn and satisfi ed every partner in the process.
The example of Lodzkie showed how much could be achieved through the combined
forces of national and regional NGO federations. The other important factor is the
high activity and initiative of NGO representatives in committees. And last but not
least, administration must devote time and attention to treat civic partners seriously.
Consultation carried out this way doesn’t result in decision paralysis. This argument
is often used as a reason for the limited use of such methods. The added value
of the process is the building of social capital, leading even towards trust in state
institutions.
The Managing Authority of OP Human Capital positively reviewed the process in
25
Lodzkie and recommended this working method on Action Plans across all regions.
The experience gained in the region has also been used by the National Thematic
Network for Partnership. The Network is currently (January 2011) working on the
standardization of the schedule for the development of the annual regional Action
Plan for ESF. The model was prepared on the basis of the process in Lodzkie.
The approach applied in Lodzkie to the development of the Action Plan, especially
the process of opening it to different groups and their representatives, is an example
of good practice. Making the discussion on the Action Plan broader and the inclusion
of many stakeholders interested in the region’s development, not only members of
the Subcommittee, result in better procedures and requirements that fi t potential
benefi ciaries. The disadvantage of the method could be a possible threat of some
institutions or people having more infl uence on the fi nal shape of the Action Plan
than others, as well as the dependence of the success on the activity and interest of
the members of the Monitoring Subcommittee.
26
Theme 3: Participation in Programming
Environmental NGOs from new member countries had been prepared for the
programming for 2007 – 2013 well in advance. The leading among them were
mainly national groups of the CEE Bankwatch Network and FOE-Europe, as well
as some powerful local groups of the environmental and social movement (eg. in
Romania). Often these groups formed coalitions (Bulgaria, Latvia, Hungary) and
join their capacity and expertise for better participation in the programming. In
Latvia there was also strong cooperation between NGOs working on environmental,
education, gender and social issues. They informed each other about key positions
and challenges in each sector and attempted to coordinate their demands. This
approach of coordinating demands prevented NGOs from different sectors to come
up with contradicting proposals, but instead reinforced each others’ demands.
Meaningful and democratic public participation hasn’t had long-lasting traditions
in CEE countries. The countries also vary in their legislative basis regarding
participation and in some countries (e.g., Romania) the procedures for civil
participation are not well established. Even in countries with advanced legislation,
there was general fear within the authorities to open the programming of EU funds
for a broad participation of the representatives of civil society.
Nevertheless, in spite of the general problems with programming in most of the
countries, it seems that participation in the process concluded with a number of
positive examples and lessons learned.
The most important one is that NGOs – being only generally prepared for
participation in an otherwise unfamiliar process driven by different and sometimes
contradictory interests – achieved everything mainly on account of their self-
organisation and their own initiatives. Whether it was pressure on offi cials to accept
civil representatives (Bulgaria), protests (Romania), advocacy work (Hungary),
participation in formal consultation meetings (Poland) or a mixture of all these and
even further approaches – civil groups managed to fulfi ll achievements due to their
own active and continuous hard work. In general, even many institutional players
recognised these achievements as of common benefi t.
Some of these achievements are:
•
improvement of the governmental internet tool for public consultation
(Hungary);
•
model case for participation of NGOs in regional annual action plans,
later on recommended by the authorities to be implemented by all
regions as good practice (Poland);
•
NGOs and Ministry of Environment supported each others’ ideas
27
(Latvia);
•
special information website with time-line of the programming process
and important deadlines, draft documents, meetings comments from
line ministries, NGOs and the European Commission (Latvia);
•
miscellaneous achievements in the development of OPs (Bulgaria,
Romania), etc.
One defi nite success was that more and broader information than ever was
disclosed to and discussed with CSOs and other stakeholders. We hope that
institutions learnt their lesson: timely disclosure of information during the debates
on strategic documents, plans and programmes helps to fi nd better solutions and
make things work.
Not all of these achievements are perfect or stable throughout the years; at the
end of the day the new programming process for post-2014 EU funding will prove
their stability or otherwise. However, it is clear that good organisation and good
arguments by civil society could bring about better and more open procedures and
could improve the contents of the programmes.
It is very important to point out that in some countries (Bulgaria, Hungary) NGOs
organised their own system for the internal and independent election of the
representatives of civil society in the working groups and/or committees. Though
some of the responsible institutions in different countries did not make use of the
system in selecting representatives of NGOs, it is proven that this is one of the best
practical achievements of civil society elsewhere.
The fact that consultation in some countries or between some institutions and CSOs
went beyond formalities also presents the way the work could be done easier, faster
and without trouble or hesitation by most of the parties.
The main diffi culty for non-governmental stakeholders in participation seems to
be the unclear approach of the programming. There were cases of processes
and procedures organised top-down and bottom-up (and in various mixtures)
that confused communities and NGOs. In fact, it is very natural that some of the
activities are done one way, while others the other way. One cannot plan the national
transport system bottom-up. By the same token, the top-down planning of local and
regional goals would be almost disastrous. Therefore, a preliminary schedule for
the organisation of the different processes within the frame of the programming,
made available to all participants in due time would improve the meaningful input
of all parties.
28
A problem still exists with the inclusion of representatives of civil society (except for
trade unions and employees’ associations) within the “social and economic partners”
category. Poland is a single positive example, while other CEE governments are
reluctant to take this step in favour of civil society.
A long-lasting problem is rooted in the internal and external limitations of the NGO
sector. This theme would require a study on its own. However, it is to be mentioned
here that any participatory process (and the programming of EU funds is not an
exception) brings a major risk when pushing NGOs towards being providers of
services and consultants, thus diminishing and marginalising their role as watchdogs
and keepers of public interest, even though both processes and functions are
essential. This risk is recognised by some authorities (e.g., in Bulgaria). The solution
must be found before this risk turns into reality.
The experience on cross-sectoral communication and coordination between NGOs
gained in Latvia is used nowadays in Bulgaria, where a wide network of various
NGOs and civil coalitions joined forces to participate in the programming for 2014
– 2020 fi nancial period.
Case Study (Romania):
29
Successful Intervention of the
Representatives of NGOs in the
Regional Operational Program ax 1.1
in the Region of Central
Transylvania, Romania
In the framework of the Regional Operational Program (ROP) ax 1.1, approximately
14 million Euros were allocated to the town of Târgu Mureş to support the
implementation of the Integrated Urban Development Plan (IUDP), which was to be
elaborated in cooperation with local stakeholders. As a result of the intervention of
the representatives of NGOs in the Regional Steering Committee (CRESC), public
participation in the elaboration of the IUDP was signifi cantly improved.
The budget of the ROP ax 1.1. was established to give fi nancial support for the
specifi c needs of towns for their development. The condition for the allocation of the
money was the realization of an integrated development plan, which also represented
the long term vision of the development of the town. For the establishment of a long
term vision, the participation of the public at large is absolutely necessary, because
the development plan has to be acknowledged by the population, not only by the
actual administration of the town.
Romania has no long tradition of public participation and the procedures are not
well established. Therefore, in this case the town administration (the town hall)
considered the opportunity of submitting a project just as a usual possibility and
decided to allocate the available sum to the construction of a road through the
town forest, a project which had been opposed by environmental organizations for
years. This proposal was communicated to the Regional Development Agency, and
the representatives of the NGOs from Mures County were informed about it at the
meeting of the Regional Steering Committee (CRESC).
30
The representatives of the NGOs in CRESC informed the NGOs about the proposal
of the town hall and the NGOs protested against the project. The representatives of
the NGOs in CRESC informed all parties involved about the controversial nature
of the project and that it was not a suitable proposal for this type of fi nancing line,
which was supposed to be based on the principle of wide consensus. Subsequently,
the town hall withdrew this proposal and submitted a different one.
The participation of the representatives of NGOs in the Steering Committee
(CRESC) can be very useful. It is our recommendation for Romanian NGOs in the
future to fi ght to become members in the CRESC in all regions, because this way
they can represent the interests of environmental NGOs, and may have an infl uence
on the development of their region.
Case Study (Bulgaria):
31
Participation in Programming: from
First Attempts (2005) towards
Meaningful Impact (2011)
In late 2004 some 10-15 environmental NGOs in Bulgaria got together to form a
coalition for participation in the programming of EU Structural funds for the 2007 –
2013 fi nancial period. They started a campaign for the inclusion of civil society and
managed to take part in three out of the eight working groups, two WGs on OPs and
the WG on NSRF, as well as in the WG on the National Plan for Rural Development.
The participation in the programming led to a number of small successes and a lot
more lessons were learned. Recently, a new study made by NGOs shows how the
lessons learnt could be used during the programming of Structural funds for the
2014 – 2020 period.
The fi rst meaningful attempt by the Bulgarian government to include various
stakeholders in the programming process opened new possibilities for environmental
groups in Bulgaria. Though environmental NGOs are not offi cially recognised as
“social partners” (are neither trade-unions or associations of employers), some of
the most active ones managed to organise themselves in a coalition and took part
in the programming process that happened in 2005 – 2007. NGOs were active in:
•
the working group for NSRF;
•
the working groups for OP Environment, OP Transport and the
National Plan for Rural Areas;
•
public meetings, the so-called Forums, which are a set of meetings
of all the WGs aimed at making the whole programming a coherent
process. The Forum-approach was fi nancially supported by the Swiss
government.)
The process itself was well structured from the beginning, with different stages, and
discussions after every stage among WGs, and cross-institutional communication
was urged unlike in most other cases... The implementation, however, was very
poor due to:
32
•
the lack of knowledge and experience about the process;
•
the lack of knowledge and experience about the essence and
requirements of the EU Cohesion Policy;
•
national elections and change of government in the middle of 2005;
•
problems among the institutions and within institutions;
•
incorrect political implications, etc.
In a working environment that may barely be called normal, participating NGOs tried
to focus on several issues, both on participation and on the aspect of problematic
contents.
There seemed to be quite many options for participation, not all of them democratic
enough. For example, some ministries invited NGOs to participate on their own,
bypassing the election procedure of environmental NGOs. There were even cases
when a single person was supposed to decide whom to invite. Nevertheless, there
were also positive examples (the WG on NSRF, the WG on OP Environment), where
the respective institutions not only formally ensured a slot for environmental NGOs,
but also actively made use of their expertise in formal and informal ways.
In the case of the WG of OP Environment, the representatives of NGOs supported
actively the proposals of the Ministry of Environment and Waters (MOEW) to focus
funding on infrastructure (such as waste water treatment and waste management
projects) under the “heavy directives” (WFD, Waste Directive) in order to be able to
meet the requirements of Chapter 22 of Bulgaria’s Accession Treaty.
At the same time, NGOs were the strongest proponents of the prioritisation of
biodiversity (protected areas and NATURA 2000), that wasn’t in the focus of others.
But as a result of the work of NGOs throughout the negotiations, biodiversity
was fi nally accepted as one of the three main priority areas (“axes”) of the OP
Environment.
NGOs opposed several other proposals, which were fi nally removed from the OP
Environment with semi-public support of the MOEW. These were the prioritisation
of mining waste, advocated very heavily by the mining industry (market distortions)
and the inclusion of support for renewable energy sources (RES) and energy
effi ciency (EE) in the OP, which was fi nally included in the OP Competitiveness by
the Ministry of Economy and Energy).
Unfortunately, due to the defi ciencies of the process and the pressure of time (the
33
end of 2006-beginning of 2007), NGOs were neglected at the last stage of the
programming. This led to some problems, like the inclusion of non-agreed projects
in the list of major projects by the OP Environment, and problems with the SEA of
the OPs).
Since the end of 2009, a group of NGOs, including CSUEUFB, OSI Bulgaria, Civil
Activity Forum and other social and childcare NGOs got together with the idea to
prepare themselves for participation in the upcoming programming of EU funds for
the 2014 – 2020 fi nancial period. As part of the preparatory work, a study analysing
the programming process for the 2007 – 2013 period was envisaged.
The study7 made by a team of experts at NGOs and freelancers, led by OSI Bulgaria,
concludes that the process was a big failure. First of all, there was no coherency
between regional policy planning (municipal, regional and NUTS 2 strategies) and
programming. This led to a number of discrepancies and contradictions between
the strategic documents and the OPs. Some of the recommendations also focus on
meaningful public participation, which would allow them not only to “participate”, but
to bring positive impact on the results.
The study also proposes an algorithm for better programming as such. Based on
this, the Coalition and the broader network of NGOs work on implementing the
ideas on civil participation in programming.
7
Konstantinov, Dragomir. (ed.) Challenges to the new programming of EU funds in Bulgaria after 2013
based on the analysis of the experience in 2007 – 2013, Sofi a, March, 2011. available at: http://www.
osf.bg/downloads/File/Fonds_after%202013_FINAL.pdf in Bulgarian
34
Case Study (Hungary):
Participation in Programming –
Consultation on Project Proposals
Since 2007, the National Development Agency in Hungary used to publish each call
for proposals for EU funds for public comments on the web, on one single website
(www.nfu.hu), prior to the opening of the call. This practice is the result of long-
term NGO advocacy and, despite its defi ciencies, one also has to acknowledge its
novelty and progressive features.
