COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
Brussels, 9.10.2001
COM(2001) 337 final/2
VOLUME I
CORRIGENDUM
Annule et remplace la page 2
du volume I du documentCOM(2001) 337 du 22.6.2001.
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL
AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
ON THE EXPERIENCE GAINED IN THE APPLICATION OF COUNCIL DECISION
97/872 OF 16 DECEMBER 1997, ON THE ACTION PROGRAMME PROMOTING
EUROPEAN NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS PRIMARILY ACTIVE IN
THE FIELD OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
2REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL
AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
ON THE EXPERIENCE GAINED IN THE APPLICATION OF COUNCIL DECISION
97/872 OF 16 DECEMBER 1997, ON THE ACTION PROGRAMME PROMOTING
EUROPEAN NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS PRIMARILY ACTIVE IN
THE FIELD OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
1. INTRODUCTION
This Report is made by the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council in
accordance with Article 12 of Council D ecision 97/872 (“the Council Decision”) on the
Action Programme promoting European envi ronmental non-governmental organisations
primarily active in the field of environmental protection (“the Action Programme”). It is madein the light of the experience gained by the Commission in the implementation of the ActionProgramme during the first three years, 1998-2000, and the experience gained by thebeneficiaries (non-government al organisations – “NGOs”
1) during the same period.
In order to collect information on the Action Programme in a systematic way, a survey was
produced, which was disseminated to all the se rvices of the Environment DG (the Programme
co-ordinator) and to external stakeholde rs (present and previous beneficiaries2). The aim of
the survey was twofold:
– To compile information on how the pr ovisions of the Programme and their
implementation had been perceived in th e past by the Commission and the NGOs in
order to produce a Report for the Parlia ment and the Council in accordance with
Article 12 of the Council Decision.
– To compile information on how the provisi ons of the Programme  could be amended
to better fit the needs of the Commission and the stakeholders in case of a renewal ofthe Programme. This would then requi re a Draft Proposal for a new Council
Decision (in co-decision procedure with the European Parliament).
The general objective of the Programme is to promote the activities of NGOs, which are
primarily active in the field of environmental pr otection at a European level by contributing to
the development and implement ation of Community environm ental policy and legislation.
The financial contributions granted under this  financial instrument  (covering both ‘running
costs’ and activities) are meant to enable environmental NGOs to carry out a number ofactivities for the benefit of Europe’s environment and society as a whole. These NGOactivities include, among others, bringing the citizens closer to the European Union bymaking EU policies comprehensible and releva nt to everybody as well as the provision of
channels for feedback to the Commission of citizens’ views and concerns. Furthermore, NGOactivities contribute to the policy making process by their participation in different experts’groups and committees and by their provision of expertise input according to their different
                                                
1As defined in the Discussion Paper “The Commission and non-governmental organisations: Building a
Stronger Partnership” under point 1.2. “Common characteristics of a non-governmental organisation”,COM (2000) 11, adopted on 18 January 2000.
2Official Journal of the Communities 1999/C 32/14, 2000/C 43/04, 2000/C 293/14.
3areas of competence. Awareness raising, by making the general public and decision-makers
aware of current and upcoming environmental pr oblems, is also an important activity under
the Action Programme, as well as the building and strengthening of civil society3 – mainly
within the EU, but also beyond its borders.
Three years have now passed since the C ouncil Decision was adopted on 16 December 1997,
and the Programme co-ordinator (the Environm ent DG) and the NGOs have now had their say
on the implementation of the Programme during 1998-2000.
The survey contributions have been comp iled and analysed by the Commission and the
findings are presented below in accordance with  the structure of the Council Decision, article
by article, followed by a chapter on Ge neral Implementation and a Conclusion.
Budget line B4-3060, under which the Action Prog ramme is financed, has been evaluated by
an external contractor during the second part  of 2000. The study, which forms part of the
Environment DG's programme of evaluati ons within the framework of the SEM 2000
initiative4, has examined the use of B4-3060 over the period 1996-1999 with a view to
assessing – and ultimately  improving – the deployment of its funds. The findings of this study
(the parts, which are relevant to the implementation and performance of the ActionProgramme
5) have been duly taken into account in this Report.
2. SURVEY RESULTS
Article 1  of the Council Decision provides the obj ective of the Progr amme and defines
eligible groups - their field of activ ity, status and geographical scope . The general objective of
the Programme is, as stated above, to promot e activities of NGOs, which are “primarily active
in the field of environmental protection at  a European level by contributing to the
development and impleme ntation of Community environm ental policy and legislation”.
Eligible NGOs are those who are independent,  non-profit-making with  an environmental
objective aimed at the public good.
2.1. Eligible groups
The identification of organisations “primarily active in the field of environmental protection”
has not caused any major problems during the first three years of the Programmeimplementation. In cases of doubt , the Programme co-ordinator and its evaluation team have
always consulted the applicant’s official statute, in which the main objective of theorganisation is outlined.
The majority of the survey replies show that both the NGOs and the Commission are in
favour of keeping the present definition. The main arguments given against expanding the
scope of eligible organisati ons are the limited funds availa ble under the Action Programme,
the few available sources within the Commissi on for providing financial support to European
environmental NGOs, the increasing difficulty  European NGOs experience in receiving funds
                                                
3For the purpose of this Report, “civil society” is restricted to non-profit activities carried out by citizens
(the third sector).
4In 1995, on the initiative of Commissioners Anita Gradin (Financial Control and Fraud Prevention) andErkki Liikanen (Budget and Administration), the Commission launched a comprehensive initiativecalled SEM 2000 (Sound and Efficient Management) to change the Institution’s financial andadministrative culture. SEM 2000 applies to all Commission services.
5A little less than 40% of budget line B4-3060 has been allocated to the Action Programme annually.
4at national and local level, and the fact that  other groups (social, development, health,
consumer and animal welfare groups, etc) are eligible for funding under other instruments.
But in one of the Commission survey contributions it is argued that NGOs active in
Environment & Health issues - a priority area of the Environment DG - are often disqualified
for funding. This should be corrected, they state.
It should be noted that some of the present beneficiaries of the Action Programme already
have activities in the field of Environment & H ealth as part of their annual work programmes.
But the main objective of these organisations – clearly defined in their statutes – is still to be‘primarily active in the field of environm ental protection’. An inclusion of Health
organisations would change the profile of the Programme, as this would mean acceptingapplications from organisations, which are only pa rtly active in the environmental field (such
as Health organisations). This would, of cour se, also open the door for other NGOs, which are
only partly working with environmental protec tion, such as civil protection groups, consumer
groups, etc.
The present situation, in which European envi ronmental NGOs are invited to present their
annual work programmes - putting all their activities, including salaries, rents, printing costs,
etc - in one budget with a view to obtaining a subsidy would then have to be abandoned, as
Health organisations could only present parts  of their work programmes, i.e. their activities in
the environmental field. The re st would clearly fall under the domain of ‘social affairs’.
2.1.1.  Geographical scope
Only environmental NGOs active “at a European  level” (Article 1 of the Council Decision)
are presently eligible for funding under th e Action Programme. This provision is further
specified in the Programme Co-ordinator’s ‘I nformation Dossier’, which is provided to all
applicants together with the application forms (Annex I of this Report). According to this, theCommission invites “European non-governmental organisations whose activities cover all or
some of the Member States and countries neighbouring the European Union” to submit
applications with a view to obtaining a financial contributi on. To be operating “at a European
level” means, according to the Information Do ssier, that both the structure and the activities
of a successful applicant should in prin ciple cover several European countries.
The definition of the geographical scope has gi ven rise to more questions from applicants
(and sometimes interna lly) during the period of 1998-2000 than the definition of eligible
fields of activities, but has caused few problems in the actual selection process.
However, greater concern has been raised by ex ternal actors (outside the scope of the survey)
regarding the geographical balance  of the organisations selected for funding under this
scheme, pointing to the fact that the majori ty of the beneficiaries in 1998-2000 have been
located in Western Europe. Reference to this has also been made within the survey. “A moreregional balanced distribution would be needed to secure the implementation of EU policies
in all regions within the EU”, an NGO stressed in its survey contribution, as someenvironmental problems and issues connected to  sustainable developmen t (water, agriculture,
soil, etc) differ from region to region. A similar concern was also voiced by one of theCommission survey replies, which requested the explicit mentioning of the Mediterranean
5area as ‘eligible’ in this context. This concern was also emphasised by the results of the
evaluation of budget line B4-30606:
“Although quotas are not recommended, the EC n eeds to respect diversity and heterogeneity
of the NGO community. DG ENV should keep st riking the balance between geographical
(north/south/east), topics (waste, water, etc.), small/large, European/transboundary,
policy/”operational” NGOs”. (Page 193)
It should be noted in this context that a num ber of European environmental NGOs, which are
presently beneficiaries of the Action Programme, have chosen to locate  their headquarters in
Brussels for the proximity to the European institutions and other important actors in theEnvironment. This does not mean that they  are Belgian organisations. All NGOs selected
under the Action Programme have activities in all – or  several of the EU Member States,
including neighbouring countries.
2.1.1.1.  Expansion of the geographical scope
In view of a possible renewal of the Progra mme, the present geographical scope may have to
be reconsidered in light of the Enlargement process and the changes in Europe as a whole (forexample, in the Balkans).
The survey results clearly show that, in ge neral, the Commission and the EU environmental
NGOs are in favour of including Candidate Countries’ NGOs under the Action Programme –
as long as the provisions for being active at a European, multinational level stays (that is,local and national NGOs should s till be ineligible) and that an increase of the present budget
can be secured. Present and previous beneficiaries of the Programme argue that they arealready carrying a heavier financial burden due to increased activities related to Enlargementand for increasing their membership with organisations from the CEECs, which usually havevery scarce resources.
The Council Decision as it stands today does not explicitly exclude applications from
Candidate Countries’ NGOs, but th e requirement for being active (as well as having member
organisations) in all – or some  – of the EU Member States  and neighbouring countries has
excluded most of them during the period of 1998-2000.
It should further be noted that the competiti on between EU-based, mu ltinational organisations
with many years of experience in this fi eld is already very tough for the limited funds
available under the Action Programme. This ma kes it even more difficult for fairly new
organisations with less ‘know -how’ and less comprehensive work programmes to receive
support – an aspect, which was also highlighte d by the external evaluation of Budget Line
B4-3060 (page 152):
“the choice of larger NGOs working on a European level may mean there is a greater distance
between the NGOs and the European citizens or between the Brussels based office and NGOs
part of the same network operating at a national level. There are also fears that the neworientations will discourage small (but not necessarily incompetent) organisations whilefavouring highly-professionalised and well-organi sed competitors, regardless of which has the
better ideas. This is particularly damaging for transboundary projects, covering a small
number of member states, for which it is di fficult to obtain funding at national level.”
                                                
