Neuere Perspektiven - Equal funding for all?

Among other, one of the most important roles of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) is to monitor, control and provide alternatives for official state policies on behalf of the civil society. NGOs represent interests of people against particular interests of financial, economical, industrial or other lobby groups. In order to represent public interest, NGOs need to draw their arguments directly from civil society members – from citizens. On the European level NGOs struggle with the same problem as European institutions – they are lacking an European citizen. In the interest of whom do NGOs argue on European level if there is no European civil society?

European NGOs are still in a better position than European institutions. NGOs use easier language, they are less official and more transparent. At the same time loose and informal structures of European NGOs Networks can be an obstacle for fast, strong and united action. Recently voices calling for more compact organizational structure can be heard from some European NGOs.

The level of knowledge and experience of NGOs from “New” Member States (NMS) and “Old” Member States (OMS) is very different. In order to be able to build on a common position across Europe, NGOs need to remain open and inclusive to new members from enlarging Europe.

GLOPOLIS’ POSITION AMONG CZECH NGOS

Czech civil society has achieved a remarkable progress since the fall of the communist regime in 1989. Since then many NGOs were funded and many of them gained attention and appreciation from public as well as from media. We can say without hesitation that Czech NGOs became a renowned actor of the socio-political environment in the Czech Republic. Still, there is a limitation in the way how are NGOs are perceived and what is considered to be their work. Prague Global Policy Institute – Glopolis is a think-tank which focuses predominantly on economical globalization in relation to trade and development. Our core activity is research and consequently the dialog with different decision-makers on the proposals developed. This is not a very common perception among NGOs in the Czech public.

For a vast majority of the Czech society NGOs are strongly connected with social and human rights, educational and environmental programs and considered to be interfering in the policy-making processes. The idea of NGOs which build schools in a developing world or which run an integration program for minorities can be easily understood and therefore they are strongly supported by media, public and government. The contribution of a NGO which works on a political level is much harder to explain and may also seem a little bit suspicious. It takes a longer time until the civil society will understand that such activities are also very important for democracy.

Glopolis situation is also a little bit more complicated due to its area of its interest. International trade and its role in the process of globalisation is a technical topic which cannot reach the Czech mass population. Glopolis is one of the few NGOs in the Czech Republic that deals with these issues. At the same time, Glopolis is also one of the first NGOs that tries to initiate the sustainable dialog with decision-makers and policy-makers. These are Glopolis’ two comparative advantages in relation with its possible partners on a national as well as on a European level.

GLOPOLIS AND THE EUROPEAN UNION

The European Union represents one of the key players in the international trade related issues and therefore it takes a very important part in Glopolis research work. The EU has a common trade policy (“Common Commercial Policy”), meaning that in matters related to trade, including the WTO, the EU functions as a single actor. The European Commission negotiates trade agreements and represents the European interests on behalf of the Union’s 25 Member States.

From European Union it is the Directorate General of Trade and the Directorate General of Development which are the most important institutions for Glopolis analytical work of European trade and development policy. The other institution which also plays a role in the trade policy-making procedures is an authority of the EU Council - the Committee 133. This Committee is composed of officials from the Ministries of Member States. This is basically the only place where national trade interest can be represented on a European level.

In terms of the research, Glopolis has been focusing on the European institutions in two consequential analytical studies recently. First one was mapping the important trade actors and institutions on the Czech national level as well as on the European level. The second analysis focused on Policy Coherence for Development. This is a new approach in the European policy that should improve the coherence between development policy and other policies (such as trade, agriculture) on the European as well as on the national level. This new strategy of the EU for better development aid helps Glopolis to show the importance of trade issues on the national level and to introduce this problematic into the broader public.

GLOPOLIS AND EU-CONSULTATION

For Glopolis’ analytical work the European institutions represent an object of research. Many of the materials and documents are easily accessible, therefore direct contact is not always necessary. Nevertheless, Glopolis has repeatedly had contact with the European institutions in the past. This contact took place in different ways.

One possible way is through NGOs or NGO-networks based in Brussels such as Friends of the Earth Europe, Action Aid or Seattle to Brussels Network (there are many networks for different areas). Members of these NGOs take part in the consultation mechanisms set up by the European institutions regularly - ad hoc or permanent. They can be a source of information on current situations in the Commission or in some cases they may initiate an appointment with the Commissions officials. NGO-networks, e.g. Seattle to Brussels Network, run a campaign throughout the year which challenges EU politics in the WTO (World Trade Organisation) and the EU approach towards trade liberalisation in the EU itself as well as in developing countries. Parts of the campaign consist of “massive lobby actions” when the members of NGOs meet the Commission officials to discuss the controversial points in EU approach. The quality of these meeting is fairly high.

The third possibility to contact the EU institutions, which Glopolis has taken advantage of in the past, was the civil society dialogue run by the DG Trade. This concerns regular meeting between DG Trade officials and a wide range of diverse NGO representatives. The scope of NGOs presents at general meetings is too extensive which keeps the debate in a very vague manner. But some of the meetings which are focused on certain topics may be very useful sources of information. Not only the Commissions officials but also independent experts attend to these meetings.

The last way applied by Glopolis was the invitation of a DG Trade representative to a seminar organised by Glopolis. Again this was not organised directly but through the Heinrich Boell Foundation (HBS) office in Brussels who has better connection to the European institutions. This is probably the best way if a face-to-face consultation is needed. At the same time, without help from HBS, Glopolis would hardly succeed to invite somebody from the Commission.

Glopolis also uses personal contacts to initiate a meeting with Brussels officials. This usually contains meetings with Czech representatives at the European Union and with which Glopolis created links during their work for national institutions.