In 2007, the National Development Agency (government institution managing
EU funds) restructured its website and introduced a registration system for those
interested in EU funds issues. Registration was simple and accessible to anyone
with an internet access; the minimum information required was a name and an email
address. Giving the title, position, name, type and contact details of the organization
or the private person were optional. Those registered got regular notices about
documents newly opened for public consultation. Registration, however, was a
tool of convenience for the user only because anyone could fi nd and access the
documents published for consultation.
In 2007, the fi rst year of the new EU budgetary period, dozens of calls for proposals
were expected to be opened. After four years of varying transparency and public
consultation practices on programming documents, in 2007, the government
decided to publish the calls for proposals for EU funds on the National Development
Agency’s website for public consultation, prior to opening the call. The information
about a call usually included: the draft call itself, application guide, draft budget
form, project assessment and evaluation criteria. The Agency published Excel
questionnaires with sections dedicated to certain parts of the call (guide, form,
aims, benefi ciaries, fi nancial or selection criteria, budget etc.) to be fi lled in with
comments. The Agency also allocated an email address to each call to receive
and easily manage the comments from the public. Public consultation on a call
was usually open for about one or two weeks (not much but still something). After
concluding the debate, the Agency published a fi le with the comments received and
the responses of drafting experts. With the high number of calls published, it would
require a lengthy research to assess the level and scale of comments incorporated
or neglected.
In 2008, the National Development Agency gave a new function and meaning to
35
online registration; the documents open for public consultation could be commented
on through an online forum which required prior registration. This had the advantage
that those commenting could also refl ect on each others’ comments, while the
necessary registration probably made them “moderate” themselves as well. (One
could still anticipate that there was some internal moderation, too.) Unfortunately,
along with the introduction of this online forum-based consultation system, the
possibility of submitting comments through email was abolished (or not evident at
least). The same system continued operating ever since, with a single opportunity
to submit comments to calls for proposals through the online forum.
Another important feature of the online consultation was that one could and had
to chose from a pop-up menu on which document or chapter (just like in the
questionnaire above) of the call they wanted to comment on. This probably made
it easier for the drafting team to handle the comments on the one hand, but on
the other hand, it also limited the possibilities of commenting (e.g., no space for
comments on the general content or aim of the call).
One could think that the opening of calls for public consultation would result in
unmanageable amounts of comments. However, this was usually not the case. It
was probably due both to the high number of calls and the limited capacities of civil
society and the general public that they mostly commented on the few calls only
that were of major interest to them. Still, it was crucial to have the opportunity there.
Even if the internet is spreading more and more, there are still quite many (smaller
organisations especially) who don’t have access to it. There are even more,
who are hesitant to use the newest technologies such as commenting on online
forums. Therefore, decision-makers should consider offering the possibility of
email commenting along with the online forum for a further couple of years. Also,
partnership would be more intense if the conditions and proposals for major projects
were also subject to public consultation.
36
Case Study (Latvia):
NGO Participation in the Programming
Process of EU Funds for 2007-2013,
Latvia
Environmental NGOs in Latvia were actively and systematically involved in the
programming process of EU funds for the 2007-2013 period. National NGOs
cooperated in order to elaborate key demands and positions, coordinated their
position with NGOs from other sectors and then discussed proposals with the
Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Environment. NGOs used participation
opportunities that were provided but also acted proactively and organized advocacy
meetings, roundtables and seminars. Most of this activity took place in 2005 and
2006 with the aim to infl uence the National Strategic Reference Framework, three
operational programmes and their complements.
NGO Cooperation Platforms and Networking
Environmental NGOs started to get prepared for the EU funds programming process
in early 2005. NGOs started with learning about the EU funds programming process
in general, refl ected on lessons learned from the 2004-2006 national programming
period and then organized several meetings to build capacity. Inspired by the
experience of functioning NGO coalitions in other CEE countries and the international
NGO coalition on the sustainable use of EU funds, the Latvian environmental
NGOs established the national NGO coalition focused on environmental issues in
May 2005. There were about 8-10 environmental NGOs involved in the work of
the coalition actively and a few more NGOs were subscribed to receive regular
updates from the mailing list. Environmental NGOs met regularly and elaborated
their demands and positions on various issues.
During the programming process, there was also close cooperation between NGOs
across various sectors. NGOs working on environmental, education, gender and
social issues informed each other about key positions and challenges in each sector
and attempted to coordinate their demands. Several times these NGOs organized
joint advocacy meetings with the Ministry of Finance. This approach of coordinating
demands prevented NGOs from different sectors to come up with contradicting
proposals but instead, reinforced each others’ demands.
In addition to national networks, international networking also played a crucial role.
37
The environmental NGO coalition used position papers prepared by the international
coalition on the sustainable use of EU funds. Several position papers were translated
into Latvian and international NGO demands were adapted to the Latvian situation.
Three members of the Latvian NGO coalition, namely, Green Liberty, Latvian Green
Movement and WWF Latvia were directly involved in international networking.
Having better understanding of programming related processes within the European
Commission, equipped with the arguments of the international NGO coalition and
knowing the situation on home grounds were preconditions that allowed successful
involvement in national programming.
NGO Focus and Key Demands
Key NGO demands were formulated around fi nancing for nature protection
measures, sustainable tourism, renewable energy and energy effi ciency measures,
support for implementation of requirements of EU Water framework directive
requirements and supporting waste hierarchy as well as putting forward demands
for horizontal integration of sustainable development. NGOs also advocated for the
inclusion of various soft measures such as trainings, capacity buildings, monitoring
and similar support activities to foster the implementation of EU requirements in
the fi eld of environment. On the other hand, environmental NGOs also observed
whether environmentally harmful infrastructure projects were programmed and
voiced their concerns about some of them. Thus, NGOs focused their efforts on
commenting the NSRF as well as the OP “Infrastructure and services”.
Representatives of the national NGO coalition organised meetings with offi cials of
the Ministry of Finance, distributed information and prepared comments on the draft
documents. On several occasions, the Ministry of Finance even took the initiative to
invite offi cials from Ministry of Environment also to these meetings with the NGOs in
order to be able to discuss various issues on the spot. At times, the NGOs proposed
new activities and sought support from the Ministry of Environment, while on
several occasions the Ministry of Environment sought the support of environmental
NGOs to reinforce measures that the ministry proposed. This process, however,
makes it diffi cult to make statistics on how many NGO comments were taken into
account, because participation had a nature of constant interaction between NGO
representatives and ministries. Direct meetings and exchange of opinions took
place throughout 2005 and 2006 until the end of the active programming process.
There is however also criticism about the lack of advocacy on allowing NGOs to
be benefi ciaries in many programmed activities. Indeed, during the programming
38
process environmental NGOs did not have particular focus on ensuring that NGOs
could be benefi ciaries. This appeared to be a problem during the implementation
phase, when NGOs were not eligible as applicants in many activities. This should
be taken as a lesson learned for upcoming programming.
Structures for Involvement and Procedures
The success of NGO involvement was partly due to the opportunities provided
by the structures of participation such as proper information tools, participation
procedures such as the public consultation process on draft documents and the
strategic environmental impact assessment. However, the openness and willingness
to cooperate on the part of the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Environment
was perhaps more important.
The Ministry of Finance, which was responsible for the programming process,
provided structural support for the involvement of NGOs. At the start of the
programming process, a special website was created (www.esfondi.lv), where all
information related to the programming of EU funds was published – the time-line
of the programming process and important deadlines, draft documents, meeting
comments from line ministries, NGOs and the European Commission. The
publication of the programming time-line was of particular importance – clarifying
it for NGOs and allowing time for the preparation of planning and allocating the
necessary capacities. This website still continues to function and has been extended
to include documents for monitoring and implementation and other EU funds related
information and links can be found.
As for meetings between NGOs and ministries, those were demand-oriented, i.e.,
NGOs proposed to have consultation meetings and the Ministry of Finance was
responsive towards NGO requirements for information and advocacy meetings.
Also the fact that the offi cial consultation process (on NSRS, OPs and strategic
environmental assessment) went beyond formalities, i.e., all received comments
were listed in one document (including comments from NGOs) and then later
separate consultation meetings were organised with those who submitted comments
to discuss the comments one by one. This highlights the commitment of the ministry
towards meaningful participation.
Conclusions
39
•
NGO networking and coordination of opinions, inputs and capacity
building measures were of crucial importance. Systematic
communication among environmental NGOs, as well as informational
support from the international NGO community and national NGO
networking across sectors allowed for better quality and coordinated
input into programming.
•
Openness of ministries and their support of NGO participation. Apart
from the offi cial process, many consultation meetings were organised
where NGO comments and demands were discussed in detail. It was
also of high importance to have all draft documents available and to
have a clear time-line.
40
Theme 4: Financing for Sustainability
The questions about funding for civil society and for nature have always been
related to the sustainability of a society and/or a certain territory. Therefore, we
agreed to put the cases and conclusions we extract from them into a joint chapter
with two subchapters: “Nature protection” and “Financing of NGOs”. We do believe
that the best way to protect nature on local and regional levels is to provide support
for a variety of local actors (NGOs, associations of businesses, SMEs, etc.) that are
directly involved in activities with the sustainable forms of business and development
and awareness-raising. We also believe that the capacity-building of NGOs and the
support for partnership practices are essential to enable the representation of socio-
environmental interests and values in decision-making at all levels of governance
and administration.
Nature Protection
The protection of nature is one of the important EU policies. It has received growing
attention as a horizontal issue within the Cohesion and Common Agriculture policies.
Offi cially more money – directly or indirectly – is devoted to nature protection
throughout the EU funds and other EU fi nancial programmes.
Ironically, most of the problems with EU funding are related to the clash between
investment projects, funded with EU money and the protection of valuable and
unique nature areas, including ones from the NATURA 2000 network, Ramsar
wetlands, Kresna gorge (Bulgaria), Rospuda valley (Poland), Saaremaa bridge
(Estonia) and many others from CEE countries are already household names, well
known in the whole of Europe for the monumental clashes between EU-funded
projects and the protection of nature of European importance.
While governments always declare their deep empathy for the protection of nature,
the reality is different. The incorporation of the protection of biodiversity as a priority
in the OP Environment in countries like Bulgaria happened mainly due to the EU
policy and heavy pressure from NGOs. Otherwise, environmental infrastructure
(“more concrete on the ground”) and past pollution (“state pays”) are always on the
front line of investments.
One good example came from Romania where NGOs helped the local community
to incorporate values of the nature protection into the rural development plan of Niraj
valley micro-region. NGOs also mediated development of relations between the
41
micro-regional association from the Niraj valley and a very experienced LEADER
group from the neighbouring Hungary. They organized mutual visits that helped the
representatives of the Niraj micro-regional association to understand the importance
of the protection of nature.
Unfortunately, the use of LEADER for making the protection of nature and local
economy more coherent is very limited. This is one of the easiest ways to promote
sustainability on community level with cheaper soft measures.
Still we could fi nd some good examples of using LEADER in Hungary and Slovenia.
In Hungary, NATURAMA Alliance comprises LEADER groups with nature protection
areas and aim to preserve natural, cultural and human values. The Alliance was
established in 2009, and it promotes environmentally conscious rural lifestyle. It
also attempts to combine tradition and innovation in economic development in a
harmonious, sound way. Members of NATURAMA8 cooperate closely, including
international exchange. They have organized two photo competitions (on waste
and on natural and cultural values), meet regularly and are developing joint projects
(eg. a complex soft tourism project involving local farmers and entrepreneurs etc.
as suppliers).
Another opportunity for NGOs to work for nature protection is participation in projects,
under specifi c “nature protection” axes within different OPs. Such opportunities exist
in all countries.
In Bulgaria, a consortium of NGOs and consulting companies won a tender recently
for mapping the NATURA 2000 network. The alternative consortium also included
an NGO among the partners.
In Hungary, The Environment and Energy OP contains several priorities promoting
nature protection:
a) Priority 3 is aimed at the “Sound management of natural assets” and includes
measures like
•
alleviation of harmful impacts of linear infrastructure to nature
(preservation or regeneration of habitats);
•
Preservation or regeneration of botanical gardens and protected
historical gardens;
•
Infrastructure development of habitat-preserving agriculture and
forestry;
8
The members of NATURAMA are: Az Éltető Balaton-felvidékért Egyesület, A Felső-Homokhátság
Vidékfejlesztési Egyesület, a Borsod-Torna-Gömör Egyesület, „A BAKONYÉRT” Vidékfejlesztési
Akciócsoport Egyesület, a Szigetköz-Mosoni-sík LEADER Egyesület, az Alpokalja-Ikvamente Leader
Egyesület és a DIPO Duna-Ipoly Határmenti Együttműködés Helyi Közössége Közhasznú Egyesület.
