![]() |
![]() |
||||||||||||||
|
2.1. Existing contactsIn many fields, the Commission has developed extensive contacts with NGOs in the context of policy-making. These contacts range from ad hoc meetings, the participation of NGO representatives in expert groups to more formalised arrangements such as regular meetings with European NGO associations and networks, or the participation of NGOs in advisory committees as part of a formal consultation process. While it is logical that consultation on policy-shaping and implementation of specific programmes or projects is best done at sector level, some more general cross-cutting co-ordination is desirable in certain circumstances. A. Ad hoc meetings between Commission services and NGOsIn its Communication of 2 December 1992, "An open and structured dialogue between the Commission and special interest groups" the Commission reiterated its belief in the need to remain open to outside input. Therefore the Institution remains open and accessible to a wide variety of organisations including NGOs which wish to put their views forward.
B. Structured dialogue/co-operationWhere there is an established practice of systematic, regular meetings with NGOs to discuss policy issues, though without the formal structure of a committee or other structure with operating rules.
A good example of the value of a horizontal approach was the seminar which was hosted by the Commission in November 1998 to present the Vade-mecum on grant management to some 200 representatives of Brussels-based NGOs. Representatives of four NGO "families" (environment, social affairs, development aid and human rights) participated actively in the seminar. Representatives of the same four NGO "families" are in regular contact with the Grant Management Network on the implementation of the Vade-mecum. The steering group sees the current informal co-operation as useful and wishes it to continue. C. Formalised consultationWhere there is a political/formal commitment to consult an NGO or grouping of NGOs on a particular issue, during the decision-making process. Also, where NGOs participate as members or observers in advisory groups / consultative committees with defined procedures.
2.2. Specific role of European NGO associations and networksIt is important for NGOs and groupings of NGOs to be democratic and transparent as regards their membership and claims to representativeness. In this context, the European Commission encourages organisations to work together in common associations and networks at the European level since such organisations considerably facilitate the efficiency of the consultation process. However, for the consultation process to take place via such associations and networks, these organisations need to ensure that their structures are representative, in particular regarding their roots in the different Member States of the European Union. However, representativeness, though an important criterion, should not be the only determining factor for membership of an advisory committee, or to take part in dialogue with the Commission. Other factors, such as their track record and ability to contribute substantial policy inputs to the discussion are equally important. 2.3. Improving dialogue and consultation with NGOsThe Commission adheres to the principle of open government, and therefore feels it necessary to establish a number of clear guiding principles to ensure that systematic and regular consultations with NGOs are also meaningful, efficient and conducted in a transparent manner. 2.3.1 Guidelines for best practice in consultationIn order to be mutually beneficial, dialogue and consultations require first and foremost proper planning and a high level of commitment by all participants throughout the process. The Commission therefore wishes to develop a framework of principles for creating a more structured dialogue with NGOs. This process should lead to a set of recommendations identifying best practice in consultation, which would be addressed to all Commission departments. The following issues could be considered in this context, though they remain open to further debate with the Commission's NGO partners, whose own views on the best ways to improve the dialogue with the Commission will be important:
These could include the following:
It should be borne in mind that selection by the Commission of its interlocutors according to such criteria may not be feasible or appropriate in each area of Commission's activities. Self-selection by the NGO Community, through the appointment of representatives and the setting-up of networks or platforms can be a useful alternative. 2.3.2 Improving transparencyIn practice greater transparency means providing more information on how the Commission selects and has selected its partners for regular consultation, what consultative groups exist, their composition and some details about the NGOs participating. Where it is the NGO community that nominates interlocutors for dialogue with the Commission, the NGO associations and networks should provide information on the criteria and reasons for selecting these NGOs. The issue of whether joint criteria should be agreed between the NGOs and the Commission should be considered. Further consultation with NGOs on these issues will be part of the follow-up to this Discussion Paper (see chapter 6). 