Subject: EUFORIC - Information on Europe's Development Cooperation
From: Otto Miettinen (om@sll.fi)
Date: pe 20 maalis 1998 - 20:11:51 EET
Allaolevasta osoitteesta löytyy jotain tietoa mm. Phare -ohjelmasta
(ex-itäblokin kehittäminen) (-> Europe ->Central and Eastern Europe).
Sivuilta löytyi mm. viestin lopussa oleva artikkeli NGOiden TACIS- ja
PHARE-ohjelmista. Hieman vahentunut artikkeli, mutta antaa kuvaa, mitä
infoa kehy-verkostot voivat tuottaa.
t. Otto
>Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 12:41:17 +0200
>X-Sender: rekola@katto.kaapeli.fi
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>To: masivu@katto.kaapeli.fi, kepa-l@katto.kaapeli.fi,
> my-lista@katto.kaapeli.fi
>From: Juha Rekola <juha.rekola@kepa.fi>
>Subject: EUFORIC - Information on Europe's Development Cooperation
>Status:
>
>
>>Tiedoksi kiinnostuneille
> -Juha
>
>>
>>In recent months, ECDPM has joined with several partner organisations
>>to build a multi-lingual world wide web site on european development
>>cooperation. Known as EUFORIC, the aim is to collect and structure
>>information on a FEW SUBJECTS in a single place.
>>
>> http://www.oneworld.org/euforic/
>>
>>The site has been hosted at OneWorld Online (the premier web
>>site on global justice and development) since late 1995 and it is now
>>part of their "think tank" section. It is updated every
>>week and contains an ever-growing collection of full-text reports,
>>news stories, and an up-to date agenda of meetings.
>>
>>Just to whet your appetites, we have recently added the following:
>>
>>* Commentary and discussions of the ongoing discussions on the future
>>of EU-ACP cooperation (EC green paper, NGO reactions, background
>>reports, reports from the ACP Secretariat, news stories from IPS,
>>articles from DGVIII's Courier, weekly column from the Caribbean
>>Council for Europe, upcoming conferences and debates, etc)
>>
>>* Regular newsletters from the EU-NGO Liaison Committee, APRODEV,
>>the European Network on Debt and Development, VOICE, EUROSTEP, and
>>ECDPM.
>>
>>* Materials on the coherence of European development cooperation
>>with other sectors -- fisheries, chocolate, meat exports, the
>>environment
>>
>>* texts about the better management of aid -- decentralised
>>cooperation, aid effectiveness, approaches to poverty reduction, the
>>role of NGO's in development cooperation, including texts from "D&C"
>>a magazine from DSE, governance, democratisation, humanitarian aid,
>>debt, trade, and aid for suatainable development (see the IIED
>>collection of briefing papers prepared for the EU).
>>
>>* EUFORIC has a constantly updated "directory" section to help you
>>find organisations and addresses in the EU and its Member States.
>>
>>* A system of simple frames provides access to the whole site in both
>>french and english.
>>
>>Any feedback would be much appreciated. Also suggestions and
>>contributions of relevant materials that can be shared.
>>
>>
> -----------------------------------
> Juha Rekola
> Head of Information
> KEPA
> Kehitysyhteistyön palvelukeskus ry
> Service Centre for Development Cooperation
> Eerikinkatu 11 C 4th floor, FIN-00100 HELSINKI (Finland)
> Phone: +358 9 584 233 Fax: +358 9 584 23 200
> E-mail. juha.rekola@kepa.fi
>
Liaison news:
NGOs news on North-South action
in the E.U.
no. 21, October 1996:
pages 5-6
NGO's Programmes in Phare
and Tacis
by K. Sohet
During its last meeting in June 96, the Finance Group of the Liaison
Committee met Mrs Anne Simon DGIA-B5 (sectoral aspects of relations with
the countries of Central and
Eastern Europe) and Mr Arturo Rodriguez (European Human Rights Foundation)
on the LIEN and Democracy Programmes under PHARE and TACIS.
Historical background and general context
The fundamental objective of the 3 NGO programmes created under PHARE and
TACIS is to build the operational capacities of NGOs in beneficiary
countries. Three major
sectors of civil society have been identified: local economic development
(Partnership Programme), the social sector (LIEN), and democratization and
human rights (Democracy).
