Víte o těžkostech a problémech NNO při využívání fondů EU?
25. 2. 2005 - BRUSEL / PRAHA [Evropská brána / Econnect]
Sběr těchto údajů je diskrétní, jména přispěvších organizací nebudou nikde zveřejněna.
Kontakt: desarrollo@grupoalba.net
===============================
The Commission could do better….
The Greens/EFA group at the European Parliament is launching a project called the “the Commission could do better…” to look at how the European Commission could improve the way it funds civil society organisations. We are writing to you to ask for your collaboration.
The project comes at a crucial time. The discussions over the next few months on the financial perspectives will determine the size and approximate distribution of the EU budget. Civil society will not only be affected by the level of the budget but also by how the money is spent. Implementation is recognised as being quite cumbersome in many areas. The Commission, the Parliament and the Council all agree that there is a need for simplification and cutting back on unnecessary bureaucracy. For that purpose, the Commission will come forward with a proposal for a limited revision of the Financial Regulation this spring. Such a proposal should help to speed up implementation while at the same time maintaining an adequate level of control by the Commission.
On the other hand, the next round of the Structural Funds are likely to see a reduction in the ability of the Commission to influence implementation. For example, the Commission will lose direct control of around 10 billion euros of Community Initiatives which will supposedly be “mainstreamed”. The study will also look at how a vibrant civil society, with a European dimension, can be strengthened in this situation.
The aim of the project is to take stock of the main problems faced by civil society organisations involved in projects financed through EU funds. A lot has already been done in this area. So we intend to highlight the most important problems by providing examples and evidence of the situation in a number of key sectors such as the environment and rural development, social and employment issues, human rights, local initiatives, cultural issues, and cooperation with developing countries. We would be grateful if you could refer us to cases and evidence within your sector of interest.
But our purpose in reviewing what is not working is to help build support for a series of positive changes. So we would also like to hear about your proposals and examples of what is working well in different parts of Europe. With this evidence we intend to produce a brief report which can be used in a hearing to be held in the European Parliament this spring. We hope that this event and the report behind it will help to create a climate which puts civil society organisations and networks in a stronger position to avoid some of the pitfalls and seize the opportunities of the coming period.
In order to structure our discussions we have produced a hypothetical grid (overleaf) of the main problems that we think civil society organisation face when applying for or managing projects
financed by EU funds. We would like to meet you to discuss:
1.Whether these are in fact the main problems in your area or field of work?
2.Are there any other problems?
3.Can you rank the importance of these categories of problem (eg. 3 very important, 2 important, 1 minor, 0 irrelevant)?
4.Can you provide us with case studies or other evidence or refer us to examples of organisation that have suffered these problems?
5.What are your recommendations for improvements?
6.Can you provide us with examples (or evidence) of improvements that have worked?
As soon as we have produced a draft of the report we will circulate it to you and others involved for your comments. We would also like to organise a brief meeting to discuss the recommendations before the Hearing.
===================================================
Hypothetical menu of key funding problems and solutions for civil society organisations
PROBLEM EXAMPLES/EVIDENCE OF PROBLEMS EXAMPLES/EVIDENCE OF SOLUTIONS
1. Accessibility of information.
Multiplicity of funding sources
Multiplicity of procedures for applying
Lack of transparency in match funding sources
Insufficient communication and outreach
2. Excessive financial requirements
Minimum grant size
Turnover of organisation
Period of operation (of the organisation)
Bank guarantees
Match funding
3. Heavy application procedures.
Time/cost of handling information v size of grant.
Complexity of application forms. Weight given to administrative and formal criteria
Weight of minor errors.
Cost-chance of success (rejection-success rate)
Short duration of grants
Rigidity/lack of clarity/repetition of objectives
4. Heavy management and control costs.
Complexity/rigidity of the contract
Heavy accounting and reporting systems
Rigidity of budget heads.
Audit requirements
5. Delays and uncertainty
Delays in calls for proposals and selection.
Delays in signing contract
Delays in first and second payments
Delays/reductions in final instalments
6. Rigid/unclear eligibility rules–non payment
Overheads, depreciation, margins,..
Interest payments (due to delays)
Currency changes (UK..), VAT…
Voluntary labour, payment in kind
Staff benefits……..
Joint liability of partners…..
Unavuje
vás tvorba www stránek v HTML? 
vytisknout