2.3.3 Improving information about meetingsAs a first step to improve information about ongoing and planned consultations the Commission intends to announce all major consultative meetings on the EU's EUROPA website, including links to more specific information with appropriate DGs. 2.3.4 Listing the NGOs included in formal and structured consultation processesA list of the committees and working groups involved in formal and structured consultation procedures and the NGO belonging to them will be compiled and incorporated into a special EUROPA website on NGOs. Where consultations are held on a regular basis with a limited number of NGO associations and networks and individual NGOs (e.g. in the context of advisory committees or other forms of structured consultation processes), it seems desirable in the interests of transparency to provide the general public with some information about these structures and NGOs which belong to them. This information could include, for example, the legal status of the NGOs, their objectives, membership structure, and main sources of financing. These groups and NGOs could therefore be invited to co-operate with the Commission to make this information available, possibly by supplementing the information already given in the Directory of non-profit making special interest groups published on the website referred to above, and by creating a specific website with links to those DGs where such information is already available. 2.4. AccreditationSome NGOs have raised the issue of having an official consultative status for NGOs along the lines of existing systems in the United Nations and Council of Europe. The Commission has always rejected an official consultative status. One reason given for instance in the Commission's Communication on "An open and structured dialogue between the Commission and Special Interest Groups" is that "the Commission has always wanted to maintain a dialogue which is as open as possible without having to enforce an accreditation system." Moreover, unlike the system in international bodies, the decision making process in the EU is first and foremost legitimised by the elected representatives of the European peoples. However, the dialogue with the other European institutions and NGOs in the follow-up of this Discussion Paper could usefully include a discussion on whether a more formalised approach would provide an added value. 2.5. A legal basis for consultation with NGOs in the TreatyUnlike the social dialogue with the social partners, there is no legal basis in the Treaty for dialogue or consultation with NGOs, though in terms of social policy and the civil dialogue, there already exists Declaration 23 annexed to the Treaty of Maastricht.Despite the lack of a specific reference to the civil dialogue in the Treaty, a number of forums for dialogue and consultation have been developed in a range of policy fields. The Employment and Social Affairs Directorate General, for instance, aims to try to engage in the civil dialogue in practice via NGO participation in a wide range of committees and liaison groups, meetings with the Platform of Social NGOs and informal working groups. Several European-level NGOs in particular have raised the issue of having a legal base for NGO relations established in the Treaty in the context of the next Inter-Governmental Conference. 3. BUDGETARY ISSUES3.1. Core-funding3.1.1 Current situationThe Commission already provides considerable amounts of core-funding for the running costs of a variety of organisations. The Vade-mecum on Grant Management approved by the Commission in July 1998 lays down special rules on funding for organisations which are receiving core-funding. This means of course that these organisations must be clearly identified. Although this has been done for Part A (administrative appropriations) of the Budget and the list is on the Grant Management Network website, for Part B of the Budget (operating appropriations) it is much more complicated. However, a listing of budget lines providing core-funding and the names of the beneficiaries is being prepared. It is only when this information is available that it will be possible to assess to what extent NGOs already receive core-funding. The situation is also complicated by the fact that in certain cases financial awards for projects performed by an NGO may in reality also act as a significant support for the running costs of the organisation. Some budget lines can provide funding both for project funding and core-funding. Furthermore, even when NGOs already receive core-funding this is not done in any kind of co-ordinated way or according to common criteria across the Commission. It has grown in a piece-meal way through mention of specific NGOs in Parts A and B of the EU Budget. 3.1.2 Proposals for future measures to improve coherenceThe question of core-funding is linked to the Commission's general policy towards partnership with NGOs and in particular NGOs organised at European level and deserves to be examined in detail on the basis of both existing best practice and shortcomings. As pointed out already in Chapter 1, by encouraging national NGOs to work together to achieve common goals, the European NGO networks are making a vital contribution to the formation of a "European public opinion" usually seen as a pre-requisite to the establishment of a true European political entity. In particular, the ability of European NGO associations and networks to channel and focus the views of the various national NGOs is extremely useful for the Commission. It therefore seems reasonable that the Commission should provide practical support for these NGOs. In the interests of transparency, it seems preferable that this support be provided through specific core-funding budget lines. The legal bases of such lines should specify the eligibility criteria and conditions under which core-funding would be provided to NGOs. The criteria should take into account, among other things:
