Chapter 6
Another Road: New Policies for REC
6.2 Criticism on REC
It might seem strange, but REC is not extremely popular among
the interviewed environmental NGOs. Most of them received one
or more grants, both local and earmarked, from REC. Although the
environmental NGOs depend mainly on funding for their survival,
a lot of criticism on funding organizations is expressed during
the interviews. Also in the literature criticism of activists
and NGOs on Western assistance can be found. [Siegel and Yancey,
1992, p. 51-63] According to the experiences of Siegel and Yancey
during their research in 1992 the environmental movement receives
relatively much attention of the Western funding agencies and
NGOs. [Siegel and Yancey, 1992, p. 63] This means that environmental
NGOs got used by now to the working style and variety of Western
funding organizations. As we have seen before, Central European
environmental NGOs become more and more afraid of loosing their
front position in the money stream. In the future the money might
pass to the former Soviet Republics, or stay behind in the donor
countries themselves. During the boom of funds last years, some
NGOs profited more than others. Depending on their ability to
adapt to the Western style of applying for funds and to establish
good cooperation with funding organizations, some NGOs could develop
faster and build more institutional capacity than others. The
well-developed and matured NGOs with enough capacity available
for East-East cooperation are exactly the ones where RECs Earmarked
Grants Program focuses on, since the specific goal of earmarked
grants is to support projects of regionwide importance, especially
when East-East cooperation is involved. The criticism coming from
these target groups attacks the REC in general, but even more
the Earmarked Grants Team, which is responsible for implementing
the Earmarked Grants Program. Both criticism on the REC head office
in Budapest and more specific on the Earmarked Grants Program
appeared from the interviews. Besides criticism, positive remarks
were given as well. Usually the NGOs gave a balanced opinion on
the REC and the EGT. The interviewed Hungarian NGOs were some
what more critical than those of the other countries, but almost
all groups mentioned at least one of the below given general criticisms
towards the REC.
General criticism on the REC is given on two levels. The first
concerns the RECs image, the second RECs proceedings.
RECs image is quite negative. The NGOs thought that REC is a too
bureaucratic, closed and Western oriented institution. Experiences
with the RECs proceedings brought them to the following remarks:
- REC reacts slowly upon the NGOs' requests, for example on questions about financial procedures or the submittal of progress reports.
- REC is not client friendly, because too much paperwork has to be done, communication with Budapest is only possible in English and the installments of promised grants are usually late.
- REC started too late with the promotion of East-East cooperation, so that it is pushed through now, on a too sophisticated level.
- REC is, in contrast to EPCE, not really a part of the environmental movement in the countries, even the Local Officers sit too much in their offices in the capital.
A part of the above mentioned criticism can be reduced to experienced
communication barriers and the attitude of REC towards the NGOs.
So the first step for REC and especially the Earmarked Grants
Team, should be to improve the communication with their clients.
In the same time the underlying attitude towards NGOs in this
communication should change.
REC * PUBLICATIONS * BEYOND BORDERS * ANOTHER ROAD: NEW POLICIES FOR REC * CRITICISM ON REC