42
b) Priority 6 (“Sustainable lifestyle and consumption”) contains a measure
on developing environmental information technology in public administration
(e-environment protection).
A still unexploited tool for nature protection with participatory approach within the
broad frame of EU funds use is regional planning. Recently, a growing number of
NGOs in Bulgaria (environmental, social, healthcare, rural development, etc.) are in
dialogue with the offi ce of the Minister for EU funds on how to exploit this option in
the upcoming programming period.
Case Study (Romania):
43
Rural Development Plan with
Special Consideration for
Nature Protection Criteria in the
Niraj Valley Micro-region – Romania
Short description of the case: In the Niraj valley micro-region, as in many micro-
regions in Romania, the local community receives several inputs during the
planning process and during the elaboration of development strategy, in many
cases the main objective being economic growth, without paying attention to the
environmental aspects. In Niraj valley the local community, the LEADER LAG group,
by working together with the environmental organization Focus Eco Center, paid
special attention to the conservation nature, with the key element of their strategy
being sustainable agriculture and eco-agro tourism.
Detailed Explanation of the Partnership
The micro-regional association and the LEADER LAG group started to elaborate
the development strategy for the Niraj micro-region. The elaboration of the
strategy was a requirement for obtaining funds from LEADER program and as
well from other EU programs. At the beginning, the central idea was economic
development, and the existing NATURA2000 sites were considered somehow a
problem due to their restricted nature.
The representatives of Focus Eco Center participated in several workshops and
explained to the local stakeholders the added value which was represented by
the existing natural values and the great chance what could be offered by these
protected areas. At the same time, the representatives of Focus Eco Center
mediated a relation between the micro-regional association from the Niraj valley
and the very experienced LEADER group, Pannonia Kincse from Hungary.
Mutual visits were organized and the representatives of the Niraj micro-regional
association grabbed the importance of the protection of nature.
In the fi nal version of the strategy, the protection of nature became an important
issue, and the proposed economic development was based on sustainable
44
principles. The development strategy was based on extensive and small scale
agriculture, which would preserve the valuable landscape with its natural values and
eco-agro tourism, which offers jobs for many small pension owners and an extra
income for a large number of farmers. The recommendations of the environmental
organization were highly appreciated and the representative of the Focus Eco
Center was elected in the board of the Local Action Group.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Local communities in rural areas do not have enough information about the
principles of sustainable development and about the importance of the preservation
of natural values, and they understand development as economic growth, which
puts natural values in danger. If local communities are supported, they are able to
understand the importance of the preservation of natural values, and the above
is a good example of how a rural local community can work together with an
environmental organization in order to preserve natural values.
45
Financing of NGOs
The work of the SFteam shows how hard it is to fi nd any single fi nancing scheme
relying on Structural Funds that would be designed for NGOs and their programmes
specifi cally. With “direct” we mean core funding for their everyday work and the
coverage of running costs and salaries.
We mean here funds that would focus on support of NGOs in the following areas:
•
campaigns “pro-contra” some projects and programmes, co-funded
by EU funds;
•
participation in activities, events, committees, working groups with
regard to EU-funded programmes and projects;
•
organising workshops, roundtables and payments of fees for high-level
seminars, organised by respective sectoral business or governmental
agencies (some fees in Bulgaria go up to several hundred Euros);
•
quick funding for small (NGO, NGO + community, NGO + local
authorities) projects, that are focused on easy, soft solutions of
problems with impact on the local or regional communities and may
be supported by EU funding;
•
NGOs work for other related EU regional priorities e.g., Danube
programme, Black Sea partnership, Eastern partnership, etc.;
•
technical assistance for preparation of projects, etc.
Even though there are several schemes where NGOs are listed among potential
benefi ciaries, these schemes usually do not take into account the operational and
fi nancial characteristics of NGOs, therefore, they are often diffi cult to be accessed
by NGOs.
Of course, such a tool must be very carefully designed and must protect both sides
from allegations in confl icts of interest. It also should not put NGOs into dependence
from institutions through selection criteria and selection process of the benefi ciaries.
NGOs could be benefi ciaries under some OPs or specifi c axes within OPs. But
this makes them – as Bulgaria’s Minister of EU funds, Mr. Tomislav Donchev said
– much more as “providers of services” and “consultants”, taking away civil groups
from their initial mission of watchdogs and counterbalancing the institutions.
46
Some of the problems surrounding the funding of NGOs that need to be solved are:
•
Removing all bureaucratic obstacles in application and reporting. In
Bulgaria, there are cases (e.g. in Rousse), when civil groups have to
spend all the personnel fees available for the projects for the reporting
costs!
•
CSOs, together with the government and various fi nancial institutions
should set up schemes for achievable co-funding;
•
there should be some small grants for preparation of projects that
involve several partners, especially ones from different countries.
A single case from Hungary gives an idea how NGOs could be supported within the
frame of the existing OPs. Under the Hungarian Regional Operational Programme
co-fi nancing budget lines for NGOs will be available. They will focus on:
•
development of civil society infrastructure;
•
activities or programs of environmental NGOs, in some cases in
cooperation with municipalities.
Different ROPs offer different conditions and budgets for NGOs. The calls for
proposals are not open yet and it is still to be seen how effective and successful this
approach will be.
Nevertheless, this is an “early bird” case that appears as a result of concerted
efforts of major regional NGOs facilitated by environmental NGOs, that made
regional development agencies and Managing Authority of Regional Development
Programmes accept the innovation.
All we expect is that projects to be implemented from these funds will contribute
to the improvement of the quality of the environment and for a more transparent,
effi cient use of EU funds in the interest of the public good.
Case Study (Hungary):
47
Financing of NGOs from SFs – Hungary
Between 2011 and 2013, the Regional Operational Programmes will offer EU co-
fi nanced budget lines for NGO activities in each region.
As a result of concerted efforts of major regional NGOs facilitated by environmental
NGOs, regional development agencies and the Managing Authority of Regional
Development Programmes supported the initiative of including budget lines for
NGO activities in almost all Regional Operational Programmes. (The only exception
is Central Hungary, where, due to the phasing-out status of the region different
funding priorities and rules prevail and the call for proposal for NGO campaigns for
“Sustainable Consumption Patterns” that were open in 2009-10 will not be opened
again in 2011-13.) These opportunities are included in the 3-year implementation
documents of operational programmes. The budgets and conditions differ from
region to region. Total budget lines are between 715000 and 3 million Euros and
the intensity of support is expected to be 90-95 %. Projects are expected not to
be smaller than 35000 Euros approx. Measures include: development of civil
society infrastructure and activities (North Great Plain, Northern Hungary, South
Great Plain, Southern Transdanubia) or programs of environmental NGOs (Central
Transdanubia, West Pannonia).
Apart from the above funds, there have also been some other calls for proposals
within the framework of the Social Renewal OP (on networking, development of
advocacy capacities, organizational development etc.) and the Environment and
Energy OP (for awareness raising campaigns on sustainable consumption). These,
however, were usually even larger projects requiring high administrative capacities.
The new government intends to alleviate administrative burdens of project
management; the results of this will be relevant later.
At the time of closing this report, it is not yet certain when the calls for proposals will
be open. Still, the opportunity in itself is valuable.
Even though the measures and fundable activities differ among the above-mentioned
Regional OP calls, projects to be implemented from these funds will contribute to
the improvement of the quality of the environment and a more transparent, effi cient
use of EU funds in the interest of the public.
48
Theme 5: Delegation in Committees
NGO delegation systems have over a decade long history in various state and
regional committees and working groups. For example, such instruments were
established in Bulgaria and Hungary in the mid-90s of the 20th century. They were
used a long time before EU funds became an issue in CEE countries and helped to
develop a culture of community among civil society organisations.
The systems of nominating and electing representatives (SNER) often result from
initiations among NGOs, and are developed within the community. For example,
in Bulgaria SNER was initiated, discussed, tested and approved during regular
meetings of environmental NGOs that took place annually in the period between
1998-2002. Several years ago, however, some of the NGOs which worked on the
common problems were already discussing the need for a structured dialogue and
participation within a growing number of formal bodies (working groups, consultative
committees, etc.) initiated by the government. Few years after establishing BlueLink,
the “internet arm” of Bulgarian civil society, it was approved as the bureau for the
new online platform for nomination and election of representatives.
In a similar way, in Hungary the delegation system of environmental NGOs was
discussed and approved at a national gathering in the mid 90s, which serves as an
election body for representatives of NGOs since then. Through time, as the number
of delegates grew and information fl ow accelerated, environmental NGOs realized
that it was necessary to set up a Consultation Forum of delegates in order to be able
to respond/react to urgent invitations to bodies and quickly changing processes.
The framework of the Forum was introduced in 2004; its membership has been
changing as delegates come and go. Each year, the Forum elects a fi ve-member
presidency, the members of which hold the chair of the Forum on a rotating basis.
The Forum meets at least four times a year and its operational background (minute-
taking, organization, etc.) is provided by a foundation elected for this task.
EU Funds and delegation
It is probably Hungary where monitoring committees have most NGO members;
according to the government decree No. 255/2006 (XII.8), civil society
organizations representing the horizontal aspects are involved in the Monitoring
Committees. These are: one environmental NGO as well as the delegates of at
least one civil society organization representing the Romany people, the people
with disabilities and gender equality issues. As regards the latter three civil society
groups, it is the national councils (advisory bodies to the government, including
NGOs) who delegate representatives to monitoring committees. Therefore, the
election system of environmental NGOs is unique.
The situation is slightly different in Bulgaria, where the election of NGOs is based on
49
legislation, but the actual participation is decided by the respective Ministry, which
coordinates each OP. For example, environmental NGOs are represented in the
Monitoring Committees of OP Environment, OP Fishery and National Plan for Rural
Areas, while other civil society groups are in MCs in some of the other OPs. Not all
of their representatives are elected using the election platform; several are selected
from a “short-list” of invited NGOs. Recently, NGOs from different sectors started a
network for participation in the programming of the next fi nancial framework (2004
– 2020) and the extended use of the platform is under discussion.
In addition, in all countries “social partners” (trade-unions and employers’
associations) are represented in OPs on the basis of the Regulations of EU on
Cohesion Policy and national legislation.
A unique example came from Poland, where a Working Group for Civil Society within
the Coordinating Committee of the NSRF is established with an aim of preparing
proposals and recommendations for the Committee regarding the mechanisms of
partnership in implementing NSRF.
The tasks of the WG are as follows:
•
formulating opinions and recommendations concerning the process
of implementing horizontal policies ensuring consistent realization
of the development policy – WG is concentrated on the partnership
principle as a cross-cutting principle of the structural funds and
European Union,
•
monitoring the alignment of operational programs with Polish
Country’s Development Strategy, especially in the 4th priority
“Creation of integrated civil community”,
•
monitoring the managing and control systems for different OPs,
•
monitoring the implementation of gender mainstreaming and
sustainable development principles in OPs.
In Latvia the Environmental Advisory Board (EAB) is composed by representatives
of 20 leading environmental NGOs. Representatives of NGOs are elected annually
to the EAB, and any environmental NGO can apply for it. The Ministry of Environment
of Latvia approached EAB at least once (2008) to nominate a representative of
NGOs in the evaluation committee for large water infrastructure projects submitted
for fi nancing for EU funds in the fi nancing period of 2007-2013. This body of NGOs
is used as a platform for environmental NGOs to nominate NGO representatives to
various bodies, i.e., monitoring committees, project evaluation committees, working
groups, etc. In legislation related to the implementation of EU funds, such as Cabinet
50
Regulations about implementation of specifi c activities, EAB is mentioned as the
body to nominate representatives to monitor the implementation.
Again, like in other countries, this initiative was started by NGOs, which came
to the conclusion that if they wanted to be effective, they needed to fi nd a good
tool in order to be able to infl uence matters. They started discussions with other
stakeholders (trade-unions and employers’ associations) and at the end of the day
a good mixture of representation of society came about. There are representatives
of NGOs, trade-unions, businesses, academia, government and regional authorities
in the working group.
Conclusions, weaknesses, recommendations
The representation of civil society in various working groups and committees,
related to the use of EU funds is one of the best developed cooperative practices.
Despite that it was introduced as an obligatory practice by the EU, it seems that
the understanding of the benefi ts such a practice may bring, is growing. More
institutions and local authorities from more countries are willing to start partnership
in practice. It took years for the institutions to recognise that the expertise of
NGOs is not only big enough (sometime even bigger than that of the institutions
themselves), but it could be focused on genuinely sustainable solutions for
communities, regions or the country.
But, as both sides – institutions and NGOs in CEE countries – are at the beginning
of the road to the sustainable use of EU funds use, there are a number of problems
that need to be solved:
•
The political will for cooperation should be steady and untouched
by the changes of government and should follow guiding principles
set out by the EC. For example, the new government in Hungary
(in offi ce since April 2010) replaced the decree on the operation and
management of EU funds without proper public consultation and this
new decree does not mention civil stakeholder groups specifi cally.