6The Evaluation of the Budget Line B4 3060 “Environmental Awareness and Subsidies”, A study for the
European Commission (DG ENV.3), Contract n° B4-3060/2000/191820/MAR/H5.
62.2. Eligible activities
Article 2 , which should be read in conjunction w ith the Annex to the Council Decision (see
also 2.6.6 of this Report), defi nes what activities are eligible  under the Action Programme. In
response to Point 2 of this article - on the provision of financial assistance for activities,
which are of Community interest and whic h “contribute significantly to the further
development and impleme ntation of Community environmenta l policy and legislation” – the
major group of NGOs (the Green Group of Seve n) have compiled a ‘non-exhaustive list’ of
policy areas, in which they argue to have ha d an impact (Annex II of this Report). Other
consulted NGOs have provided similar lists, relevant to their own area of competence.
Evidence of accomplishments of this kind is, of course, quite difficult to give as the impact on
political processes is not always easy to measure. The results of lobbying activities may comeafter many years of struggle and at that point, it may not be possible to identify what actorswere crucial for what part of the outcome – and what other external and/or synergetic
circumstances had an important impact on the final result. For applications from ‘newcomers’under the Action Programme this is even more di fficult, as the Commission’s evaluators (it is
the experts of the Environment DG’s technical units, who evaluate NGO applications in line
with their area of expertise) must try and establish what potential impact the activities of an‘untried’ organisation could have.
However, the Commission services, which fre quently consult with NGOs (in committees and
experts’ groups, in ad hoc and regular meetings , as well as in international fora, on a wide
range of different issues) usually perceive NGO input as very helpful and important to the
policy-making process. This conclusion is shar ed by the external contractor, who carried out
the evaluation of budget line B4-3060:
“Strengthening the relationship between th e Commission and NGOs can help both parties to
be more successful in achieving their respective goals. NGOs are a major partner of theconsultative process, and dialog ue between the EC and NGOs is an important complement to
the institutional process of policy-shaping.” (Page 137)
In a couple of Commission survey replies, it ha s been suggested that Article 2 should more
strictly identify activities, which are related to the Environment DG’s on-going policies andpriorities. This should also apply to ‘gende r mainstreaming’ and wo men’s activities in the
field of environmental protection, where the present link between Community environmental
legislation and women is very weak. Some al so argue that the Commission should be in a
position to require successful applicants to add activities to their work programmes in line
with Community environmental policy and legisl ation (standardisation work has been given
as an example).
2.3. Selection criteria
Article 3 , which should be read in conjunction with  the ‘Information Dossier’, details the
Programme’s selection criteria. Although the cr iteria may seem fairly clear – the Commission
wishes to target organisations with a wide geographical scope, a high multiplier effect, withsolid and financially feasible activities in line with Community environmental policies, inorder to reach and involve as many European citizens and actors in the Environment (local
and regional authorities, business and industry, other interest groups, etc) as possible – they
have not always been easy to apply in practice. How do you assess “a lasting multiplier effectat a European level” or “a contribution to a multinational approach” – especially for anapplicant, which is new to the Commission evaluators?
7In the survey, one of the consulted NGOs re quested the Commission to clarify what “a sound
cost-benefit ratio” means in this context and how this ratio is measured. But in reality, thereare no fixed indictors to measur e any of the above mentioned cr iteria. On a related theme, one
of the Commission services called for more transparency, in general, in the selectionprocedure – stressing the need for making crys tal-clear the reasons for exclusion. The latter
furthermore stressed that the present situation, in which quite a small number of beneficiaries
were selected for funding with relatively large amounts of money (more or less the same
organisations every year), should be justified. In the Evaluation of the Budget Line B4-3060,
a similar concern was raised:
“The key question is whether one achieves, th rough the selection of NGOs receiving Activity
Funding, the involvement of the wider public in policymaking. Therefore it has been arguedthat the EC should seek a balance between NGOs’ knowledge of the European system and
their capacity to express people’s concerns and views. The latter is especially relevant sincethe 6EAP will probably give a lot of importance to mobilising the citizens. In order to achievethis the selection criteria could for instance be adapted to avoid institutionalisation by rotatingNGOs to be funded and not repeat funding to the same NGO in consecutive years. This would
give others, that may be more grassroots leve l organisations the opportunity to build up their
capacity concerning EU environmental policy and express the view of their constituencies.”(Page 175)
It goes without saying that the more times you apply under this instrument – the better you get
in knowing the procedure and what it takes to become a successful applicant. It should
furthermore be noted that many of the organi sations, which have been selected for funding
several years in a row, have successively wo rked up a relationship with different Commission
services (as well as with other EU institutions).
NGOs have pointed out that some of the sele ction criteria, which the Commission has added
in the ‘Information Dossier’, are not very clea r. In fact, one of the consulted NGOs argues
that the “commitment to publicise as widely as  possible the current environmental policy of
the European Union, including the Community Programme of policy a nd action in relation to
the environment and sustainabl e development” could be inte rpreted as a requirement for
passive and uncritical distribution of EU info rmation. This organisation would like to see a
clearer reference to the helping of Europe citizens to a better understanding  of Community
environmental laws and programmes as well as the encouragement to actively comment onthem.
From the above observations it would seem that the present selection criteria are imprecise
and would have to be re-defined in a new Programme. It has furthermore been made quite
clear during the period 1998-2000, that making refe rence to the selection criteria in rejection
letters to unsuccessful applicants has, so far, not been very efficient. Many of the refused
NGOs have come back, requestin g clarifications and more details. As there are no fixed
indicators how to measure this, all evaluations  are in this respect somewhat subjective.
2.4. Activity Funding
Article 4  defines the specific features of the Acti on Programme – financia l assistance, which
is given for both activities and administrative co sts of a selected NGO (sometimes referred to
as “activity funding”). The consultation with th e NGOs revealed no wish to change this in
favour of another funding model.  Instead, they requested the Commission to urgently address
the bureaucratic procedures and rigorous contro l systems involved in this exercise, which they
find disproportionate to the sums involved. In  addition, they wish to make the Programme
8compatible with project funding (see 3.1). Th e Commission, on the other hand, is in favour of
a model, which would limit the Programme to cover only the audited expenses of thebeneficiaries, as the inclusi on of projects/activities, involving  third parties, could have a
negative effect on transparency and accountability of reporting.
A ‘business as usual’ approach would hardly  be possible. A proposed expansion of the
Programme to include Candidate Countries’ NGOs  and NGOs of the Balkans, an increase of
the budget and limited human resources, as well as new measures introduced by the WhitePaper on Reforming the Commission, would require  a Programme, which takes these aspects
into account. A fixed auditing scheme would also have to be foreseen – a measure, which is
emphasised by the outcome of the Evaluati on of the Budget Line B4-3060 (page 182-183):
“Audits examined in the sample clearly show that the network structure of the largest NGOs
can potentially facilitate the channelling of funds to other parts or levels of the organisation.
This poses difficulties for the transparency a nd accountability of reporting. -…- What is to
some extent excusable for small NGOs, which received subsidies once in the period and arenot necessarily aware of EC procedure, is certainly not for big NGOs, which receive funds
almost every year and know EU financial rules.  Rigorous and transparent accounting is all the
more important for large subsidies. Towards th is end the EC should impose better guarantees,
in terms of accounting rules.”
2.5. Coherence, consistency and complementarity
Article 5  obliges the Commission to ensure coherence, consistency and complementarity
between the Action Programme and other Community programmes and initiatives.
By the nature of the selection procedure, as identified in the ‘Information Dossier’, the
Commission has mainly focused on coherence and consistency with the Fifth Environmental
Action Programme (5EAP) and its  overall provisions for the in tegration of environmental
concerns into all major policy areas and the pr inciple of ‘shared responsibility’ (which means
that all areas of activity, which cause envi ronmental problems, should form part of the
solution to them). In 1998-2000, financial assi stance under the Action Programme (“activity
funding”) has been granted only to NGOs whose activities meet the principles underlying the
5EAP. In short, these organisations have activel y addressed the priority areas of the 5EAP -
manufacturing industry, transport, energy, agri culture and tourism - and have actively sought
co-operation with other actors in the Environment (local and regional authorities, businessand industry, the general public, other NGOs, et c) in the pursuit of sustainable development.
But as for ‘complementarity’ (as opposed to ‘ove rlaps’), Article 5 has been quite difficult to
adhere to. Although the application forms for funding under the Action Programme oblige
potential candidates to account for all other funding received from EU institutions, there is no
centralised way in which the Programme co-ordinator could possibly eliminate the risk ofoverlapping funding
7.
The ‘self-imposed’ rule of not  accepting project funding app lications from beneficiaries of
‘activity funding’ under the Action Programme (see 3.1) has, at least, stopped the
Environment DG from funding overlapping activities.
                                                