In addition, the Commission will respect the right of any NGO or activity it funds in this way to promote frank, accurate and properly supported views on matters directly relating to the stated purpose of the NGO or activity. 3.2. Project fundingA review of existing legal bases related to project funding also needs to be undertaken with a view to seeing where substantial inconsistencies exist. At the same time the nature and impact of budget commentaries also need to be examined to see to what extent they are consistent with the legal bases. Where legal bases need to be renewed an attempt should be made to bring them into line with other existing legal bases so as to ensure a more coherent approach. In cases where the same action can be funded in different ways (as is the case for example of support to the electoral process in developing countries), there must be explicit criteria or policy guidelines established to clarify which instrument is the most appropriate. 3.3. Restructuring the Budget / Rationalisation of budget linesAt present the Commission is faced with a high number of budget lines with their respective legal bases which are not coherently organised either in terms of their position in the EU budget nor with regard to the complementarity of their objectives. These have largely developed out of particular orientations set by the budgetary authority, in particular the European Parliament. In their Second Report on Reform of the Commission, the Committee of Independent Experts stressed the need "to establish a budget structure favourable to transparent management and effective monitoring. The distinction between administrative and operating expenditure should be abandoned". In particular it questions the need for the division of the Budget into Part A - (administrative appropriations) and Part B (operating appropriations). To illustrate that the distinction which is supposed to be made between the two Parts is often ignored, it cites cases where grants have been made to cultural organisations in both Part A and Part B. The need for clarification of the structure of the Budget was also taken up in the report of the Budget Committee of the Parliament in its report on the Draft Budget for 2000. In this it asks the Commission to present a new approach to the separation of appropriations into Part A and Part B of the Budget when the Draft Budget for 2001 is presented. The Preliminary Draft Budget for 2001 will reflect a new approach and will incorporate some elements of Activity-Based Budgeting. ABB is the budgetary component of the wider Activity Based Management (ABM) approach which aims to improve management culture in the Commission as part of the overall Commission administrative reform process. However, since the definition of activities and policy areas will be linked to the existing organisational structure of the Commission, introduction of ABB alone will not solve the existing problems of a lack of coherence among budget lines. To deal with this problem, consultations need to be started at the earliest possible opportunity with the budgetary authority to exchange views on how to rationalise budget lines as described above. Clearly, this issue will concern all beneficiaries, not just NGOs. It is recognised that the budgetary authority will always wish to retain its right to fix priorities - the issue here is how to allow this in such a way as to ensure that the administrative and human resource consequences are foreseen and addressed in an appropriate way. At the same time there needs to be better use of annual "programming" reflecting Council, European Parliament and Commission priorities. 4. MANAGEMENT ISSUESThe objective of this chapter is to provide an overview of current challenges in EC grant management and to identify a number of approaches for improving present financial and management procedures as they affect NGOs in particular. Although any reform of the Commission's grant management will be undertaken in the interest of all beneficiaries, the Commission is aware that NGOs are its main project partners in many policy fields. NGOs are therefore affected by the present problems in specific ways and can rightly expect that suitable solutions are found. Grants in all their various forms account for an important part of Community expenditure. The major part is not paid directly by the European Commission but through the national and regional authorities of the Member States. This is the case of payments under the Common Agricultural Policy and of most payments under the structural policy financial instruments. However, the Commission also pays grants direct to beneficiaries (public or private bodies - universities, businesses, interest groups, NGOs - and in some cases individuals) in pursuance of common policies in a wide number of fields (external policies, research and development, education, training, the environment, consumer protection, and information policy). EU funding through grants gives the Community a flexible instrument to support implementation of its various policy objectives. 