At the same time the EC emphasizes the importance of broad public
involvement and NGO participation;
•
The presence of the representatives of NGOs in monitoring
committees is mostly important as a source of information, since they
have relatively little infl uence on the actual realization of programmes
due to the low capacities and minority status among members, even
if they have voting rights. This requires changes in decision-making to
allow the meaningful participation of non-governmental stakeholders.
Also, the role of MCs has to be strengthened;
•
Low NGO capacity withholds them from using their rights even in
51
situations where NGOs are allowed to participate. Often there are
dozens of documents that need to be reviewed before each MC
meeting or during written decision-making procedure. However,
most of this work is done voluntarily and NGOs tend to focus only
on issues that are likely to be problematic, thus probably missing out
other important aspects of the implementation of EU funds. Low NGO
capacity prevents meaningful participation.
•
The community of NGOs should also make continuous efforts to
improve their system of representation in EU funds management,
self-control, even in the case of the absence of confl icts of interest.
They also should organise themselves in a way to use the resources
and knowledge they offer to the other stakeholders effectively.
But probably the biggest threat for NGOs is to turn them into providers of services
and consultancy, thus diminishing their natural mission as watchdogs and protectors
of public interest. This threat may be reduced by clear and just rules about access
to resources for NGOs and separating EU funding for civil society from political and
other pressure over them in case they may run unfavourable campaigns against
some decisions of the government.
Defi nitely, the upcoming programming for 2014 – 2020 is a challenge that could
provide answers to some of the questions. Both sides must use it for improving their
efforts for a better utilization of EU funds in our countries.
52
Case Study (Hungary):
Delegation Processes - A 15-year-old
Electoral System of Environmental and
Nature Conservation NGOs in Hungary
The legitimate electoral system of NGOs working in the fi eld of environmental
protection and nature conservation has a history of 15 years. It is based on the
National Gathering, organized each year by a different organization since 1990.
At the National Gathering, all registered green organizations have voting rights.
Nominating candidates is an open process, while election is made by secret ballot. At
present, this forum of organizations elects a delegate for about 50 bodies, including
all the monitoring committees of EU funds. Its delegations are acknowledged by the
government.
The National Gathering served as a forum for professional exchange initially;
however, from 1996, it also took on the function of an electoral body because
environmental NGOs fi rst got opportunities then to delegate representatives to
various – advisory, grant-making, professional decision-making – bodies. This
made it necessary to create internal Rules of Operation which includes regulations
on the election process. Delegates are basically elected for two years; however, this
is not a problem for monitoring committees, where the low turnover of delegates is
preferred, because the NGO community usually grants trust to the delegate for the
whole EU budgetary period. Delegates are also obliged to inform the environmental
NGO community about their work through a general mailing list regularly. If they
don’t perform, they can be recalled – however, this has not yet been the case so far.
With the progress of time, as the number of delegates grew and information fl ow
accelerated, environmental NGOs realized it was necessary to set up a Consultation
Forum for delegates in order to be able to respond / react to urgent invitations
to bodies and quickly changing processes. The framework of the Forum was
introduced in 2004; its membership has been changing as delegates come and go.
Each year, the Forum elects its fi ve-member presidency, the members of which hold
the chair of the Forum on a rotating basis. The Forum meets at least four times a
year and its operational background (minute-taking, organizing etc.) is provided by
a foundation elected for this task.
It is probably Hungary where monitoring committees have most NGO members;
53
according to the government decree No. 255/2006 (XII.8), civil society organizations
representing the horizontal aspects are involved in the Monitoring Committees.
These are: one environmental NGO as well as the delegates of at least one civil
society organization representing the Romany people, the people with disabilities
and gender equality issues. As regards the latter three civil society groups, it is
the national councils (advisory bodies to the government, including NGOs) who
delegate representatives to monitoring committees. Therefore, the election system
of environmental NGOs is unique.
This methodology is not necessarily fi t for each branch of civil society, but it is
probably worth considering it. An NGO platform promoting the transparency of
national programming also welcomed the description of these processes and
spread it to the wider NGO community. The 15-year existence of the system proves
its resilience and quick responsiveness. The internal rules of cooperation have been
developed along natural internal needs and they observe democracy and equity in
networking.
However, even the relatively high number of civil society representatives in monitoring
committees raises several questions. 1) The new government (in offi ce since April
2010) replaced the decree on the operation and management of EU funds without
proper public consultation and this new decree does not mention the above four
civil stakeholder groups specifi cally. However, thus far, these groups still have their
seats, even if delegates have changed. 2) The presence of NGO representatives
in monitoring committees is mostly important as a source of information but they
have relatively little infl uence on the actual realization of programmes due to low
capacities and minority status among members, despite their voting rights.
54
Case Study (Bulgaria):
Participation of NGOs in OPs Monitor-
ing Committees: Broadening the System
for NGOs Representation
Bulgarian environmental NGOs have more than 12 years of experience in selecting
their representatives for various working groups, steering committees and inter-
institutional bodies. Though during the pre-accession funding period (2000 – 2006)
in Bulgaria, representatives in Monitoring Committees for SAPARD and ISPA were
not elected, but selected by the respective institutions, right after 2007 (the fi rst
Structural funds period for Bulgaria), the use of the self-developed election system
for NGOs went in use for the MCs. The use of the system is likely to be extended
nowadays and more civil society groups are to benefi t from it.
The system for nomination and election of NGOs in various committees and working
groups, organised by the governmental institutions, was created at the end of 90s
of the 20th century. (1998 – 1999). It was discussed and agreed upon at a series
of meetings of all environmental NGOs, thus became one of the fi rst of its kind for
NGOs in CEE countries. The system has gone through improvements throughout
the years. The secretariat was moved to BlueLink Foundation and the system
became an online platform, open for any NGO which registers as participant.
Already in 2005, environmental NGOs started to use the system for election of
their representatives for some of the working groups for operational programmes.
Afterwards it was used for the election of representatives in some Monitoring
committees of OPs (OP Environment, OP Transport, etc.). A discussion started in
2010 among broader NGO community in Bulgaria (environmental, social, health,
regional development, human rights, etc. NGOs) to use the system for the election
of joint representatives for the programming process for 2014 – 2020 EU funds.
A special project proposal was submitted for fi nancing that would help with the
broadening and improvement of the system.
NGOs used the system for the fi rst time at the beginning of 2011 to exchange their
representative (for the Monitoring Committee of OP Transport) due to the fact that
the task was not fulfi lled appropriately.
There is a development in the institutional coverage of the use of the system. In
55
the beginning only the Ministry for Environment and Water agreed to use it, while
others used their own selection criteria. Now several other ministries are willing
to use this approach, including the Ministry for Regional Development and Public
Works, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, etc. The other main goal of the
NGO community is to spread the system on a regional level in order to guarantee
meaningful participation in regional development policies, which are the core of
cohesion policy.
There are good examples how the representatives of environmental NGOs in
MCs in various OPs are working towards promoting the viewpoints of NGOs at the
debates. The representatives in the OP Environment and OP Fishery in particular
are very active in their work. They are providing NGOs with information about
upcoming events (meetings of MCs, etc.), and documents and information about
important decisions. They also request support, information and feedback from the
community as well as direct actions (e.g. letters to the managing bodies).
Conclusions and Recommendations
The system for the nomination and election of NGOs representatives has been
created as a unique but simple tool for the representation of NGOs in virtually all
forms of partnership between civil society and public constructs. The decade of its
use in Bulgaria shows that it is very useful also in cases where strong partnership
is needed, such as regional policies and the use of EU funds.
Although the system for delegation of the representatives of NGOs is well defi ned,
there are shortages that could be improved in order to make the work of NGO
representatives in various committees more useful and effective.
Firstly, there is a need to improve the system itself. There are elements missing
that civil society should defi ne and add to the system in order to guarantee that
elected representatives could work effectively and in line with their mission and
goals. It essentially needs:
•
to defi ne the way the representatives will report to the community;
•
to defi ne how the community would support its representatives in
their work;
•
to defi ne the procedures for recalling the representative, who does
not fulfi l continuously his/her tasks.
56
Secondly, there is a need to broaden the use of the self-election system in both
ways – by NGOs and by institutions. There are several best practices, but in fact
it is civil society that should work to promote and purposely use the delegation
system in order to “teach” the institutions its broader application. It is in particular
important to promote the system.
Thirdly, NGOs should negotiate changes with the Government on the statute of
their representatives. By now, most of the representatives in the MCs have only
consultative rights (no voting rights), unlike the offi cial “social partners”, thus they
are deprived of even the minimal power to infl uence decisions. Another associated
problem is the so called “confi dentiality clause”. This problem should be solved
also on a higher governmental level by negotiations and campaigning.
Case Study (Poland):
57
Working Group for Civil Society within
the Coordinating Committee of the
NSRF in Poland – Ensuring Eff ective
Participation of NGOs and Socio-
economic Partners in the Committee
Responsible for the Overall Coordina-
tion of EU Funds in the Country
The Working Group for Civil Society was formed within the structure of the
Coordinating Committee (CC) for National Strategic Reference Framework 2007-
2013. The initiative has been taken on a national level. The Working Group
concentrates its activity on the 1st horizontal strategic aim of the NSRF: “Improving
the functioning standard of public institutions and development of partnership
mechanism”.
The Working Group was established for preparing proposals and recommendations
for the Committee regarding the mechanisms of partnership in implementing NSRF.
It includes consultations and monitoring of the implementation of the sustainable
development principle, as well as gender mainstreaming in Operational Programs
(OP’s). Recommendations of the Group are provided to the Committee as draft
resolutions and opinions.
The tasks of the WG are as follows:
•
formulating opinions and recommendations concerning the process
of implementing horizontal policies ensuring consistent realization
of the development policy – WG is a concentration of partnership
as a cross-cutting principle of the structural funds and the European
Union,
58
•
monitoring the alignment of operational programs with Poland’s
Development Strategy, especially in Priority 4: “Creation of an
integrated civil community”,
•
monitoring the managing and control systems for different OPs,
•
monitoring the implementation of gender mainstreaming and
sustainable development principles in OPs.
The WG was established by the Coordinating Committee on 14th April, 2008,
as an initiative of representatives of all 5 non-governmental organizations – the
members of CC. They came to the conclusion that if they wanted to be effective
in the CC, they needed to fi nd a good tool in order to be able to infl uence matters.
Participating in plenary sessions twice a year did not guarantee an active and
effective representation of the civil sector.
NGOs started cooperation with representatives of other social partners in the CC.
There are seven such organizations in Poland: four unions of employers and three
unions of employees. They supported the idea of the WG and were interested in
taking part in it. Subsequently, representatives of NGOs asked a few selected
representatives of governmental and regional authorities for their support and
participation in the Group. Everybody gave a positive answer. All of the socio-
economic partners, which were members of the Coordinating Committee, became
part of the Group. Representatives of ministries and regional authorities joined the
group as well. Overall, the Working Group comprises:
•
non-governmental organizations - Caritas Poland, Foundation in
Support of Local Democracy, Foundation in Support of Business
and Science, Polish National Federation of NGOs, Polish Scouting
Association,
•
social partners (employees’ and employers’ unions) - Forum of Trade
Unions, Independent Self-governing Trade Union “Solidarity”, The All
Poland Alliance of Trade Unions, Business Centre Club, Employers of
Poland, Polish Confederation of Private Employers Lewiatan, Polish
Craft Association,
•
academic organizations - Central Council for Research and
Development Units, Council for Higher Education, Polish Science
Academy, The Conference of Rectors of Polish Academic Institutions,
•
governmental administration – Ministry for Regional Development (as
Managing Authority for Human Capital OP and Coordinating Authority
for NSRF), Ministry of Labour and Social Policy, Ministry of National
Education,
•
regional authorities – Pomorskie, Opolskie, Lubuskie and
Wielokopolskie Voivodships (regions) and the Common Committee
for Regional and Local Government.
Twenty-fi ve institutions and organizations cooperate in the WG. Observers and
59
experts participate in sessions as well. They have the role of observers. Obviously,
not every member of the Group has a similar level of involvement.
It was six months after establishing the Working Group for Civil Society, when
the Committee actually accepted its fi rst recommendation. WG is fi nanced by the
Technical Assistance OP. This fi nancing includes costs of the organization of the
sessions, secretarial offi ce of the WG, reimbursement of travel costs for members
from outside Warsaw and expert support if necessary.
The Working Group has been functioning for 2,5 years now. It is a stable solution,
so its work will fi nish only with the end of the programming period 2007-2013. An
internal set of rules was accepted during the fi rst session, where the election of the
Chairman and Vice-chairman also took place. WG makes decisions by consensus.
Its sessions take place according to need, but not less frequently than once every
three months. The Group is managed by the Polish National Federation of NGOs
as it was a leader in the process of establishing the Group. The Vice-chairman is
the Director of the Department of Managing European Social Funds in the Ministry
for Regional Development.
