Learning Center
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out



									Partnership Principle in Practice - Conference in Brussels, October 21-23, 2004

                                                       Institute of

     Best Available Practices
     Public Participation in Programming,
     Implementing and Monitoring EU

                               Andrzej Guła
Public Eye on EU Funds – public
participation in EU funds programming,
implementing and monitoring

 CEE Bankwatch Network, Institute of
  Environmental Economics;
 Supporting NGO representatives taking active
  part in programming, monitoring and
  implementing the EU Funds (exchange of
  information between NGOs, expert assistance,
 New member states, accession countries.
        Best Available Practices

 Why NGO participation?
 What is current status for NGO participation
  in different countries?
 What are the good practicies that could be
  propagated? How to make the participation
  more efficient? Reccomendations.
           Why NGO participation?

 Preventing negative impacts of the EU funded
  projects on the environment,
 Promoting sustainable development concept to be
  incorporated in allocation patterns of the EU
 Enforcement of the domestic and EU
  environmental legislation,
 Encouraging proper use of the tools that are
  aimed at protecting the environment (e.g. EIA)
 Increasing transparency of EU Funds
 Preventing corruption cases.
Current status for NGO participation
 EC regulations leave free hand for the authorities of beneficiary
  countries to implement partnership principle;
 1260/1999/EC laying down general provisions on the Structural
  Funds; 1164/94/EC establishing a Cohesion Fund;
 Social and economic partners vs. NGOs vs. ENGOs
 Environmental ministries more willing to co-operate with
  ENGOs; ministries of transportation are rather „closed” for
  involving ENGOs;
 Positive developments – Polish Ministry of Infrastructure
  (responsible for transportation projects) allowed ENGOs to
  participate in the works of steering committees for the Cohesion
  Fund, and structural funds for transportation projects;
 Participation principle can be realized by appointing advisory
  bodies (ad hoc/permanent), organizing hearings, collecting
  comments from parties concerned;
 Advisory bodies create possibility for NGOs to exert direct
  impact on the programmes, projects;
 Various advisory bodies: monitoring committees, steering
  committees, working groups;
 Diverse functions;
     NGO participation in

     NGO participation in

     NGO participation in

Independent NGO monitoring -
   advocacy campaigns for
     improving EU funds
 transparency, environmental
       performance etc.
 Participation in
 Since programming documents set the basis
  for allocation of the EU Funds resources into
  the different priority fields the NGO
  involvement in programming process is of
  crucial importance;
 The authorities responsible for drawing
  programming documents should organise
  effective consultaion process;
 NGO participation in
 implementation process
 Implementation process reffered to in the BAP report
  relates mostly to project appraisal and selection stage;
 Various committees for selecting projects to the Cohesion
  Fund, or Structural Funds have been established;
 NGO representatives in the bodies advising in project
  selection (Regional Steering Committees for the Structural
  Funds; Steering Committee for the Cohesion Fund);
 The role of NGOs should be to promote transparent
  selection process, and investments that have high
  environmental performance, to ensure that during the
  selection stage environmental standards and
  requirements are taken into consideration.
NGOs participation in
monitoring proccess
 Montitoring committees (MC) defined in EC regulations;
 1260/99/EC: „MC are bodies appointed by Member State
  supervising assistance, checking on how it is being
  managed by the Managing Authority, ensuring compliance
  with its own guidelines and implementing rules and
  reviewing evaluations;
 Inclusion social and economic partners;
 E.g. of MC: ISPA project monitoring committee (Lithuania);
  Sectoral Operational Programme for Agriculture and Rural
  Development (Slovakia);
 Very often the MC evaluating projects focus on financial
  monitoring, and physical progress of projects they do not
  perform environmental monitoring i.e. compliance of
  projects with environmental legislation.

 European Commission, EU authorities

 National authorities

 Better definition of the partnership principle
  in new regulations establishing the EU funds;
 Recognition of the role of ENGOs in EU
  funds programming, implementing and
 Guidelines for public participation should be
  drafted by the European Commission;
 EC should closely monitor implementation of
 EC should enforce correct implementation of
  SEA (if SEA is conducted for the
  programmes, how SEA is conducted)
 Partnership principle reflected in national
  legislation; ENGOs recognized as partners;
 National authorities should put more attention to
  organizing the consultation process;
 Appointing the advisory bodies –
  steering/monitoring committees with participation
  of ENGOs;
 How the NGOs are appointed to such
 Let the ENGOs to decide about the
  representatives in various committees – voting
  organized among ENGOs.
 ENGOs – set clear goals in terms of what
  changes they want to achieve in Structural
  Funds and Cohesion Fund programming
  and implementation;
 Level of competence of ENGO
  representatives in steering committees;
 Expert assistance;
 Involvement of wider ENGO community →
  support for representatives (feedback);
 Building coalition of ENGOs monitoring the
  EU funds.

To top