| |
Contributions from
the Column
Focus
A model for other world regions – progress in Europe
New consensus
The view from Paris. What the French government thinks of co-ordination
“Contribute at the global level” – ideas and priorities of accession countries
“More of the same” is not an option: putting support for ACP countries on a new base
For NGOs, support from Brussels means a lot of money – and a lot of work
12/2005
|
|
In triplicate
The EU grants large sums of money to non-governmental organisations for development projects and public relations campaigns. However, the application process is complicated, long-winded and difficult to gauge. While money from Brussels does open up entirely new options for civil society actors, less than 20 % of applications are successful.
[ By Michael Ruffert ]
Once again, many non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are waiting. They hope the European Union will support their programmes and initiatives. Normally, the EU calls upon organisations to apply for money for PR purposes or projects in developing countries once a year. “It is becoming increasingly difficult to estimate when this ‘call for proposal’ will occur,” says Reinhard Jenke of bengo, an information centre in Bonn which, with the support of the German Development Ministry (BMZ), helps civil society groups to apply for EU funds.
The call was actually expected in spring, but the NGOs are still waiting. The vague deadline for making applications “makes planning very difficult”, according to Jenke. Since the award procedure is complicated and time consuming, NGO staff are sometimes tied up with applications for weeks on end. All documents have to be submitted within three months after the call.
Brussels requires detailed data on personnel, administration costs and fundraising along with precise information on the organisations involved. “The application must be submitted in triplicate,” reports Anne Jung, campaigner with medico international. She has spent two days attending bengo seminars to become able to cope with the demands. As applications require complex documentation – including, for instance, the annual report of the respective organisation – they are usually sent to Brussels as parcels.
The Association of German Development NGOs (VENRO) is critical of the procedure. “The growing bureaucratic demands in terms of reporting, accounting and contracting procedures have grown to unacceptable dimensions.” It is of concern that all involved parties – NGOs in rich and poor countries alike, Commission and delegation staff – have to invest more and more time and energy to comply with bureaucratic rules and document projects instead of focusing on their actual work. “This is no example of EU institutions keeping in touch with citizens,” states a VENRO paper on the EU’s funding of NGOs.
However, many NGO activities depend on EU money. medico international and two Dutch NGOs, for instance, are running a campaign called “Fatal Transactions” to inform the European Public of how conflicts in Africa relate to diamond and oil extraction. They have applied for EU funds three times – and twice successfully so. The application, which was approved at the beginning of this year, brought the campaign almost ¤500,000 – on the condition that the organisations raise at least ¤135,000 themselves.
“The money enabled us to do a lot which we otherwise could not have done,” says medico campaigner Jung. Fatal Transactions became forceful enough to make diamond industries as well as importing and exporting countries agree on a certification process (“Kimberley Process”) in order to stem the trade in so-called “blood diamonds” from crisis regions. Among other things, the campaign produced a brochure for schools in conjunction with the Federation of German Trade Unions (DGB). Using colour photos and graphics, it explains how trade with commodities stirs up conflict in Africa. Without EU support, the campaign’s impact would have remained much softer. The EU is a member and staunch supporter of the Kimberley process.
However, it is particularly difficult to rely on EU support for NGOs that want to interfere in ongoing events and developments. Decision-making in Brussels requires a lot of time. The approval process is complex. First, the legitimacy of the applicant is formally checked. For overseas projects, the judgement of the EU delegation in the target country is required. In addition, two expert reports are drawn up for each project. NGOs generally only get to know whether or not an application is approved a year after submission. They do not hear a word before then, even though regulations actually provide for decisions to be made within six months.
Kirsten Hund, international coordinator of Fatal Transactions and employee at the Netherlands Institute for Southern Africa (NIZA), finds the practice unsatisfactory. There is no feedback from Brussels while an application is being processed. Formal flaws may not be corrected, even though they are often the reason for rejection. In the case of Fatal Transactions, the long time span from application to approval once meant that the campaign concept had to be modified. Civil wars in Sierra Leone and Angola, in which oil and diamond deposits played a role, had ended by the time the EU funds were finally approved. The campaign therefore shifted its focus, for instance, by putting more emphasis than initially planned on the certification of gemstones from crisis regions .
In budget item 21-02-03, the EU annually earmarks ¤200 million to co-finance NGO projects and campaigns, ¤23 million of which are designated for education and public relations. medico and its two Dutch partners were among the lucky applicants whose projects received money. According to VENRO calculations, the acceptance ratio is only around 20 %. VENRO counted 118 German NGO applications for funding of foreign projects and only 23 of them were approved (19 %) in 2003. For domestic projects, there were 52 applications and only six approvals (12 %). Pan-European figures do not look better. In 2003, NGOs throughout Europe made almost 1400 applications for grants, of which only 240 were approved, VENRO reports: “Four out of five project applications, all of which involved extensive work, were written for the wastepaper basket.”
One reason for German NGOs doing comparatively well in the acceptance ratio is advice from bengo, according to VENRO. In the past year, this information centre conducted 15 seminars, with 212 participants, on how to apply and carry out projects. bengo also offers individual consultation and checks applications before submission. “There is permanent demand for consultation because the application guidelines and accounting procedures change every year,” Jenke reports. Approximately 170 German NGOs took advantage of bengo services this year.
As evident in the Fatal Transactions example, the chances of an application succeeding rise if NGOs form cross-border consortia in EU countries. “It is European money promoting European cooperation,” Jenke explains. Consortia that involve partners from Eastern Europe are particularly likely to succeed because the EU recognises a need for the new member states to catch up in development affairs. Yet despite EU expansion, no additional funds have been made available to finance NGOs. Some Commission officials even admit that lack of funds is the main reason for the high rejection rate. Indeed, around 50 % of the applications are deemed fit for approval.
VENRO has made reform suggestions to simplify the application process. For example, a two-stage selection process would be an option, with pre-selection based on concept drafts. In stead, the process is likely to become even more complicated in future, at least for oversea projects, because there is a tendency for EU delegations in the target countries to assume management responsibility. “The reporting and accounting requirements vary from country to country,” complains VENRO. The result is legal confusion. The organisations will therefore probably need even more advice in future.
Michael Ruffert
works as an editor in the competence team for development at the Evangelische Pressedienst (Protestant Press Service) in Frankfurt.
ruffert@epd.de
Links
bengo
http://www.paritaet.org/bengo/ (German only)
Fatal Transactions
http://www.fataltransactions.org/
Kimberley Process
http:// kimberleyprocess.com
EU and Kimberley Process
http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/kimb
|