Results of the functioning of the WG are as follows:
•
closer cooperation between representatives of the different socio-
economic partners in the Coordinating Committee,
•
adoption of a resolution by the CC about the importance of civic
consultations and civil dialogue in the implementation of OP’s (2008),
•
organization of a 2-day session for members of MC’s from all over
Poland, the representatives of socio-economic partners (2009) –
10% of the representatives participated in the session, preparing sets
of recommendations in four fi elds: civil society, evaluation, project
selection criteria, equal opportunities,
•
establishment of the National Thematic Network for the Partnership
(2010),
•
two meetings of the Network: state conference and a 2-day regional
session (2010),
•
a common proposal by the socio-economic partners in reply to the
mid-term consultation initiated by the European Commission
60
The Working Group functions dynamically and effectively. Members of the Group
carry out their tasks voluntarily. In spite of limited capacities the results are visible.
Factors contributing to the success of the Group are:
•
cooperation with socio-economic partners and search for common
aims,
•
expert and fi nancial involvement of the Ministry for Regional
Development, the crucial institution in the fi eld of structural funds and
planning and the implementation of the Cohesion Policy in Poland,
•
expertise and competences of the members of WG,
•
openness for nonstandard prepositions,
•
thinking about the common interest and moving beyond narrowly
understood interests of their own environments by all members of
the Group.
Unavoidably, the Working Group is facing challenges. Most important of there are:
•
the development and effective use of the National Thematic Network
for Partnership,
•
securing the involvement of the Cohesion Policy in civil dialogue
in the current programming period (being active in the process of
the midterm review) as well as the next one (participation in the
consultation of the Fifth Cohesion Report).
To summarize, the efforts put into the creation of the Working Group for Civil Society
were worthwhile. The Group became a place for discussion and cooperation of
representatives of very different circles and interests. In Poland, MCs, the Working
Group and other similar working groups related to Monitoring Committees are the
only institutions/bodies that can exert real infl uence on the decisions concerning
public policies of the representatives of the Polish government, regional
authorities as well as social and civil organizations and academics. Even if not all
recommendations are taken on board, the Working Group is still a good example of
effective cooperation.
Theme 6: Participation of NGOs in
61
Project Evaluation
It is a pleasant surprise for us to see interesting positive cases that uncover various
aspects of cooperation between NGOs and institutions regarding the evaluation of
projects. It seems that authorities (regardless of being central or local, specialised
or general ones) throughout CEE become more open to the involvement of NGOs
in such evaluation. At the same time, it is not an irreversible process; changes in
governmental leadership may change the attitude towards NGOs due to unexpected
and sometime far not better proposals.
The cases show that initiative for involvement of NGOs comes from both sides.
In the case of Poland, it came due to interventions from NGOs that evolved in
the creation of the special position of Environmental Manager. In other cases, the
initiative comes from offi cials and is materialized in legislation or contracting, upon
direct or random selection.
The most successful is the case from Poland, where the initiative of NGOs led to the
establishment of a new system for evaluation of projects submitted to the Regional
Operational Programme (ROP). Though it was established by the Marshal’s offi ce
of the Dolnośląskie Voivodship, the initial case came from NGOs, which tried to
prevent a river from a controversial project, envisaged to be funded by ROP. The
cooperation among all parties involved – the conservation authority (RDE), the
investor (Regional Water Management Authority), funding institution (Marshal’s
Offi ce, Dept. of ROP), civic organization (FER) and individual experts, as well as
the contractor for the works (Skanska) – was well managed. The decisions were
consulted broadly and all parties searched for a solution to the situation.
The success of this fi rst case led to a boom of cases assessed under the
Environmental Manager scheme: some 700 – 800 applications were surveyed by
the end of 2010.
In general, the system of Environmental Manager is a positive result at the meeting-
point of several factors. Citizen involvement was very important in indicating the
particular and systematic problems. Positive approach and maturity of the NGOs
and the regional administrations led to the structural constructive change which
helped to avoid wasting public money on environmentally destructive projects, and
prevented a lot of confl icts, which would have caused further direct and indirect
economic and social costs.
62
The participation of a representative of Latvian environmental NGOs in the project
evaluation committee for large water infrastructure projects submitted for fi nancing
from EU funds in the fi nancing period of 2007-2013 seems to be like representation in
any other steering or monitoring body. But in this particular case, the representative
of NGOs shares the same rights as all other members who represent the Ministry
of Environment and the Union of Municipalities. This also carries equal obligations
and even an interesting drawback we didn’t see in any other countries: the NGOs
representative was obliged to obtain the status of a state offi cial.
Hungary presents us a case where a relatively good system of involvement of
NGOs (in this case the National Society of Conservationists, NSC) was removed
and replaced by “a rigid, though much more objective, system (...) which, however,
is, as experience shows, for various reasons, unable to consider the real overall
impacts of projects”.
NSC was contracted to help with the assessment of the submitted Regional
Development Operational Programme (RDOP) project proposals regarding
environmental sustainability as a sort of quality control. With the help of an expert
team, they managed to assess about 1000 proposals per year only. About 10
percent of the projects were proposed to be rejected, 20 percent to be amended.
Some projects were rejected due to fi nancial reasons. The majority of the rest
was supported by the Committee, but strict environmental conditions were set for
contraction.
The benefi ts of the system are strongly linked to the outcome. As long as the
Managing Authority kept sending back proposals with low level of environmental
quality, the regional agencies and project owners themselves started to understand
how important it was to consider “environmental sustainability” in their proposals.
Although the new system introduced for the period between 2007 – 2013 is more
objective and unifi ed for all OPs, experience shows that for various reasons, it
is unable to consider the real overall impacts of projects. Even worse, instead of
promoting an increased understanding of horizontal issues among project owners,
it is counterproductive due to high administrative burdens. Later, unfortunately,
the new government abolished the mandatory involvement of NGOs in project
evaluation teams by a change in legislation.
The Slovak case represents the usual situation, when the participation of NGOs is
restricted to participation in Monitoring Committees. Despite this, according to our
remains a relatively closed system, there are promising signs and initiatives in the
63
ESF that indicate change in the level and art of NGO participation in control and
monitoring processes.”
There happens to be a change in the management of the OP Employment and
Social Inclusion, so important changes are likely to happen in the fi eld of NGO
participation also. From September 2010 on, NGOs have been involved more
intensively in singular control processes of ESF fi nanced programmes under the
control of the Ministry of Employment, Social and Family Affairs (MESFA).
There are a number of lessons to be learnt from these cases, as well as a few
recommendations for stakeholders.
•
The information fl
ow between environmental specialists and
decision makers need to be improved. Blaming NGOs for their poor
understanding of the specialist language and information among
decision makers does not solve the problem. There is a clear need
for structural changes.
•
One has to acknowledge that it is also in the interest of the investors
and decision makers to investigate the environmental impacts of
proposed projects on NATURA 2000 areas and on habitats and
species protected by the European Directives in order to avoid
confl icts with legislation.
•
Participation in project evaluation processes brings better
understanding of how project evaluation works in practice, including
on how well project evaluation criteria are formulated, how horizontal
criteria are applied and to what extent they serve the purpose etc.
•
The involvement of NGO experts in project evaluation ensures
impartiality and enhances professionalism and is therefore
unavoidable, along clear and transparent guidelines. Also, for
professional reasons, the evaluation of horizontal criteria (ie.,
environment, sustainability, equal opportunities) should take an
integrative approach, with a focus on the performance of projects,
instead of that of the project owner.
•
The work of NGO representatives in project evaluation committees
is often done on a completely voluntary basis. NGOs often lack
capacity to participate in these kinds of activities, thus not all
valuable knowledge and skills are utilized in this work. Sometimes
environmental NGOs even refused to participate in the work of
project evaluation committees due to the lack of capacity. Therefore,
a special system for covering the costs (both human and direct) of
such participation is needed.
64
•
NGO representatives are not allowed to share information about
project applications, thus, mostly they have to rely on their own
knowledge and expertise. This situation seriously burdens the
effi ciency of NGO participation.
•
To create commonly acceptable solutions for NGO participation,
systematic work on the institutional and organizational structure of the
cooperation needs to be carried out both by authorities and NGOs.
Case Study (Poland):
65
The Environmental Manager Prevents
Harm and Confl ict
The Marshal’s Offi ce of the Dolnośląskie Voivodship (provincial government)
implemented procedures that are quite unique in Poland. The main idea behind
it was to prevent possible confl icts around particular investments supported by
European Funding via the Regional Operational Programme at as early a stage as
possible.
The process has many different roots in the Dolnośląskie Voivodship. One of
the important events that led to this structural solution was an intervention by
the representative of NGOs in the Steering Committee, concerning plans for the
regulation of three small rivers. This was a case when problems could not be
prevented and caused a lot of work and costs and cost a lot of time both on the part
of the investor and the funding institution.
The new structures of the ROPs replaced the Steering Committee with the
Monitoring Committee. The Dolnośląskie Voivodship was the only one in Poland
where the NGOs were represented in the Committee. This caused an intervention
in The European Commission, which questioned the remaining voivodships about
the NGO representative and in consequence, the other regions adapted the same
structure for their committees.
Meanwhile, the Marshal of the Dolnośląskie Voivodship proposed a systematic
solution to the environmental aspects of the project application survey. The
proposed solution was inspired by the British model and implemented the position of
Environmental Manager. The Environmental Manager is responsible for consulting
applications to the ROP with regional authorities responsible for the environment
and with NGOs. Formal procedure was designed to implement these consultations
in a timely and structured manner.
The procedure predicts action depending on the response from the consulted
partners. The process takes 22, 24 or 34 days, depending on the number of concerns
raised. When both consulting parties have concerns, and the Environmental
Manager has doubts about their interpretation or when the consulting parties
have different opinions and cannot agree in their statements, the Environmental
Managers calls for external expertise.
66
The NGO representative in the Monitoring Committee cooperates with NGO-related
experts from different environmental fi elds. They all receive the applications and
share the responsibility to provide their opinions.
Until the end of 2010, about 700-800 applications were surveyed. There were
objections to a certain proportion of it, which were reported back to the applicants,
who then adjusted their applications in the appropriate way. The application
procedures assume possibility for a formal complaint. However, until now, there
no such action was needed. All the confl icts were resolved at an early stage of the
process.
In many cases, experts feel the need for a fi eld visit or screening the existing
documentation, such as EIA (Polish OOŚ) or Specifi cation of the Important Building
Conditionings (Polish: SIWZ). With the large number of projects, there is still a
possibility to let through a project by accident that does not fulfi l the environmental
requirements, which would lead to a confl ict in the implementation phase. However,
many potential damages have been avoided by redesigning of or resigning from the
proposed actions.
The case of the Włodzica river is an example where the threat of environmental
damage was initially overlooked. Thanks to the active NGOs and a project of
Natura2000 Watch, the project was terminated and redesigned.
The Regional Water Management Authority in Wrocław planned the regulation of
the Włodzica river in the town of Nowa Ruda, to prevent erosion and reduce the
risk of fl ooding, as well as improving migration conditions for fi sh. Application WND-
RPDS.04.04.00-02-002/09 for about 19 million PLN (about 80% of the cost) was
submitted to the Regional Operational Programme for the Dolnośląskie Voivodship
2007-2013, under Priority 4, for the improvement of the natural environment and
improvement of the ecological and fl ood safety in Lower Silesia (“Environment
and Ecological Safety”). The project was endorsed in June 2009, and approved by
the public hearing held with the presence of environmental NGO representatives.
However, when the work started, a local branch of the NGO „Workshop for all beings”
reported potential damage to Natura 2000 habitats (Habitat Directive codes: 91E0-
5, 8220-3 and 6430). WWF Poland appealed to the Director of the Regional Water
Management Authority for suspension of the works until clarifi cation of the issue. In
July 2009, the Lower Silesian Foundation for Ecodevelopment, in accordance with
the Parliamentary Bill of 13 April 2007 on the Prevention of Environmental Damage
and Harm Repair, sent a notifying letter to the Regional Director for Environment
(RDE) in Wrocław about the threat of environmental damage and petitioned for
urgent intervention preventing the start of the planned work. In September, The
67
RDE arranged fi eld visit with experts and main stakeholders, which confi rmed the
occurrence of natural habitats in the river bed and on the slopes. RDE put the
investment on hold until agreement was reached on the preventive measures,
methods to minimise negative impact and on post-investment monitoring. ROP
Department of the Marshal’s Offi ce for Dolnośląskie Voivodship convened a
clarifi cation meeting with interested parties. The appropriate solution was found and
the works were carried out according to the modifi ed plan.
The parties involved included the mayor of Nowa Ruda, the County Governor
(Starosta) in Kłodzko, the Public Sanitary Inspector, the contractor for the works –
Skanska corporation, the Local Authority Appeal Board in Wałbrzych - competent
to cancel decisions taken at County and Town levels. The decision-making and
consultation processes were organized properly, and in accordance with the
procedures for planning of investments and the distribution of funding. However,
the decision taken happened to be wrong. How was it possible?