4.1. The challenge of managing grantsThere are a series of challenges facing the Commission at present in managing those grants that are awarded under its direct responsibility. Many of the issues described in the following are pertinent to the management of direct grants throughout the Commission departments. However, some of them are particularly relevant in the field of external policies because of the variety of different budget lines and the relatively high appropriations of these lines in the General Budget. One of the fundamental problems of the Commission is the low ratio of staff to financial resources managed compared with similar managerial structures in the Member States or in international organisations. In order to cope with this situation, the Commission has developed a range of different management schemes, the common feature of which is the delegation of certain administrative or support activities to various bodies, including NGOs, outside the Commission. The Commission has also been opting in some cases for concentrating the available resources on a smaller number of larger projects with a view to reducing the administrative burden of grant management. The Commission is nevertheless aware that this approach cannot be applied across the board as in certain policy fields the small size of a project run by an NGO might be a necessary precondition for implementing it successfully. Another issue of concern in the management of grants awarded to NGOs is the way in which the Commission applies its procedures that are aimed at ensuring the sound management of Community funds. As the taxpayer's money must be spent in a judicious, economic and transparent way, the award and management of EU grants are subject to specific conditions and requirements to be fulfilled by the applicant organisation, notably in terms of its capacity, both operational (technical and managerial) and financial. This means that the Commission must be able to assess the capacities of NGOs in order to ensure that they are capable of carrying out the projects entrusted to them and also of accounting properly for the funds involved. At the same time some characteristics of the NGO sector such as the small size of the organisations, a sometimes tight cash flow situation, difficulties in providing financial guarantees, may well mean that their internal structure and capacities are not necessarily well adapted to meet the administrative requirements placed on them by the EU institutions when they apply for grants. In recent years, for instance, increased scrutiny linked in particular to the question of financial security of grants has resulted in a tightening up of requirements which has led to longer delays in a number of cases. In particular, the question of financial guarantees to be provided by NGOs has led to some friction in recent months. The challenge is to design management procedures which provide the necessary guarantees on the proper use of public money while at the same not placing an unnecessary administrative or financial burden on NGOs since the Commission is often not the only donor providing funds to a particular NGO and must be prepared to allow the NGO sufficient flexibility to comply with the requirements of different donors. The Commission accepts that, particularly for innovative projects or operations carried out in developing countries, or in the framework of humanitarian or emergency actions, a risk component is implicit and unavoidable. It also needs to be borne in mind that the EU's co-operation with NGOs means that actions can be financed and realised which neither the private sector nor local governments would otherwise implement. Against this background, the main challenges facing the Commission today can be summarised as follows:
4.2. Overarching principlesAny new approach aimed at improving the management of Community programmes will fall short if it does not take into account the potential impact on the beneficiaries of these grants. The Commission remains therefore committed to respect the following overarching principles in the management of NGO projects and programmes:
4.3. Improving the management of NGO grantsDesigning and implementing measures to improve grant management is a cross-cutting issue, which affects nearly all Commission departments. As a first important step to ensure that these issues are dealt with in a coherent manner throughout the Commission, the Commission adopted in 1998 the Vade-mecum on Grant Management and set up the Grant Management Network, which will continue to play an essential role in further reforming the Commission's grant management, in particular by identifying and disseminating "best practice". The Grant Management Network has also established a subgroup on partnerships to examine how best to co-operate with certain beneficiaries in areas where the Commission and its partners have strong mutual interests and share general objectives. Nevertheless, further action, possibly including the widening of the scope of the Grant Management Network, and the involvement of additional actors will be needed in the future. The Commission will ensure, in particular, that the reform of its grant management forms an integral part of the overall reform process by giving an essential co-ordination role to the Task Force on Administrative Reform. The Commission wishes to outline in the following paragraphs the main features of the next steps to be taken as far as these can affect grants awarded to NGOs. Some of these measures will be implemented fairly rapidly, whereas others will require further examination and consultation. 