Chapter 6
Another Road: New Policies for REC

6.3 Suggestions from the NGOs

If the REC wants to change its image in the environmental movement, this can be done, according the interviewed NGOs, by:

1. coming out of the office; the REC head office and Local Office should stand more close and on an equal level with the environmental movement;
2. concentrating on the contents of a running project, instead of on the paperwork; the bureaucratic style of REC-Budapest with a lot of forms, papers and time consuming procedures is a problem for practical working NGOs and project leaders;
3. behaving more as a facilitator; this statement means that REC should address their projects and granting in accordance with the developments in the environmental movement. REC is supposed to be a service organization which should facilitate instead of force for example East-East cooperation;
4. arranging better PR for themselves towards the environmental movement, especially so that all groups know about RECs existence, main programs and guidelines.

All four remarks are obviously coming from the point of view of the environmental NGOs. These remarks come forth from experiences of interviewed activists, so they are subjective, although more people gave the same remarks. Old pains, personal quarrels and stupid mistakes influence the NGOs opinions, as some interviews brought up.

Now the question is how valid both criticism and possible solutions are. First the NGOs usually see only their side of the story, their wishes have to be fulfilled and with their advice they, logically, try to draw the ideal funding organization. In reality such an organization does not exist. Secondly individual NGOs forget they are not the only clients of the REC. Besides the other NGOs in their country, 12 other countries and two other social actors have to be served by REC. These two other pillars among RECs clients are governmental environmental bodies and environmental businesses. At third the NGOs do not consider the fact that REC is also depending on funding. The RECs financial position depends on the willingness of several Western and Eastern governments, the EU and UN institutions. This function between funders and final clients gives the REC two faces, one for upstream and one for downstream. Until now RECs upstream face might have had more attention than the downstream face. Finally the daily life at REC with its multi cultural, fast changing and always overloaded workforce is not properly understood by the NGOs. Sometimes it seems as if activists do not consider REC staff as human beings who have their limits. But of course this happens the other way around as well.

Concluding we see that RECs tasks and challenges are huge. According my experiences with working at the REC and from discussions with the REC staff, it is felt impossible to fulfill all tasks perfectly. Although the criticism of the NGOs is tough, it is considered mainly valid. Especially when we take their position. This is of course not the only position that can be taken. The REC in general does not have to meet all criticism, since a lot of the criticism of the NGOs comes from self-interest. In my opinion the REC should address the criticism as far as the RECs interest in satisfying the NGOs and the self-interest of the NGOs comes together. This is especially important for the RECs teams which work directly with the NGO community. Improving the communication with the NGOs, so that RECs goals, position and possibilities become more clear within the environmental movement might be the first step in taking away the current NGO criticism on REC. In my opinion mutual understanding is the beginning of a more positive image of the REC. Again especially the Earmarked Grants Team is responsible for improving the communication, since their target population of NGOs has given the criticism.

Suggestions from the NGOs to support especially the process of East-East cooperation are given as well. These are coming forth from the experienced problems and obstacles for East-East cooperation in combination with the expectancy of RECs abilities to solve such problems. In order to promote East-East cooperation especially the Earmarked Grants Team is recommended by the NGOs to:

1. organize personal meetings of NGO people on a specific topic, which might be an environmental topic, a brainstorm session on 'How to cooperate', a course in 'Global Thinking' or within the very positive evaluated REC programs 'Environmental Leadership Training Project' and the 'Junior Fellow Project';
2. employ an cooperation coordinator who travels a lot in order to meet NGOs personally, who gives information on potential partners, who give workshops on for example conflict solving or joint financial project management. The cooperation coordinator should be an Easterner, who knows a lot about the NGO community in CEE and is able to stay independent from a special organization or country;
3. fund institutional capacity building of individual environmental NGOs;
4. simplify the procedures and diminish the requested paperwork for getting funds and running projects;
5. fund whole East-East cooperative projects, including follow ups, instead of being co-funder with other sponsors or funding only non repetitive projects, so that no guaranty can be given for ongoing funding of for example a successful environmental education project;
6. respond to NGO initiatives and needs in East-East cooperation by focusing on capable NGOs, supporting existing and successful NGO networks throughout CEE and preventing 'fake cooperation'. This stresses again the importance of close contacts and good communication between REC and the environmental movement. Unfortunately the latter is stated as one of RECs main failures in this research.

Again this advice to the Earmarked Grants Team is given from the point of view of the environmental NGOs. All remarks together express a huge task for the Earmarked Grants Team in promoting East-East cooperation. In the end the REC staff decides upon which advice to follow, but in my opinion the advice of direct clients, like these NGOs are for the Earmarked Grants Team, should be taken into account. Almost all six suggestions for improvement come forth from the results we have seen in chapter four. The first two remarks are highly related to the important factor of personal contact for East-East cooperation. The third remark draws back upon the lack of capacity for East-East cooperation within the environmental NGOs. The fourth and fifth advice relate to the practical obstacle which are experienced during East-East cooperation. Procedures and funding rules cause problems for cooperative projects. REC might be able to facilitate both surrounding paperwork and financial procedures, as long as these are related to REC funding. The last remark is again connected to RECs attitude towards the environmental NGOs and RECs position within the environmental movement. Again communication barriers are experienced.