First, the decision of the County Governor and Public Sanitary Inspector were
based on inadequate, and, in addition, misinterpreted information. The nature
inventory of the town of Nowa Ruda was produced at a generalized level – as any
such research – on which it was impossible to base individual decisions about the
location of investments. Using these types of documents with such low level of detail
for planning purposes is not justifi ed. The expertise commissioned for the purpose
of the investment were: inventory of trees for the logging permit, ornithologists
designation of trees not to be removed before the end of the breeding season, and
an opinion from the angling association. These opinions, however well made, do not
cover all circumstances.
Based on the available documents, and lacking an EIA or at least a Report on the
effect of the works on nature, the investor presented the case at the public hearing
as having no harmful effect on nature, as being planned in the highly urbanised
area, without any habitats of substantial importance. In spite of the fact that high
quality experts of Natura 2000 were present at the hearing, they did not see the
reason for objection and the project was approved. The start of the work was,
by coincidence spotted by an environmentalist from the Workshop for all beings,
who intervened notifying the Local Authority Appeal Board in Wałbrzych and the
Foundation for EcoDevelopment (FER) running the Natura 2000 Wardens project.
The intervention to the RDE in Wrocław on the basis of the Bill on prevention of
environmental damage and harm repair caused a series of events, starting with the
immediate suspension of the work.
68
At this stage, the involved parties were: the conservation authority (RDE), the
investor (Regional Water Management Authority), the funding institution (Marshal’s
Offi ce, Dept. of ROP), civic organization (FER) and individual experts, as well as
the contractor for the works (Skanska). The cooperation was good within the group,
with decisions consulted broadly and seeking for solutions to the situation. The
RDE commissioned an expert and stimulated advice on how to redesign the project
and implement compensatory measures. ROP Dept. called a forum to discuss the
proposed solutions and come to an agreement. Finally, the new project was been
approved and the work implemented successfully. It was required by the RDE that
the effectiveness of the preventive measures be monitored in the 4-year post-
investment period by checking the habitat status over the Summer months.
The intervention by NGOs, supported by the Marshal’s Offi ce Dept. for ROP and the
RDE in Wrocław helped to avoid damage to the natural environment. However, this
case is an example showing some defi ciencies in existing systems and procedures.
The main issue seems to be a matter of using the available information. The
information fl ow between environmental specialists and decision makers calls
for improvement. Blaming the poor understanding of the specialist language
and information among decision makers does not solve the problem. Structural
change is needed. One of the solutions may be taking the decision on whether
to apply the Environmental Impact Assessment or the Decision on Environmental
Conditionings away from the bodies, which do not necessarily have the required
high profi le knowledge and skills. Or at least making the advice on this question
by the appropriate specialists or institutions (preferably RDE) obligatory, and not
an option “when in doubt”. In the case described here even the specialists fell into
the same trap as local decision makers. The scientifi c inventory conclued that the
habitats were in unfavourable condition. This was interpreted as a green light for
investment, instead of realising the need for efforts to recover the habitats.
Another improvement may be made in the role and standards of nature inventories.
It is worth considering replacing or rather expanding the traditional approach of a
once-upon-a-time inventory by a continuous data collection system. Such system
should be based on a public database, preferably using the GIS technology, updated
regularly, and at different levels of detail. The decentralized data centre should have
a mechanism for the verifi cation of data, and an institutional base at conservation
authorities, with the involvement of scientifi c institutions and voluntary providers of
data.
As for the aspect of decision makers, the legislation on Natura 2000 forbids to
69
depreciate the status of species and habitats of EU importance. When the decision
is wrong, and taken without proper assessment, there is no excuse and no legal
way to avoid the responsibility of investor for the damage. So it is in the interest
of both the investors and local decision makers to investigate the environmental
consequences on Natura 2000 areas, and even outside these sites on habitats and
species protected by European Directives.
Finally, the system described here is the positive result at the meeting point of
several factors. Citizen involvement was very important to indicate particular and
systematic problems. Positive approach and maturity of the NGOs and regional
administrations led to a structural constructive change, which helped to avoid the
wasting of public money for environmentally destructive projects, and prevented a
lot of confl icts, which would have caused further direct and indirect economic and
social costs.
70
Case Study (Hungary):
Sustainability Assessment of Regional
Development Projects
Between 2004 and 2006, the Managing Authority (MA) of the Regional Development
Operational Programme commissioned the National Society of Conservationists
(NSC) to cooperate in the assessment of the submitted RDOP project proposals
regarding environmental sustainability.
That time, project proposals were assessed and scored at regional levels; the
Managing Authority, however, also assessed them against several criteria such as
environment, equal opportunities, and fi nancial questions as a sort of quality control,
by involving external experts or organizations, NSC for environmental criteria in
specifi c. NSC commissioned several local experts to cooperate, so that people
with adequate knowledge of the region in question could assess each project. The
expert team has the opportunity to propose whether the project proposal should be
accepted, rejected or sent back to the project owner for amendment. Based on the
opinion of experts and regional development agencies, the Decision Preparation
Committee made a fi nal suggestion for or against funding.
Within a year, NSC experts assessed about 1000 project proposals. About 10
percent of the projects were proposed to be rejected, 20 percent to be amended.
Some projects were rejected due to fi nancial reasons. The majority of the rest
was supported by the Committee, but strict environmental conditions were set
for contraction. Some of the project proposals were not adequate enough from
an environmental perspective and were therefore rejected. In many cases, this
happened because of the determined stance of the representative of the Ministry
of Environment and Water. This gives a strong example of successful cooperation
among NGOs and government offi ces.
The benefi ts of the above system are strongly linked to the outcome. The main
advantage of the re-assessment and quality assurance system of project proposals
was that as the Managing Authority regularly sent back project proposals with low
environmental performance for amendment, regional agencies and project owners
themselves also started to understand the importance of considering “environmental
sustainability” more deeply and try to present it in the proposal; as it was revealed
by the quality of the proposals. This was due to the fact that even the project guide
on “environmental sustainability” tried to take an integrative approach. However,
71
critiques of the system considered it too costly and time-consuming to be applied
to all projects of all OPs. Even though several offi cials and the NGO experts found
the system benefi cial and proposed it for all operational programmes of the 2007 –
2013 period, it was discontinued.
Instead, a rigid, though much more objective system applicable to all OPs was
introduced to track the performance of projects on “environmental sustainability” and
equal opportunities, which, however, is, as experience shows, for various reasons,
unable to consider the real overall impacts of projects. (Even worse, instead of
promoting an increased understanding of horizontal issues among project owners, it
is counterproductive due to high administrative burdens.) Some level of involvement
of NGO experts in decision-preparation was still ensured between 2007 and 2010.
NGO experts, among others, had the opportunity to apply along strict criteria, for
membership in a pool of experts. Members of each project evaluation committee
were selected from this pool by drawing lots. (It is also a major step forward that
the government published a searchable database of EU-funded projects, with basic
information about each project, including the list of names of the members of the
project evaluation committee.) However, the ruling government (in offi ce since April
2010) changed the rules of procedures and abolished the mandatory involvement
of NGO experts in project evaluation (i.e., decision preparation) teams, by the
government decree 4/2011. (I. 28.).
An ideal solution would probably combine the two practices described above. The
involvement of NGO experts is unavoidable, along clear, transparent guidelines in
order to ensure impartiality and professionalism. Also, for professional reasons, the
evaluation of horizontal criteria (i.e., environment, sustainability, equal opportunities)
should take an integrative approach, with a focus on the performance of the projects
instead of that of the project owner.
72
Case Study (Latvia):
Participation of Latvian NGOs in
Project Evaluation
Representatives of environmental NGOs in Latvia are involved in the work of several
project evaluation committees. One of them is the project evaluation committee
for large water infrastructure projects submitted for fi nancing from EU funds in the
fi nancing period of 2007 – 2013. For fi nancing in that activity, the so called “limited
competition” rule was applied, i.e., only those municipalities that were shortlisted by
the Ministry of Environment based on environmental criteria were entitled to apply
for funding. NGO participation in this situation is liable to increase transparency of
decision making.
Description of Activity
The aim of the activity “Development of water management infrastructure in
agglomerations with more than 2000 residents” (activity No. 3.5.1.1. under national
framework documents) is to improve the quality of water management and waste-
water treatment, as well as improve accessibility of water management services to
inhabitants in certain inhabited areas. This activity was designed to allow towns and
municipalities to meet EU requirements in the area of water management and waste-
water treatment. The total amount available for public fi nancing in the programming
period 2007-2013 is 477,7 million EUR – most of which constitutes fi nancing from
the Cohesion fund. The implementation of this activity is guided by the Cabinet
Regulation, which describes general terms and conditions, the application process,
project evaluation and the monitoring of the implementation, etc. As mentioned
above, the Ministry of Environment prepared a list of municipalities that were
entitled for this fi nancing – the list of municipalities was included in the annex of the
Cabinet Regulation. The criteria for listing municipalities were based on the present
quality of drinking water and waste-water treatment against the targets laid out by
EU directives in the fi eld of water management. When the calls for applications were
opened, the Ministry of Environment sent out letters to municipalities inviting them
to apply for fi nancing.
Project Proposal Evaluation Committee
All project applications are evaluated using administrative and quality criteria by
the project evaluation committee. Cabinet regulation on implementation of this
activity prescribes that the project evaluation committee is created by the Ministry
of Environment. This regulation further stipulates that the committee is composed
73
of representatives from the Ministry of Environment, the Union of Municipalities
and environmental NGOs. The number of committee members is not pre-defi ned
by the Cabinet Regulation and it may vary, but usually they have 6-8 members,
out of which one is a representative of environmental NGOs. All members of the
evaluation committee have the same rights. Thus, the NGO representative is
equally taking part in the decision making process along with the representatives of
other institutions.
In the evaluation process itself all members of the committee have access to all
project documentation. Prior to the beginning of the evaluation process, each
committee member is obliged to sign a declaration stating that he or she has no
confl ict of interests and he or she will not disclose any information about project
applications or applicants to third parties.
Each representative is asked to allocate the necessary time and review all project
applications with a supporting document and then fi ll out a project evaluation form
(an electronic fi le), where they can provide comments and assign scores where
necessary. It is mandatory for an application to comply with all administrative
criteria, but as for the quality criteria, each application gets a certain score. During
meetings committee members discuss contents of project applications, including all
questions that are unclear and any other related issues. The committee can also
ask the applicant to submit additional documents or explanations. All communication
with the applicant is done in writing. The decisions of the committee are a basis for
approval of project applications. All decisions are included in the offi cial minutes
of the committee meetings. The Committee seeks to make all its decisions by
consensus.
Project applications include complicated fi nancial forms and might also involve
some unclear legal issues, e.g., the ownership of water management infrastructure,
licensing etc. The evaluation committee doesn’t always have the necessary
knowledge, therefore, there are fi nancial and legal experts also involved in the
evaluation process. The members of the project evaluation committee have access
to experts’ analyses.
Selection Process of NGO Representative to the Committee
The Cabinet Regulation doesn’t specify how the representative of environmental
NGOs is to be chosen – there is no mention of specifi c institutions or selection
process. The Ministry of Environment approached the Environment Advisory Board
74
(EAB) to nominate a NGO representative to the evaluation committee. The EAB
is composed of representatives of 20 leading environmental NGOs, its meetings
are open to anybody interested in environmental policy issues and therefore, it is
de facto perceived as a platform of leading environmental NGOs in Latvia. NGO
representatives are elected annually to the EAB and any environmental NGO
can apply for it. Thus, the EAB is seen as a trusted and transparently functioning
institution to nominate a representative to the project evaluation committee.
The NGO representative was nominated by the EAB to work in the project
evaluation committee in July, 2008. Basically, environmental NGOs could choose
a representative whom they believed would represent environmental and public
interest the best. The NGO representative is asked from time to time to report
back about his or her work in the committee. The project evaluation committee
will act as long as the particular activity of water management projects is under
implementation. There were already several rounds of application – in 2008 and
2010. The evaluation of project applications from last round is still continuing in the
beginning of 2011.
The drawback of the participation process seen by NGOs is that respective NGO
representative who gets involved in the project evaluation committee, needs to
become a civil servant. This status involves an obligation to submit an annual
declaration of civil servants, declaring all positions, income, liabilities, properties, etc.
This precondition was required by state legislation, ruling that NGO representatives
who take part in decision making about public money should also ensure full
transparency. Although this requirement is justifi ed from the transparency point
of view, some NGO representatives have been critical about this requirement,
because they see themselves as representatives of organized civil society, and not
as state offi cial. In addition, it has to be highlighted that all the work of the NGO
representative is done completely voluntarily, (or using the resources of the NGO),
thus, becoming a civil servant is seen as a bureaucratic and time consuming burden.