4.3.1 Institutional arrangements and intermediary bodiesThe Commission has had a mixed experience as regards the decentralisation or delegation of tasks to intermediary bodies such as institutions in the Member States, agencies at the national or European level or Technical Assistance Offices. In some cases these structures have been operating fairly smoothly, in other cases the Commission has encountered serious management problems.It is apparent that the necessary assessment of the role of intermediary bodies goes beyond grant schemes for NGOs and will therefore require a cross-cutting approach. However, in line with what was said in the chapter on consultation of the present Discussion Paper, the Commission intends to involve NGOs in the review and reform of these mechanisms as far as these will have direct repercussions on them.If and when it makes use of intermediary bodies the Commission needs to ensure that these bodies ensure that these have extensive experience in the NGO sector. In this context, the Commission will also thoroughly examine the possibility for NGO/co-operative consultancy groups to be included in call for tenders. 4.3.2 Streamlining the number of projects to be handled by the CommissionThough not a panacea for all management problems, it is inevitable that in certain areas, in particular in the field of external relations, the number of projects, contracts and operations to be handled by the Commission will have to be reduced. This could be achieved by applying the following measures:
The implementation of the above measures will be based on a serious analysis of the specific needs of the sector and of the NGOs active in that sector. They will be decided in consultation and agreement of the NGO sector directly concerned. 4.3.3 Improving the selection procedures and the quality of projects selectedImproving the selection procedure through enhanced forward planning will be another means of ensuring quality service in the management of grants. In this context, the systematic introduction of calls for proposals (as suggested in the Vade-mecum on Grant Management) has proved to be an important tool and will be increased in the future. This should be accompanied by more dialogue with the NGOs on defining focal areas, priorities and areas where NGO activities are complementary to EU activities. In addition, the implementation of multi-annual programmes, on a sector-by-sector, thematic or geographical basis, will aim at increasing the impact and quality of projects as well as at simplifying management tasks. Moreover, it is apparent that proper and rigorous use of the project cycle management approach, taking into account the special nature and characteristics of NGOs, greatly facilitates the sound management of grants. This includes, in particular, draft agreements that clearly set out the desired outcomes, performance indicators, quality controls and the monitoring and reporting procedures. Regarding the selection phase, the Commission intends to examine the use of external specialist assistance in the assessment of proposals. 4.3.4 Assessment of the NGOs' financial and operational capacityAlthough the Commission recognises that there is an element of risk in awarding grants in certain circumstances (see 4.1. above), it is obviously required to limit this risk as much as possible. The Vade-mecum sets out clear standards and criteria for the assessment by the Commission services of an NGO's eligibility and technical and financial capacities to carry out operations on which grants are awarded. 4.3.4.1 Financial guaranteesIn July 1999 the Commission endorsed preliminary guidelines on the financial security of grants awarded to NGOs in the field of external relations. Experience with these guidelines up to now has shown that they have proved to be a viable solution for both the Commission and the NGO community. The Commission therefore wishes to confirm these measures, which are described in the annex to this Discussion Paper. 4.3.4.2 Processing of information on NGO partnersThe need for much better information on all types of beneficiaries has been raised several times. Both the Commission's Inspectorate-General and the recent report on the reform of the Commission by the Committee of Independent Experts pointed to the need for Commission services to have a reliable information source with regard to beneficiaries of grants, which includes information on previous grants or those in the pipeline. The Vade-mecum on Grant Management also stipulated that grant managers should check on previous grants awarded before making an award. So far no tool is available which provides Commission departments with this information on a continuous basis. Within this general framework, the improved processing of information on NGOs receiving grants would be a win-win option for both the Commission and the NGO partners. Whilst facilitating the risk assessment of operations on the Commission side, it would also reduce the need for NGOs to provide the same information for each individual project proposal. Modalities for improved processing of information on NGOs should be examined including the following elements:
These information systems should take account of the needs of local partners in third countries. 