7The establishment of a Contracts Data Base is presently being discussed by the Commission and such a
data base might be introduced during the implementation of a new Action Programme.
92.6. Time frame, budget and the calculation of contributions
Article 6  defines the Programme le ngth, the available budget , the rate of overall Commission
assistance and the possibility of accepting in-kind costs  – up to a level of 10% of total eligible
costs, when assessing envir onmental NGOs’ revenue and costs.
This article has attracted more attention and longer survey replies than any other article of the
Council Decision, as it provides – t ogether with the eligibility cr iteria (Article 1) – the very
basis for the Action Programme.
2.6.1.  Programme length
In addition to the overwhelming majority for a renewal of the Programme displayed by both
NGO and Commission survey replies, there is also  a strong desire to increase the Programme
duration from 4 years to, at least, 5 years.  This would secure the continuation of NGO
activities at the European level by providing sufficient time for the NGOs to plan theirmedium and – to some extent – long term strategic priorities. A decision to extend theProgramme period would also take into account  the considerable work and time needed for
the legislative process to put all elements of a new Programme in place.
– A proposal for a renewed Programme of fi ve years, covering the period 2002-2006,
would have the benefit of followi ng the current budget and major political
agreements already made within the EU, as well as following the same time period asfor all pre-accession funds.
– It would also be aligned with the [P roposal for a Sixth Environment Action
Programme]
8, which sets the political framework for the next five to ten years.
2.6.1.1.  Multi-annual funding
The possibility of introducing a multi-annual funding sc heme has been discussed both within
and outside the scope of the su rvey and has quite a large number of advocates both among the
NGOs and within the Commission. Such a Progra mme would save administration work and
time both for the Commission (and thus reduce th e overhead costs of running the Programme)
and the NGOs, as well as ensuring continuity. But it would also have other implications. A
multi-annual scheme w ould imply a variable annual budget, as the Commission would be
obliged to commit the full amount the first year . The Commission could, of course, elaborate
a 2 or 3 year payment schedule combined with an enhanced monitoring/assessment system,based on interim reporting. If the Commission is not satisfied with the interim reports, it couldstop the contract and de-commit the money, but the appropriations would be lost.
Bearing in mind the limited funds available to the co-ordinating DG (the Environment DG) on
budget line B4-3060 (around 7 Million EUROS per year) for covering a wide range ofdifferent information and communication activ ities (that is, not just NGO funding), a multi-
annual NGO funding scheme with, for example, tw o-year contracts, would require almost the
whole budget allocation of B4-3060 for the first year of implementati on just to cover the
subsidies of the main NGOs.
                                                
8Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the sixth environment action programme of the
European Community, ‘Environment 2010: Our future, Our choice’, COM (2001) 31.
102.6.2.  Available budget
It is quite clear that the competition fo r the limited funds available under the Action
Programme has increased considerably during the period 1998-2000. In 2000, theCommission received 66 applications (for a total amount of 8,424,406 EURO) compared to
1999 when it received 44 applications (for a total amount of 5,375,999 EURO). This
represents a 50% increase in the number of  files and a 56.7% increase of the amount
requested. 18 were subsequently selected for funding in 2000 at a total of 2.56 Million EURO.
But besides the increased competition, the demands placed on the NGOs during the period
1998-2000 have also increased. The consulted NGOs highlight three main areas – in order to
support their request for a substantial increas e of the budget - in their survey replies:
– European Governance . In the Commission Communication Strategic objectives
2000-2005 “Shaping the new Europe”, the Commission has set itself the task of
promoting new forms of European Governance.  This means, in short, giving people a
greater say in the way Europe is run and the building of new forms of partnership
between different levels of governance in Europe to make the institutions work moreeffectively and transparently. In the Communication, the Commission alsoacknowledges that “European citizens ha ve little sense of ownership over the
structures that govern their lives”. Th e NGOs thus highlight that they play an
increasing role in bridging this gap and in assisting the EU institutions to reachEuropean citizens – a task, wh ich requires additional funds.
– EU Enlargement. All European environmental ne tworks have increased their
membership, as NGOs from the Candidate Count ries have joined. This has increased
the need for additional activities and co-ord ination, which – in terms of costs – can
seldom be balanced by newcomers’ contributions as many of them still have veryscarce resources.
– Integration Process.  The integration of environmen tal protection and sustainable
development into all policy areas of the EU is a key demand of the EC Treaty (cf.“Cardiff process”). This means, in short,  that environmental NGOs today deal with
nearly all aspects of European policy. While welcoming this development, the NGOsstress that the integration aspect has put an increased demand on the NGOs for a
widened expertise as they are now contacte d by almost all DGs for input – and this
entails costs both for additi onal staff and preparation.
The reference amount for the present Programme is 10.6 Million EURO for the full
Programme Period (1998-2001). In light of the above – the increased competition for funding,
an increased workload placed on the NGOs and th e fact that the first Candidate Countries are
programmed to join as full EU Members be tween 2003-2005 – an increase from today’s
average of 2.65 Million EURO per year  may have to be considered.
2.6.3.  The rate of overall financial assistance
Article 6 provides for an overall Community a ssistance, which should not – in principle –
exceed 50% of the budgeted activities and the ad ministrative costs of a successful applicant.
This article has not been an easy one to adhere to for the NGOs during the period of
1998-2000 – in fact, many of them have had di fficulties in finding the 50% of ‘matching
funds’, which is required.
11One of the Commission survey contributions st resses that the phrase “in principle” leaves
room for interpretation and that it should be ma de clear when the 50% could be exceeded. An
example of a case where they believe that the 50% ‘cap’ should be lifted is for funding NGOs
involved in European standardisation work - as these groups would have difficulty finding
50% of ‘matching funds’ for this kind of activity.
In the survey replies, the major NGOs (G7) make reference to the discussions, which took
place before the Action Programme was adopte d, highlighting the fact that the Commission
and the European Parliament agreed to go fo r a 60% ‘ceiling’ - but then the Council decided
unanimously to reduce it to 50%.
All NGOs (including the G7) are in favour of trying to raise the ceiling again - to 60, 75 or
even 100%. The ones in favour of a 100% ceiling stress that this is not to say that theCommission should be obliged to give support of 100% to selected NGOs, but it would give
the Commission “the opportunity and obligation to look at the real situation, which NGOs
face and to understand their opportunities as we ll as their constraints better.” Other NGOs
argue that a 60% ‘cap’ would suffice, to a llow for more flexibility for environmental groups
without compromising their integrity.
A flexible percentage up to 100% would in theory have been feasible up to
13 December 2000
9. But such a funding policy would, no doubt, raise questions of integrity
and independence. It could furthermore be  argued that instead of making a 100%
contribution, the Commission could equally we ll launch a Call for Tenders for a business
contract, by which the Commission could specify in  detail what it is looking for as well as be
the ‘owner’ of the end result. The question of  independence has also been raised by the
external evaluator of budget line B4-3060:
“The sustainability of most European N GOs is generally weak. Most NGOs receiving
Activity Funding are extremely dependent on th e EC and receive little from their members to
whom they should be finally accountable as they are supposed to represent them.”  (The
Evaluation of the Budget Line B4-3060, page 106) , and
“core-funding to NGOs is indispensable to the EC to feed the policy process: expertise,
information channel, participation, etc. Bu t, in no circumstance should NGOs take those
subsidies for granted and consider that they will continue endlessly. As a general rule NGOsshould in future secure more financial inde pendence, requesting higher contribution from
their network of members.”  (The Evaluation of the Budget Line B4-3060, page 184)
Any decision on a ceiling for financial assistance under this Programme would have to take
into account such aspects as the inclusion or exclusion of ‘in kind’ contributions, transfers of
funds to partners/subcontractors, and the elig ibility or ineligibility of Candidate Countries
NGOs and NGOs of the Balkans.
2.6.4.  In-kind contributions
Voluntary work is the core of all NGO activitie s, and consulted NGOs are thus in favour of
keeping it as one of the provisions of a ne w Programme. In the present Action Programme,
unpaid work or donations in kind, if properly do cumented, may be taken into account, up to a
                                                