Conclusions
•
Participation in the project evaluation process brings about a better
understanding of how the project evaluation process works in practice,
including on how well project evaluation criteria are established, how
horizontal criteria are applied, etc. This knowledge could be used in
the next programming period in order to improve the project selection
and evaluation process.
•
The work of the NGO representative in the project evaluation
75
committee is done on a completely voluntary basis. NGOs often lack
capacity to participate in this kind of activities, thus, not all valuable
knowledge and skills may be utilized in this work. Sometimes
environmental NGOs had even refused to participate in the work of
project evaluation committees due to the lack of capacity. There might
also be a risk of the lack of institutional memory, i.e., the knowledge
acquired in this programming period may not be transferred to the
new programming period if the NGO representative leaves.
•
The NGO representatives are not allowed to share information
about project applications. Thus, mostly they have to rely on their
own knowledge and expertise. For example, the NGO representative
is not allowed to disclose information to other members of the
Environmental Advisory Board, even though the NGO delegate was
nominated to the project evaluation committee by this Board. This
situation seriously hampers the effi ciency of NGO participation.
76
Case Study (Slovakia):
NGO Participation at the Control and
Monitoring of the OP Employment and
Social Inclusion
Background
Traditionally, the participation of the NGO sector in control and monitoring of the
OPs in Slovakia was more or less on a formal level. Public participation in EU funds
governance was guaranteed only in Monitoring Committees, while other processes
were inaccessible to NGOs. This, together with inadequate access to information,
created a strong barrier against the effective public control of the implementation of
programmes. Although the implementation of the OPs fi nanced through ERDF still
remains a relatively closed system, there are promising signs and initiatives in the
ESF that indicate change in the level and art of NGO participation in the control and
monitoring processes.
The change in the management of OP Employment and Social Inclusion (OP
EaSI) has brought important changes in the fi eld of NGO participation. The new
management sent a clear signal that they were willing to cooperate with NGOs
active in the fi elds the OPs were addressing and that on more than just a formal
level.
From September on, the NGOs have been involved more intensively in singular
control processes of ESF fi nanced programmes under the control of the Ministry of
Employment, Social and Family Affairs (MESFA).
NGO participation
A. Monitoring:
In 2007, the former management of the MESFA didn’t respect the nominations
for NGO representatives to the monitoring committees (MC) approved by the
Government Council for Non-governmental Non-profi t Organizations (Council). This
resulted in a mere formal participation of the civic organizations in funds monitoring,
while those NGOs that have been most active in the funds control were deprived of
the opportunity to participate in the MC sessions.
In September 2010, the new management organized an informal meeting of MCs,
77
where the NGOs not offi cially represented in the MCs were also invited. The main
topics discussed included the possibilities of future effective NGO participation
in monitoring. Opening the work of the MC to other organizations involved in the
topic is an innovative way of sharing information and enhancing public discussion
in Slovakia. The remaining problem is the inappropriate representation of the
civic sector in the MCs. However, the management of OP plans to approve the
membership of those representatives who have been nominated by the Council in
the fi rst place.
B. Evaluation and project selection:
In the majority of OPs, the processes of project evaluation and selection are seen as
the most problematical part of programme implementation. Although this fact should
be the reason to strengthen the public control of processes, NGOs do not have the
possibility to participate in project evaluation and selection.
In the past, there were cases when certain evaluators were repeatedly engaged
in the evaluation processes without any clear mechanism for their selection. At
present, the evaluators are being selected by poll, with NGO representatives present
to oversee the equal opportunities. This is a direct step towards transparency.
NGO representatives also participate as observers at the sessions of the selection
committees. This presents a certain guarantee that project selection will be objective
and there will be no space for personal interventions (for example of Ministry
offi cials) in the process.
However, the quality of project evaluation still remains to be the weak point. Formal
control of project applications and evaluation are often carried out under time
pressure. Evaluators have to assess large quantity of projects in a short period,
which reduces the quality of evaluation, especially the assessment of past activities
and experience of applicants and the quality of activities and methods proposed in
the projects. Apart from that, there are no effective mechanisms for quality control
of the work carried out by evaluators and no sanctions for low quality of work or
contravening the rules.
Conclusions and Recommendations
This development presents a clear step towards active participation of NGOs at the
control and monitoring processes. It is crucial to develop the cooperation with the
78
with all managing authorities. Close attention should be paid to the thorough
evaluation of experience through the OP EaSI and the dissemination of this good
practice.
Another way of increasing the transparency of evaluation and selection in the OP is
the involvement of NGO representatives as observers.
To create commonly acceptable solutions for NGO participation, systematic work on
the institutional and organizational structure of the cooperation needs to be carried
out both by authorities and NGOs. The formulation of a singular authority must be
utilised to the maximum as its management has access to forums that are closed
to NGOs and can infl uence top decision makers. This indirect infl uence needs to
be combined with active advocacy with the aim to establish bilaterally convenient
relations between MAs and NGOs.
Theme 7: Cooperation among NGOs
79
Cooperation among NGOs on problematic projects, funded by EU money or for
promotion of good practices to be supported by the EU Cohesion policy and CAP
has over a decade long history. It was mainly environmental groups that started to
cooperate on national and on international levels among themselves in order to
save nature protection zones, wetlands, forests from highways or to fi ght against
problematic energy, waste, etc. projects for clean air or healthy living conditions.
Later NGOs joined forces and started to propose alternatives – in the beginning for
particular projects, then – for programmes and policies. NGOs also work together to
improve conditions for public participation, access to information, etc.
Cooperation among NGOs is widespread in CEE countries due to the fact that most
of them are small groups with sometimes very focused objectives and expertise and
limited resources (fi nances and manpower). This process naturally covers the work
(campaigning, advocacy) on EU funds, where NGOs from CEE have been involved
since the mid-90’s in connection with some PHARE-funded projects.
With the process of pre-accession and then the accession to EU, more NGOs in
new member countries became more active in the fi eld of EU funds and naturally
increased cooperation among themselves. Today there are developed national
coalitions that work on EU funding in almost all CEE countries as well as international
networks such as the CEE Bankwatch Network. Some of the older networks e.g.,
Friends of the Earth – Europe, WWF and BirdLife also included work on EU funds
in their portfolio, thus increasing cooperation among themselves and with NGOs in
CEE countries.
One of the oldest and among the most famous cases for cooperation among NGOs
with regards to a particular project is the “Save Kresna gorge” campaign of sixteen
Bulgarian environmental and scientifi c organizations. It is about the protection of
a precious natural site from destruction during the construction and operation of
Struma motorway, part of the TEN-T corridor No 4. The campaign started in late
1997, passed trough the whole pre-accession period (2000 – 2006) and is still going
on. Throughout the years the NGOs involved set a huge number of precedents
and good practices in cooperation, work with national and EU institutions and
international NGO networks.
With the accession and the prioritising of the national network of highways, the
work of the “Save Kresna gorge” coalition (16 NGOs) gained impetus. The NGOs
managed to prove their positions on alternative routes for the motorway and the
80
fi nal agreement between the EC and the Bulgarian government, made in 2007
was that an alternative route that does not destroy Kresna gorge NATURA 2000
site should be chosen and developed. The Coalition has a very good working
relationship with present governmental institutions (the Ministry for Regional
Planning and Construction Works, Road Infrastructure Agency and to some
extent the Ministry of Transport, Information Technologies and Communications)
and are to work out the Steering Committee for the project and other important
works (e.g., clarify EIA conditions, CBA, etc.).
Other NGOs’ coalitions in Bulgaria are working more or less the same way.
Some of them (“For Nature” Coalition, etc. as well as a number of grassroots
initiatives for the protection of different natural areas) are focused on concrete
projects, related to EU funding and the protection of NATURA 2000 sites.
They are also active in solving problems between nature protection and the
development of wind and solar parks. Others, like the Coalition for Sustainable
Use of EU Funds (CSUEUF) is focused on monitoring all the OPs and a set of
associated problems.
In the Czech Republic, we have an example with two very structured platforms
for NGOs. The Association of NGO’s in the Czech Republic was founded in
2003, and involves nearly 900 NGOs from the country by now. The Association
defends and promotes the common interests and needs of the entire non-profi t
sector, creating a space for communication and partnership among NGOs
and with other social actors (public administrations, parliaments, councils,
employers, trade unions, political parties, etc. ). The NGO Association also helps
its members and other NGOs to adapt to the conditions of the European Union.
The Association of NGOs set a range of priorities as targets, which are currently
regarded as the most signifi cant strengthening point of the partnership of NGOs
and public bodies and prepare them for the use of European Union support
programs in the next programming period 2014 and beyond.
The Governmental Council of Non-Governmental Organizations is a standing
advisory, initiative and coordinating body of the Government of the Czech
Republic in the area of non-profi t organizations. The Government Council for
NGOs was established in 1992 as Council for Foundations, and in 1998, it was
transformed to Council on Non-Governmental Organizations.
Members of the Council are nominated by the national government, but in fact
the Council consist of the representatives of the Czech branches of main NGO
networks. The Council is not an autonomous body of NGOs, but in fact it is an open
discussion forum for NGOs with wide authority. The Council has three working
81
committees: the Committee for Regions, the Committee for EU and the
Committee for Legislation.
The Council shall perform, among others, monitoring, analysing and publishing
of information on the status of NGOs within the EU and on participation in EU-
related decision making that affects NGOs and fi nancial resources for them,
work with ministries and other administrative authorities responsible for the
fi nancial management of EU sources in the Czech Republic to make NGOs
eligible to apply for EU funds.
The case of Poland (see the case study from Poland in Theme 2, sub-theme
1) gives an example how NGOs and other socio-economic partners, presented
in the Monitoring Committees cooperate among themselves and with public
institutions. The National Thematic Network for Partnership was established in
June 2010 by the Coordinating Committee for the National Strategic Framework
2007-2013. The Network will exist till the end of the current programming
period. The aim of the Network is to provide concrete support to the members
of Monitoring Committees (MCs), especially to those who represent socio-
economic partners. The support should make their activities more effective and
eliminate problems related to the implementation of structural funds in Poland.
The Network strives to strengthen the entire civil society in Poland indirectly, too.
In a country with a communist inheritance, the lack of trust in working relations
and communication between different groups still exist. Therefore, it is of crucial
importance to have a platform, where representatives of different social/civil
groups can discuss problems in an open and honest manner.
The Network has six instruments to operate:
•
a national annual conference on various aspects of partnership;
•
regional meetings – held every 2/3 months in one of the 16 Polish
regions, meetings are dedicated to actual diffi culties in the work of
members of MCs, training, workshops and exchange of experiences;
•
analysis and expertise – possibility to order thematic studies;
•
competition for the monitoring committee with the best partnership
application ;
•
horizontal exchange of information - using the Knowledge Base
administrated by the Ministry for Regional Development;
•
miscellaneous educational activities, depending on needs.
82
So far about 150 people attended the meetings of the Network. They gradually
join the information system. We estimate that there are about 800 members of
the MCs and their alternates who represent socio-economic partners.
The experience from Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and Poland, as well as from
the other countries shows that there is widespread cooperation among NGOs in
the fi elds of EU funds. They vary from forming ad-hoc or permanent coalitions
to joint civil-institutional platforms and initiatives. From local and national to
international ones. Organised bottom-up or governmentally initiated.
All of them represent real life situations and needs – whether it be a fi ght for
the protection of natural, cultural or social heritage, or the need to involve
stakeholders in decision-making for strategies and projects for their village,
town, region, or monitoring the use of public (incl. EU-granted) funds.
From the other side, the support for NGOs in new member countries is getting
limited as more donors believe that the conditions in CEE became more friendly
to civil initiatives and citizens, socially responsible businesses and governments
are willing to donate more for civil initiatives. Unfortunately this is not the case.
The resource shortages are also among the reasons for cooperation – an
attempt to use money and goods in the most effi cient way.
The cooperation also helps to build trust among partners and is an investment
in social capital.
There are a number of problems however, that should be overcome:
•
there are always new and inexperienced partners, so open-
mindedness and a method for learning the ways of how to cooperate
is needed;
•
there are always new situations, inspired by internal or external
factors (e.g., EU legislation) that request new innovative forms of
cooperation;
•
there is always the threat that some authorities would decide to limit
the role of civil society, so there is always need to defend the right for
public participation and other associated rights of civil society.
Many civil activists in CEE had the opportunity to see the rise of freedom in their
countries, and although nothing can be perfect, they have learnt many lessons
how to work together for improving the conditions of life and save nature.