These three programmes were established at different times, but all three
are fairly recent; the longest-established is Democracy, which started in
1992. The early mistakes have
been put right, and the programmes are running increasingly smoothly.
The European Foundation for Human Rights only became involved in
administering the Democracy Programme in 1993. Major changes have occurred
since then as a result of
fine-tuning of the programme and fact-finding missions in the beneficiary
countries. To begin with, various constraints made access to this programme
difficult - the fact that 2
European partners and a CEEC-NIS (Central and East Europe Countries - New
Independent States) partner were required; and that only 70% of the budget
was covered by the
EC. Now, 80% of the costs are covered by the EC and projects can be mounted
with just two partners, which may be a partnership between an EU NGO and a
CEEC-NIS
NGO, or between two CEEC-NIS NGOs. In 1995, half the selected projects were
put up by CEEC-NIS partners only.
The volume of applications has increased markedly since the budget line was
established: for example for the Democacy programme, from 370 in 1993,
rising to 480 in 1994 and
570 for the latest round of applications presented in April 96.
Harmonizing programme administration
The LIEN and Democracy Programmes are operationally very similar, but not
yet completely harmonized. The Commission's intention, in response to
repeated requests from the
Member States, is to centralize the administration of these three
programmes in a single external administrative agency which would produce a
presentation brochure, common
guidelines for all three programmes, and a newsletter. An invitation to
tender had been issued to that end, but had to be cancelled; a second
invitation to tender will be issued
shortly. The main aim is to harmonize the programmes and make them more
accessible.
Appraisal of applications
In 1995, the LIEN Programme had a 10 MECU budget for PHARE region and 5
MECU for TACIS region. 800 funding applications were submitted in two
sessions (November
95 and April 96). Of these, 582 projects satisfied the general conditions
and fell within the programme objectives, but budget constraints meant that
only 15 to 20% could be
selected. For 1996, 10 MECU were planned for PHARE region and the figure
for TACIS region was not yet decided.
One major criticism of the operation of these budget lines is the time
taken to appraise applications. Applicants had to reckon on 8 months
between submitting their project and
signing because of a time consuming and complicated appraisal procedure.
As a rule, all applications tend to arrive on the same date, i.e., in the
last few days before the final deadline for submitting applications. The
first thing is to vet the applications for
compliance - this is done by outside technical agencies. "Compliant"
projects are then sent to two independent experts for appraisal of the
technical aspects. They confer together
and pool their comments. If they cannot agree, a third expert is consulted.
A summary of the project and comments is then sent to the EC's local
delegation, the relevant Commission Directorates General, and the DGIA desk
officer. The final selection
among projects most highly rated from this consultation and most relevant
to the local needs is processed by an "advisory" group of experts from the
different DGs concerned.
The final list is sent for the approval of the Director General of DGIA and
the Commissioner.
If the project as proposed by the NGO is acceptable at this stage, the
contract may be signed. If not, the NGO is asked to make the necessary
changes before the contract can be
signed.
The aim is to achieve a spread of the budget between the different
beneficiary countries. The selection procedure places particular emphasis
on support for small,
recently-established NGOs. In order to make the programme more accessible
to this type of NGO, efforts will be made to simplify the programme
presentation brochures and the
instructions on how to fill in the application forms.
Discussion between the Group and the invited speakers
NGOs' main criticisms, as summarized in a brief memo sent to the invited
speakers, focussed on 2 problems:
the undue amount of detail and forecasts required for applications,
which demanded considerable work and a very substantial investment of time
and energy for very
often no return (only 10% of applications selected), and the very
long wait for applications to be appraised;
the way in which the management and administration of programmes
were contracted out to non-Commission bodies, which could erect a screen
between NGOs and the
EC (obstacles to transmission of information, difficulty in getting
firm answers).
Replying to these remarks, the invited speakers said that the external
intermediate agency between the Commission and applicants was not the
reason for delayed appraisal of
applications, since it had to forward applications to the Commission within
six weeks. The reverse was true: the agency could work to applicants'
advantage in being a more
easily accessible source of all sorts of information and technical
assistance in preparing applications. As these external agencies themselves
tended to be nongovernmental
organizations, they also had a better understanding of the specific
problems of NGOs.