9According to the new norms for internal control (Action 78 du Livre Blanc) adopted on
13 December 2000, all Commission grants must henceforth involve co-financing. Financing up to 100%
is thus no longer an option.
12level of 10% of total eligible costs, when assessing e nvironmental NGOs’ revenue and costs
(Article 6, point 3 of the Counc il Decision). If possible, many of the consulted NGOs would
like to see this level increased.
“The restrictions on unpaid work or donations in  kind are crippling for small, effective NGOs,
especially in the way in which they are interpreted. As noted for (Question 13 of the Survey) ,
it is very difficult for bodies working at the EU or European scale to secure local or national
funds, and commercial sponsorship  now tends to favour local causes. One of the few areas in
which it is still possible to secure significant support is by donations in kind, staffsecondments, donated time etc.” (NGO survey contribution)
But according to the financial service of the Programme co-ordinator, unpaid work or
donations in kind usually create more problems than they solve, as they are difficult toaccount for and therefore do not provide a sound ba sis for eligible costs. They would instead
suggest a stricter definition of eligible cost s and allow a higher EU contribution rate (See
2.6.3).
2.6.5.  Programme management
Article 7  provides details on the timing of the Ca ll for Proposals (the announcement must be
made in the Official Journal before 31 January every year) and the deadline for theCommission’s decision of organisati ons to be financed (31 May).
All consulted NGOs unanimously state that it would make much more sense for the
Commission to launch the Call for Proposals in the early autumn of the year preceding  the
grant year, and to announce the list of beneficiar ies before the start of the grant year. This
would mean that the annual work programmes presented by the NGOs in their applicationswould actually be funded by the grant from the Commission (thanks to an alignment with thecalendar year). As it stands now, the Commission decision is not taken until the end of May,which usually means that funds do not arrive un til August or September of the year for which
the subsidy is intended. This can create quite serious cash-flow problems for NGOs.
Such an alignment with the calendar year would also be welcomed by the Programme co-
ordinator.
Article 8  defines the Commission’s obligation of ensuring the success of activities carried out
by NGOs under this Programme. This involves keeping a proper monitoring system, which
allows for the Commission to make on-the-spot  checks and gives it the right and duty to
recover sums, which have been improperly use d. The article also defines the obligations of
beneficiaries to keep supporting documents re garding expenditure incurred during the co-
financed year for a period of five  years following the last payment.
Consulted NGOs argue that the current system  is too focused on accounting reports and
inspections, and too little on the evaluation of the impact of NGO activities. The controlsystem is too rigorous and does not correspond to the relatively small amounts of money that
are allocated to the NGOs. A reflection should be made on how to reduce the administrative
burden on the Commission in the manageme nt of this Programme, they argue.
However, in this context it should be noted th at Action 81 “Strengthening the role of the DG’s
control function” (A White Pa per on Reforming the Commission – Part II, Action Plan) rather
provides an increase of systematic ex-post evaluations than a decrease:
13“An Audit Capability will be created in each DG…. This function will undertake an
independent review of the use made of the budget by the DG, and undertake systems,
programme and performance reviews, and ex-post checks on activities in the field.”
The need for improved ex-post evaluations is fu rther stressed by the results of the study of
budget line B4-3060:
“However, ex-post  evaluation in case of …Activity Fundi ng is still deficient, due to lack of
staff time invested. Ex-post  evaluation is not currently rega rded as a priority. Co-operation
with technical units should be more systematic  and could be significantly improved.” (Page
131)
Article 9  provides the measures that the Commission may take against a beneficiary in case
of irregularities or failure to respect the details of the contract. The article also provides theobligation of the beneficiary to repay any undue payment.
No grave irregularities have been detect ed during the examined period 1998-2000. But in
light of ex post evaluations (final reports and internal audits), NGOs have been requested to
reimburse any discovered surpluses or ‘ineligible  costs’. The calculation of eligible costs has
sometimes caused disagreement between the Commission and NGOs – quite often related to
‘in-kind contributions’ (Point 2.6.4.) – but issued reimbursement  orders have always been
duly paid by the beneficiaries.
Very little has been said by the NGOs on Ar ticle 9. One NGO has requested the Commission
to respect the provisions of the Vademecum on Grant Management on a llowing beneficiaries
to carry over any surplus of maximum 5% of the total income to the following grant year.
Article 10  defines the monitoring obligation of any co-financed activity by the Commission.
In order to comply with this provision, the Commission makes random visits to selected NGO
meetings, workshops, conferences and other activities during the Prog ramme period to see
that proposed activities are really carried out. Fu rthermore, the beneficiaries must provide – at
the end of the contract period – evidence of all activities carried out under this period. These
could be, for example, copies of magazine s, newsletters, press releases, reports, books,
CD-ROMs, videocassettes, etc.
“Overall the rate of achievement in the activit y funding sample examined is fairly good and
activities are in general well accounted for. In  general, beneficiary NGOs have accomplished
most of foreseen activities and final reports clearly specify the output of their work.”  (The
Evaluation of the Budget Line B4-3060, page 104)
Under its Audit Programme, the Programme co-ord inator also carries out annual audits on co-
financed NGO programmes, chosen at random from the list of beneficiaries.
Article 10 has given rise to  no particular concern of  the NGOs or the Commission.
Article 11  obliges the Commission to publicise the results of the selection of beneficiaries
under the Action Programme. This  article has been well a dhered to during the period
1998-2000, and the results have been duly publishe d in both the Official Journal of the
Communities as well as on the Environment DG’s web site. No comments have been made tothis article in the survey replies by eith er the Commission or the consulted NGOs. But an
earlier Call for Proposals and an earlier decisi on by the Commission on what organisations to
co-finance (as suggested in the survey) would, c onsequently, result in an  earlier publication of
the beneficiaries – more in line with the calendar year.
14Article 12  defines the obligation of the Commission to report to the Parliament and the
Council on the implementation of  this Programme. No comment s have been made to this
article in the survey replies by eith er the Commission or the consulted NGOs.
2.6.6.  Annex – definition of areas of eligible activities
With reference to the Annex , the NGO survey replies displayed an overwhelming call for it
to be reconsidered - or even deleted. This detailed, quantified description of eligible activitiescreates a difficult framework for the “programme of activities”, as there are numerousoverlaps. In an oral consultation session on 16 October 2000, the NGOs described their
difficulties in placing their activities in an y one group. Most activities undertaken by the
NGOs cover all – or many of - the indicated priority areas and therefore the Annex does not
help in drawing up the work programme. It s hould be stressed that the Annex has caused the
same difficulties for the Progr amme co-ordinator in eval uating applications under this
Programme, as it has been almost impossible to measure and place the activities proposed by
the NGOs under any one heading.
It has furthermore been requested in Co mmission survey contributions that “eligible
activities” should be more stri ctly related to the Environm ent DG’s on-going policies and
priorities.
3. GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION
From the survey results it is clear that few of  the articles of the present Council Decision have
been perceived as ‘difficult to understand’ or as too ‘theoretical’. Where there have been
discussions between the Commission and the benefi ciaries, they have been related to the
Programme co-ordinator’s interpretation and implementation of the articles.
3.1. Incompatibility with project funding
The rule introduced by the Programme co-ordinat or not to accept project funding applications
from those organisations, which are receiving ‘activity funding’ under the Action Programme,
has been heavily criticised by some of the NGOs. The Programme co-ordinator introduced the
rule of “one NGO, one budget” in 1998 in order to secure the financial management of the
Programme, to increase transparency and to adhere to budgetary constraints. The experiencegained by the Commission in the years precedin g the introduction of the rule (when ‘activity
funding’ and ‘project funding’ were still regarded  as compatible) led to the decision to invite
European environmental NGOs to present all of their activities in one budget once a year,
which then excluded them from applying for pr oject funding and ‘ad hoc’ funding. Prior to
the introduction of the ‘exclusion rule’, funds fo r different NGO projects had been granted in
a decentralised way, which led to a situati on where the sound financia l management of funds
was no longer secured. The Commission ran the risk  of funding overlappi ng activities and the
justification for this concern was later confirmed.
The NGOs, on the other hand, argue that the ac counting systems of the NGOs have improved
and there is no reason to believe that benefi ciaries of both ‘activity funding’ and ‘project
funding’ could not account for these sources sepa rately and in an adequate and transparent
way. This is already being done, they say, as many beneficiaries of the Action Programme
also receive funding from other DGs and s till manage to keep the different accounts
separated.
15They furthermore argue that the ‘exclusion rule’ goes against the Vademecum on Grant
Management as the latter does not exclude ‘c ore funding’ beneficiaries from applying for
project grants, which is true.
However, it should be noted that the Action Pr ogramme is not a ‘core funding’ instrument in
a strict sense, as it covers both running costs and activities of a selected NGO. That is why it
is referred to as “activity funding” (see 2.4).
And as the Vademecum provides minimal Commission standards for grant management – and
thus allows individual DGs to impose stricter rules – the Programme co-ordinator has takenthis stance with reference to the above reasons.
A few Commission survey contributions have rev ealed that they are in favour of abolishing
the ‘incompatibility rule’ as they argue that it causes “managerial difficulties”. What happensis that national members of co-financed European NGOs submit project applications in orderto avoid this rule - although the projects may be  more closely connected to the activities of the
umbrella organisation than its national members and c ould be better run at a European level.
3.2. Late payments
A regular complaint by the beneficiaries of the Action Programme is related to late payments
(not only related to the timing of the Call for Proposals as described in 2.6.5.).
After the completion of a contract, NGOs are requested to provide a Final Report (accounting
for activities carried out, expenditure incurred a nd income received during the funded period).
This Report is usually due at the end of Marc h. One of the reasons why final payments are
sometimes late is due to the fact that the Commission receives the final reports for the past
year during the same period as it is evaluating th e applications for funding in the present year.
All Final Reports are scrutinised for any devia tions to the agreed contract and the final
instalment depends on the out come of this evaluation.
This evaluation process – covering both activities and the financial side of all completed NGO
programmes – is quite time consuming and demands the attention of a number of officials. Itis correct that the Commission during the period 1998-2000 has not always been able to
adhere to the 60 days delay foreseen in the contract.
In this context, it should be noted that the deadline set for the Final Reports has not always
been respected by the NGOs.
3.3. Transfer of funds
Another NGO concern is the strict rules governin g what is actually recognised as ‘matching
funds’. The beneficiaries of the Action Progra mme are umbrella organisations or European
co-ordination offices for a number of nationa l, regional and local member organisations.
These members implement activities in the framework of the (co-financed) work programmeof the European organisation. They then rais e matching funds for the contribution, which
comes from the Commission. But if the matching funds are not transferred to a bank account
in the name of the Action Programme beneficiar y (that is, the European organisation), it is not
taken into account.
16This is, however, regulated by the Vademe cum on Grant Management under 1.2 General
terms and conditions applicable to European Community operating grant agreements (Part Bon Financial Provisions, Ar ticle 7 – Eligible costs): “To be considered eligible, costs must -
… - have actually been incurred, be recorded in the beneficiary ’s accounts and tax
documents, and be identif iable and controllable.”
4. CONCLUSIONS
The collective experience gained by both the Commission and consulted NGOs (including all
present and previous beneficiaries), as outlined in the survey replies, indicates that theProgramme should be renewed, preferably fo r a period of 5 years – but with certain
modifications, such as an expa nsion of the geographical scope in order to include Candidate
Countries’ NGOs and NGOs of the Balkans. The evaluation of budget line B4-3060 (under
the SEM 2000 initiative), which comprises an in -depth analysis of the efficiency and
justification of this financia l instrument, has been duly take n into account and the results of
this study support the conclusions  of this Report for a renewal:
“Notwithstanding some inevitable failures, the completion rate of expected activities is good
overall. The usefulness of Activity Funding is evident as it better enables European NGOs to
participate in and contribute to  the decision making process.”  (The Evaluation of the Budget
Line B4-3060, page 10)
A renewal of the Action Progr amme is also supported by the [Proposal for a Sixth
Environment Action Programme ], which provides for a continuation of NGO funding to
environmental NGOs in order to facilitate par ticipation in the dialogue process.
The strategic approach of the [Proposal for a Sixth Environment Action Programme]
recognises the need for empowering citizens, and the measures proposed include extensive
and wide-ranging dialogue with stakehol ders in environmental policy-making. The
Programme also foresees co-operation with e nvironmental NGOs in the Candidate Countries
in order to raise awareness.
17ANNEX I
Community action programme promoting non-governmental
organisations primarily active in the field of environmental protection
Recommendations for the presentation of proposals
The European Commission published a Call for the submission of proposals under the
above-described programme in the Official Journal no. C 319 of 6.11.99 . The following
recommendations are designed to help potentia l candidates in deciding whether to apply
and in formulating their applications.
1.Context and objectives
Under the terms of Council Decision N o. 97/872/EC of 16.12.97 (see Annex D), the
Commission invites European non-governmental organisations whose activities cover all
or some of the Member States and countries  neighbouring the European Union to present
proposals with a view to obtaining a financ ial contribution. This contribution would be
towards costs inherent in carrying out th e activities provided for in their annual work
programme (maximum 12 months). Applicant organisations should be operating at a
European level. This means that their stru cture and activities should in principle cover
several European countries.
Application for funding under this Call for Proposals excludes any other application for
funding to the Environment Directorate-General.
Financial assistance under this  Call for Proposals (subject to the availability of funds)
may be provided for activities which are of Community interest, contribute significantlyto the further development and implementa tion of Community environmental policy and
legislation and meet the principles unde rlying the Fifth Environmental Action
Programme.
The areas of activity eligible for Community financial assistance are defined in the
Annex to the Council Decision, which also indi cates the proportion of funding which will
be assigned to each area of activity.
Beneficiaries will be selected on the basis of the criteria set out in this call for the
submission of proposals and the availability of  funds. Moreover, the decisions taken will
concern 2001 and in no way represent a commitment for subsequent years.
2. Eligibility criteria
Consideration will be given only to proposals from organisations:
– which are independent and non-profit-making, primarily active in the field of
environmental protection, with an envir onmental objective aimed at the public good;
– which are active at a European level,  (i.e. not simply at national level)
– which have an administrative and financial management structure,
18– whose financial resources are not exclusiv ely made up of subsidies from European
Union institutions.
3. Selection criteria
When the proposals are examined, the benefici aries will be selected on the basis of the
following criteria:
– A sound cost-benefit ratio
– a lasting multiplier effect at European level,
– an effective and balanced co-operation among  any partners with regard to: planning
of activities, carrying out of activities and financial participation,
– a contribution to a multinational approach and in particular to cross-border
cooperation within the Union, and, if appropriate, extending  beyond its frontiers with
neighbouring countries,
– the capacity to promote dialogue and co- operation between the partners identified in
the Fifth Action Programme such as NGOs, small and medium-sized enterprises, localand regional authorities, etc. in order to encourage lasting changes in the behaviour ofthe parties concerned,
– the extent of representativity within the movement concerned,
– the capacity to favour a multisectoral approach to the environment,
– the quality of co-operation and dialogue between the association and its members
through regular exchanges of information,
– the capacity to demonstrate the financia l feasibility of the annual programme of
activities by means of a realistic, reasonable and balanced budget,
– the commitment to publicise as widely as possible the current environmental policy
of the European Union, including the Community programme of policy and action inrelation to the environment and sustainable development.
4. Financial conditions
Annex B sets out the financial conditions applicable to all types of financial assistance
given by Environment Directorate-General of the Commission. They are to be read in
conjunction with the conditions set out in the Council Decision establishing the action
programme for promoting e nvironmental NGOs which provides that the Commission
may finance in principle up to 50% of the budgeted activities and administrative costs. Ifthe application is successful the Commission will co-finance a percentage of the totaleligible expenditure in accordance with the attached financial conditions (Annex B).
These conditions will form an integral part of the agreement concluded with each
beneficiary.
19Applicants’ attention is drawn in particul ar to the following provision of the Council
Decision:
“In order to be able to receive a gran t in excess of ECU 150,000 an NGO’s accounts for
the preceding two years must be certified by a registered auditor, and the accounts for the
period in which the grant is used must also be certified by a registered auditor. To receivea grant of less than ECU 150,000 an NGO’s accounts must be available in a form
recognised by the Commission for the preceding two years and maintained in this formfor the period in which the grant is used.”
This means in practice that each applican t must be prepared to make its accounts
available in the required form to the Commission at very short notice once theirapplication has been shortlisted for funding.
5. Presentation of a request
The request must be drawn up in one of the official languages of the European Union,
preferably English or French, to facilitate processing the volume of requests expected,and accompanied by an official letter explic itly requesting the subsidy. It should include
Annex A to this document, duly filled by machine (not handwritten), as well as fulldetails of the applicant’s bank account.
Applications should include a description of the activities of the organisation in Point 2
of Annex A. Please enclose a detailed and accurate programme of anticipated activitiesfor the organisation’s 2000 financial year. This should cover all activities such as:
participation in co-ordinati on actions between member a ssociations, annual meetings,
information measures for members (newsletters ), preparation of reports, publications etc.
Each activity will be the subject of a separate descriptive sheet including a description of
the activity in question, its objectives and ta rget audience, indicative timetable and the
anticipated results. When drawing up applica tions, applicants should bear in mind the
schema set out in the annex to the Council Decision, which defines the areas of activity
eligible for Community fina ncial assistance and indicates  the proportion of funding
which will be assigned to each area.
Although the financial assistance will be granted only on the basis of the programme
planned for 2000, please also enclose a su mmary of activities carried out during the
previous year for guidance.
6. Procedure for the submission  and appraisa l of requests
Proposals must be submitted (postmarked) by 17
th January 2000 at the latest to the
following address:
European Commission
Environment Directorate-GeneralSaturnino Munoz GómezHead of Unit ENV.5TRMF 00/74Rue de la Loi 200
B-1049 Brussels
Tel. (0032) 2/2999332
20All the documents required for a proposal must be sent in triplicate to the above address.
They should be presented in A4 form.
The complete proposal must be sent, in the fo rm indicated in point 5, by registered letter .
Faxes, delivery by hand, incomplete or insuffi ciently detailed dossiers or dossiers sent in
several parts will not be accepted.
The procedure for the appraisal of a request is as follows:– receipt, recording and acknowledgeme nt of receipt by the Commission,
– examination by the services of the Commission,
– formulation of the final decision a nd communication of the result to the
applicant.
The decision of the Commission is final.The entire procedure is strictly confidential. In the event of approval by the Commission,
a single contract covering all the activities to be co-financed (expressed in EURO) willbe concluded between the Commission and the party submitting the proposal.
Applicants should note that due to the volum e of applications expected the evaluation
process will probably take several months. However, it should be completed by
31 May 2000. The expected volume of appli cations also means that the Commission
must be very strict in applying the selection criteria and in eliminating applications whichare not presented according to the specificati ons set out above. Please read carefully all
information supplied and check that you have fulfilled all the requirements. Anyomissions or mistakes could lead to  your application being refused.
– ANNEXES:
A. Administrative information
– B. Legal and Financial conditions
– C. Model of Contract
– D. Text of the Council Decision 97/ 872 of 16.12.1997. Official Journal L354 of
30.12.1997.
21Supporting documentation to be annexed to the request for subsidy
Documents to be annexed systematically to the request for subsidy
(1) Duly completed annex A (the fields indicate d in bold-type are obligatory, all incomplete
requests will be systematically rejected)
(2) Annual accounts of the applicant of the previous accounting period
(3) Official statute and certificate of legal registration
(4) Curriculum vitae of the people who will comple te the tasks connected to the activities to
be subsidised.
(5) Annual activity report of the organisation for the previous year
(6) Official letter of request of subsidy
Documents to be annexed if they exist
(1) List of the members of the administration or executive board (names, title or function within
the applicant organisation)
(2) Audit certificate less than two years old from an agreed auditor
(3) Financial guarantee
(4) References concerning (in addition to references requested at point 1.5) projects which
benefit (or have benefitted) from other international organisations or Member States of the
European Union
22ANNEX A ACTIVITY FUNDING
Standard form for request of subsidy  (to be completed if possible in English or French)
1. A DMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION RELATIVE TO THE  APPLICANT
1.1 Identity of applicant
Organisation name (full legal name):
Abbreviated name (if applicable):
Acronym (if applicable):
Legal registration number (if applicable):10
Legal status of applicant :Name and Title (Function) of the person entitl ed to enter into legally binding commitments
on behalf of the applicant organisation:
Name and Title (Function) of the person responsible for the technical aspects:
Address of the applicant
Street:N°:
Post Code:
Town:
Country:
Tel :Fax :
e-mail :
NB : All areas indicated in bold-type must be completed, incomplete applications will
systematically be refused .
                                                
