Chapter 6
Another Road: New Policies for REC

6.5 The pilot project on East-East cooperation

Remember that REC has two granting programs, at first the Local Grants Program and at second the Earmarked Grants Program.

"According to the original conception, Local Grants were intended to help the organization of environmental movements, provide the necessary technical background (computers, fax machines, etc.), as well as support their local actions, like the Earth's Day events, etc.

In frame of the Earmarked Grants Program, we wished to support projects that were of regionwide importance, had large model value, involved cooperation between NGOs from different countries, and focused on certain priority topics. Accordingly, the available support per project was substantially higher.

Our two years' experience showed that the NGOs of the Region are not particularly inclined to cooperate. A good part of the incoming proposals were just "expensive local" programs. They were submitted to the Earmarked Grants Program because they needed more money than available in frame of the Local Grants Program.

In our new initiative, we wish to make it absolutely clear: the Earmarked Grants Program is strongly restricted to projects which can be (and should be) implemented by international cooperation.

Announcing certain topics (Nature Conservation, Sustainable Agriculture, etc.) like we proceeded until now, assured the objective comparison of the incoming proposals but, in certain cases, it seemed to impose too rigid frames. In our new pilot program, any important environmental issue can be proposed supposing the project needs and uses international cooperation.

Preparing an Earmarked Grant Project Proposal needed serious investment of time, energy, and in some cases, money, as well. In the new system, this demand is reduced: all the applicant has to do is to fill in a one page form.

During the last two years we had the experience that many NGOs do not know about their potential cooperative partners (i.e. NGOs active in the same field abroad) or do not have the possibility to contact them. Our pilot program will try to bring the potential partners together.

Then we come to the new procedure, first, we ask for a brief summary of the planned project, the known or potential cooperative partners. Based upon the received project plans, we shall select the most desirable ones, identify the potential cooperative groups and invite them to elaborate the detailed Project Proposals. The Project Proposals will be scored according to the already known system by an expert panel. Signing the Award Agreement, implementing the projects (reporting, etc.) will follow the traditional scheme."

The concept papers of NGOs intending to start an East-East cooperative project should be sent to REC by May 20. After that date the concept papers will be evaluated and the chosen NGOs will be asked to prepare full project proposals based on their concept papers. Elaborating a detailed project proposal is funded by the REC as well. Finally the awarded East-East cooperative project proposals should be known by autumn 1996. Special attention is paid to the factor personal contact along the granting procedure; funds are set aside especially for this goal.

Some remarks of the NGOs for supporting East-East cooperation are taken into account in the pilot project. More personal contact, bigger amounts of money available per project and saving paperwork meet the criticism of the NGOs.

An important remaining point of interest for the EGT, especially with this pilot project, is to prevent 'fake cooperation'. Only if the EGT succeeds in becoming really close to the environmental movement and/or works with independent experts coming from the environmental movement, this 'fake cooperation' might probably be prevented. It is really a big problem to evaluate concept papers and project proposals objective on one hand, and not bureaucratic and in accordance with the particular situation in the environmental movement on the other hand. This is almost impossible. Until now an expert panel, together with the EGT members scored the project proposals on specific criteria. This costs a lot of time of at least six persons, and even double in the pilot project, since first the concept papers and then the project proposals have to be evaluated. Of course less project proposals than before have to be dealt with this time. The choice of the expert panel and the experts themselves leave room for subjective evaluation, for example because of the nationality of an expert (or EGT member), or because of having a favorite NGO, which really need some support. Besides the danger of subjectivity we still have the claim of close contact with the environmental movement for the EGT. How can the EGT be close to the environmental NGOs and stand aside during the evaluation of the concept papers or project proposals? Having good personal contact with environmental NGOs makes subjectivity in evaluating and conflicts of interest more likely to occur. The only solution to this contradicting requirements for EGT employees, might be a strong appeal on the integrity of both experts and EGT members.