Case Study (Bulgaria):
83
Cooperation among NGOs to
Save Kresna Gorge
There are number of cases for cooperation between Bulgarian NGOs with
regard to Pre-accession and Structural funds, but one is already remarkable
and could be assessed as a pioneering approach for cooperation both among
NGOs and between NGOs and institutions. The Strouma motorway (part of
TEN-T Corridor 4) between Sofi a and the Bulgarian-Greek border (towards
Thessaloniki) became the most famous campaign related to an EU-funded
project since 1997. Now the project is moving ahead to some extent, aiming to
get money from the OP Transport for both the 2007-13 and the 2014-20 fi nancial
periods. After some fourteen years of strong campaigning to save Kresna gorge
reserve and NATURA 2000 zone, the NGOs from “Save Kresna gorge coalition”
launched a new phase of the campaign. Now they are working in cooperation
with the Ministry for Regional Development and Public Works (MRDPW) and the
Ministry of Transport, Information Technologies and Communications (MTITC)
and other institutions, e.g., the Ministry of Environment and Waters (MOEW) and
the Programming of EU funds Directorate within the Council of Ministers.
At an extensive meeting in 2007 with the participation of all involved institutions
and NGOs with a moderation of EC representatives, agreement was made that
the Kresna gorge section of the highway should be constructed following the
alternative proposal initiated by the NGOs in their attempts to save the gorge.
Both alternatives envisaged the protection of the gorge and the construction
of a highway at the same time. Three years afterwards still no development
was made. Moreover, the government decided to pass by the agreement and
propose only sections outside the gorge for EU funding, thus foreshadowing
future problems with bottlenecks and the salami approach.
As the EU commission did not accept to support such approach and in late
2010 the MTITC and later on MRDPW took the initiative to invite NGOs for a set
of meetings to move the project ahead. The present government is very much
focused on the construction of highways and fast roads until 2020. Therefore,
the institutions were open and asked NGOs to provide all the knowledge they
have to support faster development of the project. Namely, NGOs are involved
in:
84
•
Proposals and discussions around alternatives within the “Tunnels
alternative”;
•
Clarifi cation of EIA conditions;
•
Setting up of the Steering committee. The steering Committee is
one of the conditions to start Strouma highway project at all. It was
proposed by NGOs and accepted by the EC and others before 2007.
This form of an ongoing monitoring body for a single project is an
innovation for Bulgaria.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The so far positive progress promises that both environmental and transport goals
would be met and EU funds would be utilised properly. Nevertheless, as there is
still a long way ahead, NGOs should continue their excellent cooperation on the
case. Their position is strong enough due to several factors, namely:
•
The EU does not allow the motorway application to be submitted in
sections (no “salami approach”);
•
The Bulgarian government aims to complete some seven major
highways by 20209 including Strouma motorway by 201510 ;
•
From an economic point of view, Thessaloniki is the nearest big port
to Sofi a and besides the highway, a new high-speed railroad should
be constructed within the next 5 to 10 years.
NGOs from the “Save Kresna gorge coalition” should:
•
participate actively in the Steering Committee to be specially set for
the project and work actively to insure the fulfi lment of all requirements
of the EU and national environmental legislation until the whole
motorway is completed and put in operation;
•
actively proposing solutions for the ongoing problems that would
arise during the construction period;
•
monitoring potential problems outside Kresna gorge and propose
solutions to the respective institutions;
•
communicate with international NGOs (Green 10, other NGOs of
MCs that have similar expertise) to ensure that up-to-date proposals
and solutions are taken into account;
•
actively participate in the programming of Structural funds in Bulgaria
for the period of 2014-2020 in order to guarantee that EU money will
be spent on more sustainable transport projects.
9
The priorities for development of road infrastructure in Bulgaria by 2020 for roads of European and
national importance. Ministry for Regional Development. Sofi a, 01.02.2011. available at: http://www.
mrrb.government.bg/index.php?lang=bg&do=actual&id=2752
10
Velikov, Georgi. By 2020 - 7 highways and 7 fast roads. Sofi a, 24,01,2011. Available at: http://www.
trud.bg/Article.asp?ArticleId=753738
Case Study (Czech Republic):
85
Advances of NGOs and the
Public Sector in the Czech Republic
In the Czech Republic, the non-governmental non-profi t sector is very young and
is fi ghting various weaknesses. Czech NGOs simply work for better coordination
among themselves in specifi c issues and trying to build fruitful partnerships with
the public sector. One of these issues is the Structural funds.
After a euphoric period at the beginning of the 90s, Czech NGOs go through
hard times in the process of differentiation for professional and citizens’ bodies.
After the admission of the Czech Republic to the EU, EU funds became the main
source of fi nancing for the nongovernmental sector. It started a new wave of
founding NGOs, but a lot of these NGOs do not enjoy the wide support of the
public.
Partnership is a frequently used term in the discourses on Structural funds and
Cohesion policy. It is a helpful tool for improving the social and political impact
of Structural funds. Discussion and partnership between NGOs, the public, and
the government must be dealt with on different levels.
In the Czech Republic there are two platforms on which extensive discussion is
going on between these sectors
Governmental Council of Non-Governmental Organizations
The Governmental Council of Non-Governmental Organizations is a standing
advisory, initiated by and a coordinating body of the Government of the Czech
Republic for questions in the fi eld of non-profi t organizations. The Government
Council for NGOs was established by a Government Resolution in 1992 as
Council for Foundations, and transformed by a Government Resolution of 1998 to
Council on Non-Governmental Organizations.
The Council collects, discusses and (through its Chairman/President by
government) comments on materials related to NGOs and the creation of a suitable
environment for their existence and activities. In addition to its other obligations,
the Council shall perform the following tasks:
86
•
Initiates and coordinates the cooperation between ministries,
administrative offi ces and local authorities in support of NGOs,
including the subsidy policy of public budgets,
•
monitors, analyzes and publishes information on the status of NGOs
within the European Union (EU) regarding participation in EU-related
decision-making affecting NGOs and fi nancial resources, working
with ministries and other administrative authorities responsible for
the fi nancial management of EU resources in the Czech Republic, if
NGOs are eligible to apply,
•
in cooperation with ministries, administrative offi ces, NGOs and other
bodies and institutions ensures the availability and dissemination of
information on NGOs and government policy measures which relate
to NGOs, in particular, access and analyze information about grants
from public funds for NGOs.
Members of the Council are nominated by the national government, but in fact
the Council consist of representatives of the branches of main NGOs’ networks
in the Czech Republic. The Council is not a democratic autonomous body of
NGO’s, but in fact it is an open discussion forum for NGOs with wide authority.
The Council has three working committees: the Committee of Regions, the
Committee for EU and the Committee for Legislation. The latter consists of
experts and lawyers and is the most technical one among them in the whole
structure of the Council.
The Committee for EU monitors the status of NGOs within the EU and fi nancial
resources associated with CR in the EU membership. In doing so, the Committee
cooperates with other ministries and agencies that implement the EU’s fi nancial
resources in the country and prepares proposals for improving the use of funds
by NGOs. The Committee has gained access to information on the use of
assistance from Structural Funds, Cohesion Fund and other funds.
In last programming period, the committee played an important role in the
nomination of representatives of NGOs to monitoring committees of particular
OPs. The Committee prepares calls for interested representatives of NGOs and
prepares an open evaluation process for candidates. The successful candidate
becomes delegate of the Council. Delegates of the Council were accepted in all
cases by the implementation authority of particular OPs.
The Committee of Regions is a platform for the meeting of the non-profi t
87
sector, the government, local governments and the private sector. Its members
are mainly representatives of NGOs and elected representatives of regional
governments, representatives of the Union of the Czech and Moravian Production
Cooperatives, the Ministry of Environment CR Economic Chamber, the Chamber
of Agriculture, the Ministry of Interior and the Ministry for Regional Development.
The Committee is particularly concerned with the institutionalization of relations
between the voluntary sector and public administration at the regional level.
Weaknesses
Strong side
It is not an autonomous
Natural authority in the
body of th NGO sector.
NGO sector.
Motivation of some
Open discussion platform
Council members.
supported on
govermental level.
Low authority by some
Working structure
governmental bodies.
functions - Committee of
regions.
Dependence on
Support by secretary.
govermental structures.
The Committee of Regions supported the most important partnership agreement
between the NGO sector and regional Governments. The Association of NGOs
in the Czech Republic, with support of the Committee of Regions, prepared
a memorandum of cooperation with the Association of Regions in the Czech
Republic. Important discussions were lead about the practical aspects of this
memorandum within this Committee.
The Memorandum is followed by similar memoranda in most of the regions of
the Czech Republic. These partnership agreements formulate principles for the
cooperation of NGOs in particular regions with their governments, some of them
promise structural support for the regional networking of NGOs.
88
About the Association of NGOs in the Czech Republic
Another important body for communication between NGOs and the public sector
is the Association of NGOs in the Czech Republic. It is the association of legal
persons, which was founded in 2003 as a result of a long process of strengthening
collaboration within the non-profi t sector, which began in the early 90 years.
Members of the Association of NGOs are all regional multidisciplinary associations
and some branch associations, as well as a number of nongovernmental
organizations.
Its membership is nearly 900 NGOs, however, it defends and promotes the
common interests and needs of the entire non-profi t sector, creating a space for
communication and partnership among NGOs and with other social actors (public
administrations, parliaments, councils, employers, trade unions, political parties,
etc.). The NGO Association helps its members and other NGOs to adapt to the
conditions of the European Union.
The Association of NGOs in the Czech Republic is the largest association of this
type in the country. It is based on a regional structure. However, it is not the only
or main representative of the NGO sector in the Czech Republic.
The Association of NGOs has set a range of its priorities as targets, the most
signifi cant of which now is the strengthening of the partnership of NGOs and public
bodies, and the preparation of them (via seminars and workshops conducted)
for the utilization of European Union support programs in the next programming
period 2013 and beyond.
The Memorandum about partnership with the Association of Regions of the Czech
Republic is the most visible institutional improvement in partnership in the Czech
Republic.
Internet sources (in Czech):
Governmental Council:
http://www.vlada.cz/cz/ppov/rnno/zakladni-informace-767
Association of NGOs in the Czech Republic:
www.asociacenno.cz
89
About SFteam
SFteam (“Structural Funds” Team) for Sustainable Future is a network of NGOs
established in 2002 with the aim of guiding regional development and regional
policy towards sustainability through promoting meaningful partnership and
public participation in decision-making.
From the initial number of four, its membership has grown to eight and covers
Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, the Netherlands, Poland,
Romania and Slovakia by now. SFteam members are umbrellas or at least serve
as communication points for the broader NGO community in their countries.
SFteam members realized that EU cohesion policy through its funding
instruments is a key factor in determining the development path of CEE
countries. Therefore, they agreed to promote the principles of partnership,
transparency and sustainability in the programming, monitoring, implementation
and evaluation of Structural and Cohesion Funds, including the elaboration of
some pilot projects.
SFteam members work in the above fi elds with a diverse national focus but
with the shared goal of helping communities, stakeholders and decision-makers
agree on a path towards sustainability for the common benefi t of all.
The majority of SFteam’s fi nancial resources comes from the Charles Stewart
Mott Foundation but SFteam also appreciated funding from the International
Visegrad Fund, the Dutch government, the Hungarian National Civil Fund and
other European and national funding sources.
Contact:
Secretariat of SFteam for Sustainable Future
International Co-ordinator: István Farkas
Magyar Természetvédők Szövetsége
(National Society of Conservationists)
H-1091 Budapest, Üllői út 91/b, Hungary
Tel/fax: +36 1 216 7297, Fax: +36 1 216 7295
Email: xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxx.xx
Web-site: www.sfteam.eu
90
SFteam members
Center for Community Organizing, Czech Republic
http://www.cpkp.cz ; http://www.cpkp.cz/regiony
BlueLink Information Network, Bulgaria
http://www.bluelink.net
Public Environmental Centre for Sustainable Development, Bulgaria
http://www.ecovarna.info
Focus Eco Centre, Romania
http://www.focuseco.ro
Friends of the Earth – CEPA, Slovakia
http://www.priateliazeme.sk/cepa
Green Liberty, Latvia
http://www.zb-zeme.lv
Milieukontakt International, Netherlands
http://www.milieukontakt.nl/
National Society of Conservationists, Hungary
http://www.mtvsz.hu
Polish Green Network, Poland
http://www.zielonasiec.pl
Imprint
Edited by:
Petko KOVACHEV
Authors:
Teodóra DÖNSZ-KOVÁCS (MTvSz/NSC-FoE Hungary)
István FARKAS (MTvSz/NSC-FoE Hungary)
Zoltán HAJDU (Focus Eco Center, Romania)
Iliyan ILIEV (PECSD, Bulgaria)
Przemek KALINKA (Polish Green Net, Poland)
Petko KOVACHEV (Bulgaria)
Ondrej MAREK (CpKP, Czech Republic)
Miroslav MOJZIS (Friends of the Earth – CEPA, Slovakia)
Alda OZOLA (Green Liberty, Latvia)
Vera STAEVSKA (BlueLink, Bulgaria)
Published by: SFteam for Sustainable Future and
Magyar Természetvédők Szövetsége
(National Society of Conservationists – Friends of the Earth Hungary)
Proof-read by: Kinga Kovács
Printed by: Vajai Produkciós Iroda Bt.
Printed on recycled paper
Budapest, 2011
SFteam would like to thank the C. S. Mott Foundation for their
fi nancial contribution.