10The eventual approval of applicants by Member States may constitute an alternative to the request
for this information. p/ghu/docs/kitzmanen.doc (Rev. 3 of 10 Nov. 1998 at 12.00 hrs)
231.2 Banking reference of applicant  (please include a document from accounting service or bank
of applicant, signed by the person authorised  to legally commit the applicant organisation)
NB : The bank account must be open in the country of the head office of the applicant :
Name of the bank:
Street:
N°:
Post code:
Town:
Country:Bank codes, sort code etc...
Number of bank account:
Bank account holder :
1.3 Summary of general activities and aims of applicant
1.4 Group(s)/society(ies) share holders of applicant organisation (if applicable):
indicate the name (i.e. the full legal name) of each organisation:
1.5 Subsidies, contracts or community loans obtained directly or indirectly in the course of the
three preceding accounting periods from any European Community institution.
For each subsidy, contract or loan indicate:
-the Community programme concerned:
-the title of the project and reference n° of the contract:
-the year of attribution by the Commission:-the amount of the subsidy, contract or loan:
241.6 Requests for subsidies presented (or which will be presented) in the course of the current
year to the European institutions.
For each subsidy/contract, indicate:
-the Community programme concerned:-the title of the project:
-the amount of the contract or subsidy:
2. Detailed description of the activities of  the organisation to be subsidised
(the information given here will serve as the technical annex to the contract in case of agreement
to the proposal, all information essential to the realisation of the activities of the organisation
must be included). to be drafted, if possible, in either English or French .
2.1 Summary description of the activites of your organisation for which the subsidy is
requested.
Please enclose a detailed and accurate programme of anticipated activities for the
organisation’s 2000 financial year. This should cove r all activities such as: participation in co-
ordination actions between member associations, annual meetings, information measures formembers (newsletters), preparation of reports, publications etc.
Each activity will be the subject of a separate  descriptive sheet including a description of the
activity in question, its objectives and target audience, indicative timetable and the anticipated
results. When drawing up applications, applicants  should bear in mind the schema set out in
the annex to the Council Decision, which define s the areas of activity eligible for Community
financial assistance and indicates the proportion of funding which will be assigned to each area.
Please also indicate tasks related to the activities of the organisation which the applicant
intends to sub-contract to another third (third party) organisation/company/association:
2.2 Results expected from the activities of your organisation for which the subsidy is requested
(please indicate the measurable elements th rough which the impact of the subsidy can be
evaluated in relation to the defined general objectives. Also, the target population and
methodology, in additon to the final product th at the applicant intends to deliver to the
Commission on completion of the activities of your organisation).
252.3 Summary schedule of the activities of your organisation for which the subsidy is requested
Date of the start of work11
Date of the end of work12
Number of months necessary to complete the activities of your organisation (12 months maximum).
Other information relevant to the schedule of the activities of your organisation.
Would you wish to receive an even tual agreement for financing in:
English /g127 French /g127
                                                