CRITICS OF EU-CONSULTATION

Over all we can say that Glopolis does not have a problem in reaching European institutions if it is necessary. At the same time, the majority of contacts with EU officials is not direct but indirect through other NGOs based in Brussels or through NGO-networks. Many of the relevant information can be found on the EU web pages or are distributed through the email list of partner NGOs. For analytical work of Glopolis this kind of communication is so far sufficient. At the same time it is true that despite all communication mechanisms, the EU stays quite distant to NGOs which are not based in Brussels. If a NGO like Glopolis wants to understand how the EU policies are created and take part, day to day access to EU officials, meetings and press conferences are essential.

GLOPOLIS AND EU FINANCING

Until April 2006 Glopolis did not have any EU funding. Glopolis institutional funding (rent of premises, administration) until that time was based on cooperation with the foundations from the United States (such as Open Society Fund or German Marshall Fund of the U.S.). Other sources were project related funds from inter-governmental funds (Czech-German Fund for the Future, International Visegrad Fund), German foundations (Heinrich Boell Stiftung). Some of the seminars and conference costs were covered by networks (Seattle to Brussels Network, Trialog), a very small amount was covered by a fund of the Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Glopolis first EU funding was granted in the frame of the call for proposals from the Presidency Fund. This fund was established with support of the Irish and Dutch Governments during their EU Presidency in 2004 at the time of the accession of ten NMS.

The Glopolis project funded by the Presidency Fund is related to the research of Policy Coherence for Development (PCD), mentioned above. It consists of research, publication and seminars for Czech NGOs, Media and policy-makers. This funding covers also budget items such as rent of premises, administration and daily run of the Glopolis office. Also, it enables Glopolis to pay interns and external experts which helps to broaden and professionalize the Glopolis team. In this sense EU funding is very valuable. Currently (in 2006) EU funding represents approximately one third of Glopolis’ budget.

In March 2006, Glopolis has applied for three years grant from the DG Development. This project has been prepared in cooperation with Hungarian (Protect the Future) and German (WEED) NGOs.  It is focused on capacity building for NGOs and local grass-roots organisations in the Czech Republic and Hungary to raise awareness in development issues. The cooperation with NGOs from different countries is considered to be an advantage in terms of the likelihood to receive funds.

Nevertheless, for Glopolis EU funding remains hard to be reached. Part of the difficulties is caused by the administration limitations determined by the EU for long term grants such as three years experience in the subject field (Glopolis was established in 2004) or financial audit. These obstacles may be overcome by changing the status from ‘member of the consortium’ to ‘partner of the consortium’ (which might, at the same time, effect the amount of financial resources allocated). A more serious obstruction for Glopolis represents the complexity of the application. For example the work on the application for DG Development required three people working full time for one month. Glopolis, which had only three regular employees at that time, had to stop the work on all other projects to be able to complete the application.

The way how to make EU fund more accessible to new and small NGOs like Glopolis should not be based on reducing the demands of the EU but on increasing their capacity and knowledge. Again this should not be only the responsibility of the EU but also of the national governments. It seems that both sides are aware of this problem and they are currently running the programs that should raise the capacities of NGOs from NMS to apply for EU funding.

At the same time the EU should continue and even increase the support of such consortia where NGOs from both NMS and OMS are represented. This is the way how the EU can reinforce the variety of NGO actors throughout Europe and help to integrate NGOs from the NMS into the European integration process. This can have a positive effect in the way how people in the NMS review the EU itself.

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

NGOs can be a very important tool for the EU to overcome the democratic deficit and to come closer to the citizens of the European Union. Moreover, strong civil society has a positive effect for stabilization and deepening of democratic procedures which still might be the case in NMS. In cooperation with national states the EU should continue to support the variety of NGOs throughout Europe.
It is clear that EU cannot communicate equally with every single NGO. An aggregation of their voice is necessary. At the same time it is important that this aggregation will not result in a take over by several strong NGOs based in Brussels that would become the “official” consultants to the EU.

Withal it is hard to imagine that the EU will communicate with all NGOs in all 25 member countries. It is logical that the informational channels local NGOs will be through the NGOs based in Brussels. However, the EU should avoid creating privileged NGO elite. Therefore the EU should maintain and further develop transparency, good communication manners and fair access to information within the networks that initiate and support (e.g. CONCORD/Trialog). Furthermore, the EU can try to develop mechanisms that guarantee the involvement of a variety of NGOs (e.g. on regional level or sectoral level) in negotiations and decision-making process. As mentioned above, special attention should also be given to building capacities in the NMS so that NGOs from this region will be able to fully participate in European NGO networks.

Keeping access to EU institutions equal for all NGOs is not only a matter of democratic principals, it is also a question of building a unity of the European civil society and, in consequence, raising the confidence of the European citizens in European institutions. Therefore it is necessary that the NGOs from NMS will be included in the process. This is a question mainly for the NGOs networks itself and so far there is no doubt that this procedure is already taking place. What the EU in cooperation with the national government should do, is to enlarge the space for the NGO consultation and to put up mechanisms that would guarantee a regional variety during these consultations. The EU should also help to build capacities in Central and Eastern Europe and actively support those NGOs from the OMS who form up consortiums with their colleagues in the NMS. NGOs have great potential to build up strong connections between citizens of the EU. Hence they can bring closer the European integration process to the people. This can be accomplished only if they stay open for members of the civil society from all over the EU.

Weitere Informationen über Glopolis gibt es unter www.glopolis.org.

Artikel: Neuere Perspektiven - Equal funding for all? · Autor: Malte · Kategorie: Artikel
Datum: Montag, 29. Januar 2007, 08:05 Uhr
Feed zum Beitrag: RSS 2.0 · Trackback: Trackback-URL
Diesen Beitrag kommentieren.