4.3.5 Simplification of proceduresEU funds are spread across many different budget lines and are open to a variety of actors and potential beneficiaries, including NGOs. Grants are awarded according to different criteria and application procedures which place varying requirements on applicants. In close co-operation with NGOs and other partners/beneficiaries, the Grant Management Network will continue to introduce greater coherence where possible and "best practice" into Commission management procedures. These activities will focus, inter alia, on the harmonisation and improvement of project budget forms. One standard contract for grants in the field of EC-external aid programmes is now being introduced replacing the numerous existing contract types under those programmes. The contract, while meeting the specific requirements of projects and programme in the field of external aid, is based on the general standard contract form annexed to the Vade-mecum on the management of grants, and therefore ensures a basic link to and convergence with standard contract(s) to be used in other fields of EC grants. Another interesting development has been carried out by ECHO. When it set up ECHO, the Commission laid down as one of its prime objectives a greater degree of efficient humanitarian operations and stressed the need for a framework for relations with NGOs and international specialised agencies. Hence, the Commission adopted in May 1993 the model Framework Partnership Agreement (FPA) aimed at speeding up procedures and simplifying decision-making. A new FPA entered into force on 1st January 1999. The review of the FPA had these main objectives:
To date, more than 160 NGOs have signed the FPA. ECHO intends to enlarge its network of partners and the verification procedures for over 130 NGO will be carried out during the first half of the year 2000. 5. INFORMATION5.1. Information for the public, beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries including NGOA considerable amount of information is already available for the public in general, beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries on direct funding from the European Commission and this is being constantly updated and improved. NGOs and others seeking information on funding need different types of information at different stages in the application process, starting with general information on what is available, specific information on the criteria for the various grant programmes and details on how and when to reply. 5.1.1 General information on fundingGeneral information is available on a website called "Information on funding". At present the main source of general information on grants is an electronic version of the 1997 information brochure "Grants and Loans from the European Union". This brochure will be replaced during 2000 by a new guide on EUROPA which will link a description of EU policies with a description of the grant programmes available under these programmes and the detailed information given in the websites of the various Commission departments. Thus by following the links or by using a simple search system, an organisation looking for funding should be able to find out what grants are available and the detailed criteria and application procedures. 5.1.2 Specific information on fundingOne of the main aims of the Vade-mecum on Grant Management published in 1998 was to oblige departments to improve publicity on grants available and on grants awarded under these programmes. It was felt that more comprehensive and user-friendly information was needed so as to widen the circle of organisations applying for grants from the Commission. The Vade-mecum lays down specific and quite detailed rules on the information departments must provide in the call for proposals. Departments are required to publicise calls for proposal widely and using the EUROPA server is a minimum requirement. 5.2. NGO liaison point/network of NGO focal points in the CommissionOne way of providing a better service for NGOs would be to set up a number of "one-stop-shops" or information points in the Commission departments and EC delegations abroad working with NGOs. The role of such information points would have to be carefully defined and the resource implications studied. Regarding information on funding, it would be more logical to make such information points available to all potential beneficiaries, although for many departments, NGOs are the main beneficiaries of direct funding from the Commission. It also seems desirable to provide for general co-ordination of the relationship between the Commission and the NGOs by a horizontal department, which could play a role in promoting and widening the debate on NGO issues amongst the Commission services whilst respecting the specificity of NGO/Commission dialogue in the different sectors. In any case, given the specific nature and competence of the different NGO communities, the main responsibility for managing the Commission/NGO relationship in each sector should be kept within the respective Commission department. This department would have responsibility in particular for co-ordinating measures to improve both information for NGOs as well as information on NGOs for Commission departments. 6. CONCLUSIONSThe Commission recognises the need to establish a more coherent approach to its relations with NGOs by maintaining and building on existing "good practice" in different sectors. However, since many of the proposals contained in the present document are closely linked to the proposals on administrative reform which will be put forward in February, it is felt that the a Commission Communication on co-operation with NGOs should not be finalised until then. This will ensure that the proposals put forward in the present Discussion Paper are fully compatible with the reform process as a whole. The Commission regards this Discussion Paper as a first step in a process involving an extensive exchange of view with the NGO Community. To facilitate this consultation, the Commission will set up a website on EUROPA which will be open as soon as the text of the Commission has approved the Discussion Paper. The website will contain the text of the document in all official languages. There will also be an e-mail address to which the NGOs can send comments and these will appear on the website. ANNEX |
||||||||||||||
|
© European House 2009 |