11The dates of the start and end of work determine the period of eligibility of any expenditure.
12All expenditure incurred after this date will not be eligible except where express authorisation has
been approved by the competent services.
263. Provisional budget of the activities of the organisation to be subsidised  (the information included here will serve as the financial annex to the contract
in the case that the proposition is accepted). To be drafted if possible in English or French
3.1 Summary of the provisional budget for which the subsidy is requested, a precise breakdown of costs and the method of calcul ation established with the aid of the following
tables must be attached to this summary. The provisiona l budget must be balanced between receipts / expenditures;
The applicant certifies that the expenditure mentioned here is necessary for the implementation of the activities of the organi sation to be subsidised and will be both effectively
incurred and registered in the organisation’s official accounts (art. 10.1.5 of the general conditions)
Part A eligible expenditure/costs
a) Costs of personnel assigned to the activities of the organisation
b) Travel and subsistance costs of personnel participating in the
activities of the organisation
c) Equipment costs (depreciation only)
d) Durable equipment and stationary costs
e) Printing, publication, translation, interpretation costs (including
subscription, CD rom, distribution…)
f) Sub-contracting and/or transfer of funds to partnersg) Other direct costs if applicable (heating, lighting, rent etc. please
specify) :(in
Euros)
…….Part B Financing Plan
a) direct receipts resulting from the activities of the organisation
b) contribution of the applicant
c) contributions from other organisations (please specify)
d) contribution requested from the Commission by the present application
e) estimation of bank interests generated by the requested subsidy during the
execution period of the activities of the organisation
f) other contributions, if applicable, by the Commission to the same activities of
the organisation (please specify )(in Euros)
TOTAL ELIGIBLE COSTS TOTAL
Estimation, if applicable, of “in kind” contributions (1 ) Estimation, if applicable, of “in-kind” contributions13
TOTAL TOTAL
                                                
13Relates to contributions which do not generate invoices, eg :voluntary work, or free use of materials or premises.
273.2 Breakdown of eligible costs by category
A. Personnel costs (ref:financial conditions art. 10.2 annexed )
Name Function Status14Monthly salary
cost15Duration
(in months)TOTAL
TOTAL I.1
B. Travel and subsistance costs
Destination of
the missionTravel costs Hotel
CostsOther Number
of daysTOTAL
Total
C. Costs of purchase of durable equipment (depreciation)16 (REF.ART.10.2 of
the financial conditions)
Type of equipment Unit cost Quantity Eligible cost
(depreciation)TOTAL
Total
D. Costs of purchase of office supplies and materials (if not included in indirectcosts)
Nature of costs Quantity Unit cost Total cost
Total
                                                
14Permanent personnel or personnel recruited for the duration of the project
15Monthly gross salary including social security charges, excluding all other expenses.
16Please attach the method used for the calculation of depreciation to this request
28E. Costs of printing, publication, translation, interpretation (including
subscription fees, CD Rom, distribution, ….)
Nature of costs Quantity Unit cost Total cost
Total
F. Subcontracting and/or transfer of funds to partner(s) (art 10.2 financialconditions).
Please indicate  :
– The precise name and address of any sub-contractor/partner
17
– The precise nature of the tasks that will be entrusted to that person/organisation
– The amount and the method of calcu lation (fully de tailed estimate) .
TOTAL
G. Other direct costs not specified in other categories mentioned above (heating,
lighting, rent etc. please specify)
 Nature of costs  Quantity  Unit cost  Total Cost
 
    
 Total    
GRAND TOTAL
 
                                                
17These documents must enable the relevant services to establish the eligibility of the expenditure.
293.3 Details of other sources of financing, if applicable (to the exclusion of
community subsidies),
 (Please complete the following information for each co-financing
company/association/organisation)
/g183 Company or organisation’s name (complete legal name) :
/g183 Address:
/g183 Person responsible in the co-financing organisation (name, title or grade, tel, fax, e-mail):
/g183 Amount which the co-financing organisation agrees to commit to the activities of the organisation
under consideration:
/g183 Comments if the co-financing decision is not yet definite:
 
 
 