The reason for wanting precise details was to see whether the NGO had
thought its project through properly. The evaluators need to have
sufficient hard information with which
to verify the validity and merits of the project, whether it was within
budget and met the objectives. But there was a degree of flexibility, and
the programme could always be
changed on implementation.
Arturo Rodriguez complained that 40% of applications were too «skimped" and
failed to put the action in context properly. The aim of the questions put
to applicants was to
accurately ascertain the potential results of the action through evaluation
criteria. Anne Simon stressed that NGOs very often stuck too closely to the
questionnaire, and presumed
that anything not clearly stipulated in the instructions was automatically
not allowed. She admitted that from this angle, improvements were needed to
make the instructions and
forms more comprehensive and understandable.
This raised the question of the type of control to be exercised over NGO
projects. The Group argued that existing ex-ante controls were excessive
and should be scaled back in
favour of ex-post control. It also stressed that the quality of relations
between the partners, and the European NGOs' consultation of their partners
from the CEEC-NIS, was at
least as important an appraisal criteria as the quality of the project scope.
For the Group, it was pointless to ask for too much detail in applications,
but local community support was an important criterion in this type of
project. The Group stressed that
NGO partners in the CEEC-NIS were not strong and that capacity-building was
essential for them; it stressed the difficulty of meeting financial
control's requirements in
partnerships with weak partner NGOs. In addtition, it was felt that the
real needs of the partners from the CEEC -NIS had often been overlooked.
Other questions raised by the Group and the representatives of VIII/B/2
focussed on:
the funding conditions: only 5% of administrative expenses will be funded
(a requirement of the Commission's Financial Control). No retroactivity in
financing is permitted.
A bank guarantee is not required. Changes in the budget (transfers between
budget items) during the programme may be authorized by the manager who
will judge if an
addendum to the project is needed (depending on the amount involved). Any
significant change in the scope or budget of a project should preferably be
made before the contract
is signed.
the role of delegations: the Commission delegations can help iron out
problems with the local authorities, they act as disseminators of
information, especially under the
Democracy Programme where they manage the microproject component. Latterly,
they have also been helping CEEC-NIS NGOs to prepare their applications.
The delegations
are closely involved in programmes; regular coordination meetings between
the Commission and local delegations provide a forum for discussing
difficulties and where
improvements could be made to the programmes.
Glossary
The PHARE programme.
Assistance for the economic reform of the countries of Central and
Eastern Europe. With a budget of 1037 million ECU in 1996 alone, the PHARE
programme finances the
European Union's assistance in the restructuring of the economies of
Central and Eastern Europe (Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania,
the Czech Republic,
Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovenia, FYROM).
A very small part of PHARE funds are put aside for humanitarian
assistance, both for emergency programmes and longer term programmes. The
Democracy, Partnership
and LIEN programmes, which are accessible to N.G.O.s, fund projects to
strengthen civil society, promote democracy and help the most impoverished
populations.
The TACIS programme.
Technical cooperation with the Independent States of the former Soviet
Union. The TACIS programme (528 MECU in 1996 ) aims to finance EU economic
and technical
assistance to the countries of the former Soviet Union and Mongolia
(Armenia, Azerbaidjan, Bielorussia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kirghizstan,
Moldavia, Russia, Tadjikistan,
Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Ouzbekistan and Mongolia).
The LIEN programme.
Only NGOs may have access to this programme, which aims to contribute to
the development of social NGOs and to support their activities with the
poorer populations in
the PHARE and TACIS countries and in Mongolia. The LIEN programme
follows on from the B7-5001 and B7-601 budget lines which were dissolved in
1994, their
activities being directly incorporated into the general PHARE budget.
The Democracy Programme
Again, only NGOs can gain access to this programme which was created in
1994 following a 5 million ECU pilot project launched in 1992 to promote
democracy in Central
and Eastern Europe. The programme aims primarily to promote
understanding of democratic principles and practices at national and local
levels, to encourage NGOs
activities to promote a democratic and pluralist society, and to
transfer know-how and skills of democracy and the rule of law to
professional groups and associations.
For more information on those programmes, please also refer to the
Liaison Committee NGO Handbook
Liaison Committee Home Page
Updated on November 11, 1996
Developer's Note: These pages were developed for use on the Netscape
browser. Please address comments on content or style to Valérie van Belle.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : ma 29 huhti 2024 - 01:20:15 EEST