 
Declaration of the applicant :
 I, the undersigned, confirm that the information contained in the present request is correct
 Name:
 Title or function , representing :
 tel:
 fax:
 e-mail:
 signature:
 date:
30ANNEX B
General terms and conditions applicable  to grant agreements of the European
Communities
31PART A - LEGAL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
Article 1 - Performance
1.1 Subject to cases of force
majeure , the beneficiary shall do
everything to ensure that the operation iscarried out in accordance with theconditions and arrangements specified inAnnex I to the agreement.
1.2 Any unforeseeable and
insurmountable eventuality shall beconsidered a case of force majeure .
Article 2 - Liability
2.1 The European Communities may
not, under any circumstances or for anyreason whatsoever, be held liable in theevent of complaints deriving from theagreement concerning damage or injurysustained by the staff or property of thebeneficiary while the operation is beingcarried out.  Consequently, no claim for
compensation or repaymentaccompanying such a complaint shall beaccepted by the European Communities.
2.2 Except in case of force majeure ,
the beneficiary shall be required toindemnify the European Communitiesfor any damage resulting from theoperation or from failure to carry it outproperly.
2.3 The beneficiary shall assume
sole liability towards third parties,including for damage of any kind causedto them by the operation.
Article 3 - Termination of the
agreement
3.1 The beneficiary may terminate the
agreement at any time by serving twomonths’ formal written notice, withoutbeing required to pay compensation.  In
this event, the beneficiary shall beentitled to payment of the grant only for
the part of the operation carried out.
3.2 The Commission may terminate
the agreement should the beneficiary,for no valid economic or technicalreason, fail to honour one of theobligations under the agreement and,after being given notice by registeredletter to comply with these obligations,has still failed to do so one month afterreceiving that letter.In that event the Commission shall payonly the costs actually borne by thebeneficiary at the time of termination,and no costs related to contracts alreadyconcluded but for performance after thedate of termination.
3.3 The Commission may terminate
the agreement, without giving notice andwithout paying compensation of anykind, where the beneficiary:
is declared bankrupt, is wound up or is the
subject of any similar proceeding;
makes false or incomplete statements to obtain
the grant provided for in the agreement.
In that event the Commission may
demand full or partial repayment ofamounts already paid under theagreement.
3.4 Termination of the agreement for
financial irregular ities shall be without
prejudice to the application of otheradministrative measures or penaltieswhich may be imposed in accordancewith Council Regula tion (EC, Euratom)
No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on theprotection of the EuropeanCommunities’ financial interests.
Article 4 - Confidentiality
The Commission and the beneficiary
undertake to preserve the confidentialityof any document, information or othermaterial communicated to them in
32confidence whose disclosure could harm
the other party.
Article 5 - Publicity
5.1 Unless the Commission requests
otherwise, any notice or publication bythe beneficiary about the operation,including at a conference or seminar,must specify that the action has receivedfunding from the EuropeanCommunities.
Any notice or publication by the
beneficiary, in whatever form and bywhatever medium, including theInternet, must specify that it reflects theauthor’s views and that the Commissionis not liable for any use that may bemade of the information contained inthat notice or publication.
5.2 The Commission shall be
authorised to publish, in whatever formand by whatever medium, including theInternet, the following information:
– the name of the beneficiary,
except where this mayjeopardise the beneficiary’ssecurity,
– the purpose of the grant,
– the amount granted and the
proportion of the total cost ofthe operation accounted for bythe funding,
– the geographical location of the
operation,
– whether the action has been
publicised before.
Article 6 - Ownership/use of results
6.1 Unless provided otherwise in the
agreement or its annexes, ownership,title and industrial and intellectual
property rights in the results of theoperation and the reports and otherdocuments relating to it shall vest in the
beneficiary.
6.2 Notwithstanding the provisions
of the first paragraph, the beneficiarygrants the Commission the right to usefreely and as it sees fit the resultsderiving from the operation, subject toany confidentiality arrangements agreedbetween them and the industrial andintellectual property rights alreadyexisting.
Article 7 - Evaluati on of the operation
Where the Commission undertakes an
interim or ex post  evaluation, the
beneficiary undertakes to provide itand/or the persons designated by it withany document or information, whichwill assist with this evaluation.
Article 8 - Amendment of the
agreement
8.1 Any amendment of the
agreement, including its annexes, mustbe set out in a written agreement to beconcluded in the same way as theoriginal agreement.  The parties shall not
be bound by any oral agreement on suchmatters.
8.2 Where the change does not affect
the basic purpose of the operation andthe financial impact is limited to atransfer between headings of the budgetinvolving an increase of less than l0% ofa heading for eligible costs, thebeneficiary may apply the change andshall inform the Commission withoutdelay.
8.3 Any transfer between budget
headings involving more than 10% ofthe amount of the heading to be creditedshall be subject to the prior writtenagreement of the Commission.
33Article 9 - Jurisdiction
The beneficiary may bring a complaint
against decisions by the Commissionconcerning the application orinterpretation of the provisions of theagreement, including its annexes, beforethe Court of First Instance of theEuropean Communities and, in the eventof appeal, the Court of Justice of theEuropean communities.
PART B-FINANCIAL PROVISIONS
Article 10 - Eligible costs
10.1 To be considered eligible for the
operation, costs must satisfy thefollowing criteria:
– be directly linked to the subject
matter of the agreement and beprovided for in the agreement(Annex III);
– be necessary for carrying out
the operation covered by theagreement;
– be reasonable and comply with
the principles of soundfinancial mana gement, and in
particular of value for moneyand cost-effectiveness;
– have been incurred during the
lifetime of the operation asdefined in the agreement;
– have actually been incurred, be
recorded in the beneficiary’saccounts or tax documents andbe identifiable and controllable.
10.2 The following direct costs shall
be eligible:
– the cost of staff assigned to the
project, corresponding to realsalaries plus social securitycharges (and other costsmaking up remuneration),
excluding staff expenditure,office expenses and otherindirect administrativeexpenditure to be chargedagainst indirect costs. Timespent on the project shall berecorded on timesheets filled inby the staff throughout theproject and certified at leastonce a month by the projecthead.
– travel and subsistence costs for
staff taking part in theoperation, at the rates and underthe terms normally applied bythe beneficiary;
– purchase costs for equipment
(new or used), provided thatthese correspond to normalmarket costs and that the valueof the items concerned iswritten off in accordance withthe tax and accounting rulesapplicable to the beneficiary.Only the proportion ofdepreciation of the itemcorresponding to the durationof the operation may be takeninto account by theCommission, except where thenature and/or use of the itemjustifies different treatment bythe Commission;
– the costs of consumables and
supplies (insofar as these areidentifiable and are notassigned to another item of thebudget in the agreement);
– expenditure on subcontracting,
provided that the Commissionhas given advance writtenagreement for subcontracting.In this case the beneficiary shallensure that the terms applicableto it under the agreement are
34also applicable to the
subcontractors;
– costs deriving directly from the
requirements of the agreement(dissemination of information,specific evaluation of theoperation, translation,reproduction, etc.), including,where appropriate, financialservice costs (in particular thecost of financial guarantees),but not including exchangerisks unless these are expresslyprovided for in the agreement;
– a “contingency reserve” of no
more than 5% of eligible directcosts.
10.3 As a rule, a fixed percentage of
the total amount of eligible direct costsshall be eligible as indirect costs.
– Indirect costs shall be
eligible provided they do notinclude costs assigned toanother item of the budget inthe agreement.
– Indirect costs shall not be
eligible where the grantagreement concerns thefinancing of an operationconducted by a body which isalready receiving an operatingsubsidy from the Commission.
10.4 The following costs shall not be
considered eligible:
– capital investment costs;
– provisions for possible future
losses or debts;
– interest owed;
– debts;
– doubtful debts;– exchange losses, except where
the agreement makes explicitprovision for them;
– contributions in kind.
(However, contributions in kindmay be taken into accountwhen the maximum amount ofthe grant is set);
– inordinate or ill-considered
costs;
– travel expenses, living expenses
and any form of remunerationpaid to permanent staffemployed by the EuropeanInstitutions;
– expenditure incurred outside
the agreed period of eligibility;
– salaries of staff employed by a
public authority.
Article 11 - Statements of costs and
repayment arrangements
11.1 The beneficiary shall, within the
agreed deadline, present a finalstatement of all expenditure and revenueactually incurred in the course of theoperation, accompanied by anexhaustive list of the supportingdocuments used to produce thestatement. These documents must becertified by the authorised representativeof the beneficiary.
The beneficiary shall be required to
present interim statements of eligiblecosts only if the agreement expresslyprovides for this.
11.2 On the basis of an examination
of the final statement, and withoutprejudice to the provisions of Article 13of this annex, the Commission shall paythe balance of the grant as provided inthe agreement.  Under no circumstances
35may the total amount paid by the
Commission to the beneficiary exceedthe maximum amount of the grant set inthe agreement, even if the total real costsexceed the estimated total budget as setin Annex III to the agreement.
11.3 The maximum amount of the
grant to be paid by the Commission shallbe reduced proportionately ifexamination of the final statement inrelation to the total budget as estimatedin the agreement reveals that:
– the beneficiary has obtained
interest on the part of the grantpaid as an advance;
– total revenue exceeds total
expenditure;
– revenue generated by the
operation exceeds the totalrevenue shown in the budgetestimate;
– eligible real costs are less than
shown in the budget estimate.
11.4 The amount of the grant to be
paid by the Commission shall bereduced by means of:
– a reduction in the balance of the
grant payable on completion ofthe operation;
– a request for repayment of
overpayments made to thebeneficiary, if the total amountalready paid by theCommission exceeds the finalamount actually due.
Article 12 - Interest  on late payment
12.1 The Commission undertakes to
pay the amounts due under thisagreement within sixty days of the dateof the event, giving rise to payment upto the date on which the sum is debited
to the Commission’s account.
12.2 At any time during the sixty days
following the date of the event givingrise to payment, the Commission maysuspend this payment period byinforming the beneficiary that therequest for payment is not admissible,either because the debt is not due orbecause the necessary supportingdocuments have not been produced orbecause the Commission considers itnecessary to carry out further checks.The sixty-day period shall begin to runagain from the date on which a correctlypresented request for payment isregistered.
12.3 On expiry of the time limit
specified in the first paragraph andwithout prejudice to the secondparagraph, the beneficiary may, withintwo months of receiving the latepayment, claim interest at the rateapplied by the European MonetaryInstitute to its operations in euros plusone and a half percentage points.
Article 13 - Technical and financial
control
13.1 The beneficiary undertakes to
allow Commission staff and personsauthorised by the Commissionappropriate access to the sites orpremises where the operation is beingcarried out and to all documentsconcerning the technical and financialmanagement of the operation.  Access by
persons authorised by the Commissionmay be subject to confidentialityarrangements to be agreed between theCommission and the beneficiary.
13.2 The beneficiary agrees to the
Commission and the Court of Auditorsof the European Communities verifyingthe use to which the grant is put inaccordance with the FinancialRegulation of 21 December 1977
36applicable to the general budget of the
European Communities, as amended,throughout the duration of the agreementand for five years after the date ofcompletion of the operation.
13.3 The beneficiary undertakes to
ensure that any subcontractors accept thesame obligation.
13.4 Controls by the Commission or
the Court of Auditors of the EuropeanCommunities may be carried out on thebasis of documents or on the spot andshall consist of an examination of theaccounts and of all supportingdocuments relating to the costs of theoperation.
Article 14 - Repaym ent of the grant
14.1 In the cases referred to in
Articles 3.1, 3.2 and 11 of this annex,the beneficiary undertakes to repay tothe Commission, in the manner andwithin the time limits set by theCommission, any amounts which havebeen paid in excess of the real eligiblecosts of the operation.
14.2 In the event of termination of the
agreement in the cases specified inArticle 3.3 of this annex, theCommission may request full or partialrepayment of sums paid to thebeneficiary.  The Commission shall
determine the manner and the timelimits for such full or partial repayment.
14.3 Should the beneficiary fail to
repay such amounts within the time limitset by the Commission, the Commissionmay increase the sums due by addingpenalty interest at the rate applied by theEuropean Central Bank to its operationsin euros plus one and a half percentagepoints.
14.4 Bank charges involved in the
repayment of sums due to theCommission shall be borne entirely by
the beneficiary.
14.5 The recovery decision drawn up
by the Commission and transmitted tothe beneficiary owing a repayment to theCommission shall be enforceable withinthe meaning of Article 192 of theEC Treaty, Article 92 of the ECSCTreaty and Article 164 of the EuratomTreaty.
14.6 Amounts to be repaid to the
Commission may be set off againstamounts due to the beneficiary underany heading.
371.2 Financial Guarantee
(For the application of options 1 or 2 of Artic le 4.1 of the grant agreement, model letters of
guarantee will be inserted here by DG XIX, in agreement with the Legal Service andFinancial Control.)
38ANNEX C
GRANT AGREEMENT
between
The European Community/European Atomic  Energy Community/European Coal and
Steel Community (“the Community”) , represented by the Commission of the European
Communities ( “the Commission” ), itself represented by,
of the one part,and 
[full legal name of beneficiary] [acronym] with its registered office at (address [of registered
office - for companies and associations; of main office - for public bodies and universities], VAT
number and official registration number where appropriate ],
(“the beneficiary”), represented by (name and position of the signatory [in the case of legal
persons, the person duly authorised to act legally on behalf of the beneficiary body in relations with
third parties: Chairman, Director-General, Rector, Head of administrative or financial department])
on the other part,
have agreed as follows:
Article 1 - Subject matter
1.1 The Commission has decided to award a grant on the terms and conditions  set out in
this agreement and its annexes, which the beneficiary hereby declares it has taken note of andaccepts, for the operation entitled: “”(“the  operation”).
1.2 The beneficiary accepts the grant and unde rtakes to carry out the operation under its
own responsibility.
A detailed description of the  operation is given in Annex I, which is an integral part of this
agreement.
1.3 The operation shall be carried out mainly at []
Article 2 - Duration
2.1 The operation shall last for [ insert number ] months from [first day of [month]after the
agreement has been signed by the last of the contracting parties or insert date ] ("starting
date").
2.2 The agreement shall end on [ insert date ] ("date of completion").
2.3 The beneficiary undertakes to keep a ll supporting documents justifying payments
made under this agreement for a period of five years for inspection purposes.
39Article 3 - Financing the operation
3.1 The eligible real costs to be paid directly by the beneficiary are estimated at €.  The
detailed budget of the operation is set out in Annex III, which is an integral part of thisagreement, and comprises only costs eligib le for Community funding, as defined in 
Annex II.
[A flat rate of [no more than] 7% of the total am ount of eligible direct costs shall count as eligible
indirect costs.]18 [The terms are set out in Article 10.3 of Annex II]
– The total cost of the operation does not include contributions in kind by the
beneficiary, which are specif ied separately in Annex III.
– However, as contributions in kind were  taken into account by the Commission when
it set its contribution to the operation, th e beneficiary undertakes to supply these
contributions on the terms laid down in this agreement. Failure to honour thisundertaking may entail termina tion of the agreement as specified in Article 3 of
Annex II.]
19
3.2 The Commission shall provide a maximum amount  of € equivalent to % of the eligible
real costs (see Art. 3.3).
3.3 Should the actual eligible costs on comple tion of the operation, be lower than the
estimated total cost specified in paragraph 1, the Commission’s contribution will be limited tothe amount calculated by applying the above percentage to eligible costs.  The beneficiary
undertakes to repay to the Commission any sums  already paid in excess of this amount.
3.4 The beneficiary agrees that the grant may in no circumstances give rise to profits and
that it must be restricted to the amount requi red to balance revenue and expenditure for the
operation.
3.5 The beneficiary accepts that the grant does not constitute a claim on the Commission
and may not therefore be assigned to another 
body or  transferred to a third party in any way.
Article 4 - Payment arrangements
4.1 The Commission shall pay the grant to the beneficiary as follows:
– € [ ] [ % of the amount specified in Article 3.2] by way of an advance within 60 days
of receipt and acceptance of this signed  agreement and upon production of an invoice
[and a financial guarantee for an equivalent amount];
– EUR [.....] [...% of the amount specified in Article 3(2)] within 60 days of receipt and
acceptance of an interim report and [an interim financial statement of the operation and]a
request for payment; ]
– The balance within 60 days of receipt and approval of the documents referred to in
point 5 and a request for final payment .
                                                
18Standard clause for overheads.
19Paragraph to be inserted where the beneficiary makes contributions in kind.
404.2 Payments due from the Commission shall be  made to the following bank account of
the beneficiary:
– [Insert details of beneficiary's bank account]
4.3 The Commission shall make payments in Euro.  Real costs shall be converted into
Euros at the rate published in the C series of the Official Journal for the first working day ofthe month in which payment is effective.
– Exchange losses are not covered by this agreement and shall be borne by the
beneficiary.
Article 5 - Reports and other documents
Following completion of the operation, the be neficiary undertakes to forward to the
Commission within three months of the date re ferred to in Article 2.2 of this agreement:
– A certified copy of the final statement of expenditure and revenue actually incurred in
connection with the project, presented in the same form as the initial estimate, as well as anexhaustive list of the supporting documents used  to draw up the final financial statement.
These documents must be certified by the au thorised representative of the beneficiary;
– 3 copies (including at least one printed on pa per) of the final report on the use made of the
above-mentioned grant.
Article 6 - General admi nistrative provisions
Any information supplied in connection with this agreement shall be in writing and shall be
sent to the following addresses:
For the Commission
European Commission
Directorate-General [..]Attention…[Address]
For the beneficiary
[..]
Article 7 - Final provisions
7.1 The following documents are annexed to this agreement and are an integral part of it:
– Annex I: Description of the operation
– Annex II: General terms and conditions applicable to grant agreements of the
European Communities
– Annex III: Budget for the operation
417.2 Should the provisions of the annexes and t hose of the agreement differ, the provisions
of the agreement shall apply. Annex II shall take precedence over the other annexes.
Article 8 - Specific terms and conditions applying to the operation
Done at Brussels, in duplicate,
For the beneficiary For the Commission
[name of legal representative specified on the first
page][name of the authorising officer by
delegation or subdelegation]
[signature] [signature]
[date]
42ANNEX II
The Revision of the Action Program
Promoting European Environmental NGOs
General Comments by:
BirdLife International (European Office)
Climate Network Europe
European Environmental Bureau
European Federation for Transport and Environment
Friends of the Earth Europe
International Friends of Nature
World Wide Fund for Nature (European Policy Office
Brussels, October 2000
43Contribution to the Co mmunity environmental policy and legislation
The Green-8 (BirdLife, CNE, EEB, FoEE, Greenpeace, NFI, T&E, WWF) have been involved in
numerous policy areas to the further devel opment and implementation of the Community
environmental policy and legislation. Among these are20:
Type of activities
– Raising awareness of EU decision makers  (Commission, European  Parliament, Council)
– Raising awareness among internal networks  and partners (NGOs and civil society
organisations)
– Analysis and provision of expertise to the EU institutions
– Representation to the EU institutions
– Co-ordination and development of policy positions
– Identification of key policy issues
– Information to the internal networks on main EU policies and their development.
                                                
20This list gives only a first impression and is by no means complete. It would be much longer if one would list
all relevant activities of all environmental networks or groups.
44Fields of work
Trade, Economics and Environment
– EC Trade policy and EU regional
trade agreements effects onsustainable development indeveloping countries related to
sustainable management of
natural resources
– Definition and promotion of
Strategic Impact Assessment inthe implementation of the ECtrade policy
– Involvement in the Euro-
Mediterranean Partnership andMFTZ: civil forum (Stuttgart)and parliament hearing
– Participation to the Commission
initiative Contact group with DGtrade
– WTO: Trade and Environment
– Communication on Environment
and Employment
– EU Employment strategy
EU Development policy and External
Affairs
– Communication on A new EC
development policy
– Integration of environment into
EC development co-operation,north south relations.
– Communication on environment
integration into the ECdevelopment policy
– Communication on Tropical
Forest conservation indeveloping countries.– Communication on Climate change in
developing countries
– Communication on Coherence
– Promoting EC co-operation
development policy
– Participation in the Group inter sector
NGOs for co-ordination on the ECcommunication on Partnership withNGOs.
– Participation to the EC working group
on "Grant management" conducted bythe Secretariat general.
– RIO + 10 conference: Joint initiative
with EPE, European Movement,UNEP, ETUC, GLOBE,ICDA,ICLEI,WBCSD
– Co-operation with development NGO
networks to work with the workinggroup of the Development Council.
– Internal co-ordination of network
policy work on EU Developmentpolicy
– Balkan Sustainability Pact (Regional
Environmental ReconstructionProgramme)
Mediterranean policy
– Euro Mediterranean Partnership
– SMAP: Assessment and proposals for
strengthening its environmentalcomponents
– Environmental integration within the
Euro Mediterranean strategicpartnership.
– Effects of EU foreign direct
investment
45– Co-ordination of the internal
networks policy work in theMediterranean.
– Monitoring the development of
the Mediterranean Free TradeZone
Water
– EU freshwater policy
– Greening EU funding for
hydrologic projects in the EUMember States and CEECs
– Water Framework Directive:
adoption and implementation
– Promotion of water pricing.
– Communication on Water pricing
(input to EC conference and EUdebate, discussion paper)
– Commission proposal on a list of
priority substances and selectionof priority hazardous substances
– Mine waste/mine waste
management and its impact in thefreshwater environment.
– Conservation and wise use of
wetlands
– Organisation of seminars on EU
freshwater policy and theimplementation of the WaterFramework Directive.
– Internal co-ordination of
European freshwater policywork.
Habitats, bio-diversity and
biotechnology
– Promotion of the implementation
of the Habitats Directive– Promotion of the establishment of the
Natura 2000 ecological network
– Observer to the Habitats Scientific
Working Group
– Secretariat of the European Habitats
Forum (International ConservationNGOs)
– Implementation of EC nature
conservation legislation in CEECs.
– EC Biodiversity Action plan on
natural resources
– Role of the EEA and the European
Topic Centre for nature conservation.
– Environmental liability
– Internal co-ordination of the policy
work related to ha bitats and species.
– Revision of the 90/220 directive on
the deliberate release of GMOs intothe environment
– Publication "Important Bird Areas
Agriculture and land use
– Reform of the CAP
– Agenda 2000
– Cross compliance (Common rules
Regulation 1259/1999)
– Rural development Regulation
1257/1999
– Integrated rural sustainable
development
– Principles for rural sustainable
development
– Reform of CAP in 2006
– Agriculture and trade (WTO)
46– Capacity building in CEECs and
Mediterranean countries on EUagriculture and ruraldevelopment policy
– Putting Urban and Spatial
Development stronger on theAgenda
– Internal co-ordination of the
policy work related toagriculture.
– Participation in DG AGRI
advisory Committees
Forests
– EU forest certification
discussions
– EU rural development Regulation
on forest
– Revision of the EC Regulations
on forest fires and air pollution
– Impact of enlargement policy on
forest
– Eco-labelling (tissue paper and
furniture)
– Public procurement Regulation
– EC Biodiversity Action Plan for
implementation of theConvention of BiologicalDiversity and forest
– Pan-European process (Helsinki
process)
– Forest protected areas (Natura
2000)
– Climate change and forest
(negotiations on Sinks)
– Monitoring implementation of
EU forest policy– EU Forest and cork Advisory
Committee
– FBI Committee (DG Enterprise)
– Coordination for European Forest
NGOs.
Fisheries
– Integration of envi ronmental policy in
the Common Fisheries policy
– Common Fisheries Policy review
(tax, quotas, etc)
– Biodiversity Action Plan on Fisheries
– Reform of the Fisheries subsidies
including fuel tax and state aids
– Structural Funds (FIFG) Regulation
– Evaluation of the operational
programmes for the implementationof the Structural Funds for Fisheries(FIFG)
– Access to information on subsidies:
Transparency
– Subsidies reform in FAO, OECD and
WTO
– Internal co-ordination of the policy
work related to marine and fisheriesissues.
Climate change and energy
– Promotion of co-generated heat and
power (Co-generation), the mostefficient and environmentally friendlyof all conventiona l power production
technologies
– Support to the Commission White
Paper on Renewable Electricity
47– "Monti Directive" on minimum
taxes on energy products
– Promote the agreement of a
Directive on RenewableElectricity with the aim ofdoubling the share of renewablesby 2010
– Definition of a European-wide
policy for reducing residentialand office space heatconsumption
– Increasing energy efficiency and
reduction of greenhouse gasemissions post Kyoto in selectedsectors of European countries(not only EU) together withUtrecht University and theFraunhofer Institute.
– Promotion of fuel cells in both
transport and the stationarypower (and heat) productionsector
– Promote solar thermal electricity
implementation as a supplementto decentralised photovoltaictechnologies.
– Participation in global
partnership in the transport sector– probably on mass production ofa car with a maximum of petrolconsumption of no more than 3liter per 100 km.
– Promotion of a clean energy label
based on third part y certification;
– Green electricity and later other
green energy products
– Promotion of Climate change
policy work in developingcountries.
– Energy Consultative Committee
of DG TREN– European Climate Change
Programme working groups(attendance at all and co-ordination ofthe NGO participation
– Green Paper on an EU emission
trading programme
– Directive on renewable energy
sources in the internal electricitymarket
– Communication for an energy
efficiency action plan for the EU
– Guidelines on state aid for
environmental protection
– Green Paper on security of energy
supply for the EU
– Dilemma Report (DG TREN)
– SAVE and ALTENER (DG TREN)
(response to cuts)
– Input to the EU ad hoc group on
climate change
– Paper on the safety of nuclear power
plants in the accession countries
Transport, traffic and tourism
– Commissions communication on
environment and aviation
– Common Transport Policy review
– TENS guidelines
– Air quality - for example the auto-oil
programme and the daughterdirectives
– Building up an effective EU Noise
Policy
– Advisory input - fo r example, expert
contribution to the GNSS advisoryforum
48– Sustainable urban transport
Green paper
– Road to rail, a project on
encouraging the transfer of goodsfrom the roads onto the rails - nota Commission project, butclosely related to theCommunity's stated goal ofsaving the railways andimproving the railways
– Sustainable Tourism Policy,
Tourism and Employment
Sustainability Processes, Dialogues and
Instruments
– Papers and presentations on the
assessment of the 5
th EAP.
– 6th Environmental Action
Program
– Europe’s environmental
responsibility and impact of EUpolicies on the world’s carryingcapacity.
– Commission’s 5 year programme
priorities.
– Integration Strategy
– Sustainable development
Strategy
– Transparency and Public
Participation – AarhusConvention
– Access to Justice, Chart of
Fundamental Rights
– Environment for Europe
– Promoting the use of Structural
Funds, Cohesion Funds and Pre-Accession Aid for SustainableDevelopment (EU legislation andimplementation on national level)– Transatlantic Environmental
Dialogue
– CSD, Agenda 21
– Precautionary Principle
– OECD Liaison
EU Institutional Issues
– Reform of EC Institutions
– Greening the Treaty, part III:
proposals for the 2000Intergovernmental Conference (treatyof Nice)
– Greening the EU budget
– Enlargement policy and Environment
– Agenda 2000
Business and Industry
– Strategic Environmental Assessment
– Public Procurement
– Environmental Liability White Paper
– Reducing the Environmental Impact
of Industry
– Participation and C ontribution to the
European Forum for Recycling
– Ecological Product Policy
– Developing European Eco-Labels
– Phase-out of Hazardous Chemicals
– Waste Prevention and Sound
Management
– Technical standards, setting up an
environmental standardisation bureau