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
Date: 2001-06-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU environmental policy, action programme, environmental protection, financial aid, non-governmental organisation

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 document
COM(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

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

1. 

INTRODUCTION

This  Report  is  made  by  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  in
accordance  with  Article  12  of  Council  Decision  97/872  (“the  Council  Decision”)  on  the
Action  Programme  promoting  European  environmental  non-governmental  organisations
primarily active in the field of environmental protection (“the Action Programme”). It is made
in the light of the experience gained by the Commission in the implementation of the Action
Programme  during  the  first  three  years,  1998-2000,  and  the  experience  gained  by  the
beneficiaries (non-governmental 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 services of the Environment DG (the Programme
co-ordinator)  and  to  external  stakeholders  (present  and  previous  beneficiaries2).  The  aim  of
the survey was twofold:

– 

– 

To  compile  information  on  how  the  provisions  of  the  Programme  and  their
implementation had been perceived in the past by the Commission and the NGOs in
order  to  produce  a  Report  for  the  Parliament  and  the  Council  in  accordance  with
Article 12 of the Council Decision.

To compile information on how the provisions of the Programme could be amended
to better fit the needs of the Commission and the stakeholders in case of a renewal of
the  Programme.  This  would  then  require  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 protection at a European level by contributing to
the  development  and  implementation  of  Community  environmental  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  of
activities  for  the  benefit  of  Europe’s  environment  and  society  as  a  whole.  These  NGO
activities  include,  among  others,  bringing  the  citizens  closer  to  the  European  Union  by
making  EU  policies  comprehensible  and  relevant  to  everybody  as  well  as  the  provision  of
channels for feedback to the Commission of citizens’ views and concerns. Furthermore, NGO
activities 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

1

2

As 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.
Official Journal of the Communities 1999/C 32/14, 2000/C 43/04, 2000/C 293/14.

2

                                                
areas  of  competence. Awareness  raising, by  making  the  general  public  and  decision-makers
aware of current and  upcoming  environmental  problems, 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 Council Decision was adopted on 16 December 1997,
and the Programme co-ordinator (the Environment DG) and the NGOs have now had their say
on the implementation of the Programme during 1998-2000.

The  survey  contributions  have  been  compiled  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 General Implementation and a Conclusion.

Budget line B4-3060, under which the Action Programme 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  evaluations  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  Action
Programme5) have been duly taken into account in this Report.

2. 

SURVEY RESULTS

Article  1  of  the  Council  Decision  provides  the  objective  of  the  Programme  and  defines
eligible groups - their field of activity, status and geographical scope. The general objective of
the Programme is, as stated above, to promote activities of NGOs, which are “primarily active
in  the  field  of  environmental  protection  at  a  European  level  by  contributing  to  the
development  and  implementation  of  Community  environmental  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  Programme
implementation. 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  the
organisation 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 organisations are the limited funds available under  the  Action  Programme,
the few available sources within the Commission for providing financial support to European
environmental NGOs, the increasing difficulty European NGOs experience in receiving funds

3

4

5

For the purpose of this Report, “civil society” is restricted to non-profit activities carried out by citizens
(the third sector).
In 1995, on the initiative of Commissioners Anita Gradin (Financial Control and Fraud Prevention) and
Erkki  Liikanen  (Budget  and  Administration),  the  Commission  launched  a  comprehensive  initiative
called  SEM  2000  (Sound  and  Efficient  Management)  to  change  the  Institution’s  financial  and
administrative culture. SEM 2000 applies to all Commission services.
A little less than 40% of budget line B4-3060 has been allocated to the Action Programme annually.

3

                                                
at  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 & Health 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  environmental  protection’.  An  inclusion  of  Health
organisations  would  change  the  profile  of  the  Programme,  as  this  would  mean  accepting
applications from organisations, which are only partly active in the environmental field (such
as Health organisations). This would, of course, also open the door for other NGOs, which are
only partly working with environmental protection, such as civil protection groups, consumer
groups, etc.

The  present  situation,  in  which  European  environmental  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 rest 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  the  Action  Programme.  This  provision  is  further
specified  in  the  Programme  Co-ordinator’s  ‘Information  Dossier’,  which  is  provided  to  all
applicants together with the application forms (Annex I of this Report). According to this, the
Commission 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 contribution. To be operating “at a European
level” means, according to the Information Dossier, that both the structure and the activities
of a successful applicant should in principle cover several European countries.

The  definition  of  the  geographical  scope  has  given  rise  to  more  questions  from  applicants
(and  sometimes  internally)  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 external 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  majority  of  the  beneficiaries  in  1998-2000  have  been
located in Western Europe. Reference to this has also been made within the survey. “A more
regional 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  some
environmental problems and issues connected to sustainable development (water, agriculture,
soil,  etc)  differ  from  region  to  region.  A  similar  concern  was  also  voiced  by  one  of  the
Commission  survey  replies,  which  requested  the  explicit  mentioning  of  the  Mediterranean

4

area  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 needs to respect diversity and heterogeneity
of  the  NGO  community.  DG  ENV  should  keep  striking  the  balance  between  geographical
(waste,  water,  etc.),  small/large,  European/transboundary,
(north/south/east), 
policy/”operational” NGOs”. (Page 193)

topics 

It should be noted in this context that a number 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  the
Environment.  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 Programme, the present geographical scope may have to
be reconsidered in light of the Enlargement process and the changes in Europe as a whole (for
example, in the Balkans).

The survey results clearly show that, in general, 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 still be ineligible) and that an increase of the present budget
can  be  secured.  Present  and  previous  beneficiaries  of  the  Programme  argue  that  they  are
already carrying a heavier financial burden due to increased activities related to Enlargement
and for increasing their membership with organisations from the CEECs, which usually have
very scarce resources.

The  Council  Decision  as  it  stands  today  does  not  explicitly  exclude  applications  from
Candidate Countries’ NGOs, but the 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 competition between EU-based, multinational organisations
with  many  years  of  experience  in  this  field  is  already  very  tough  for  the  limited  funds
available  under  the  Action  Programme.  This  makes  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  highlighted  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  new
orientations  will  discourage  small  (but  not  necessarily  incompetent)  organisations  while
favouring highly-professionalised and well-organised 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 difficult to obtain funding at national level.”

6

The 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.

5

                                                
2.2. 

Eligible activities

Article 2, which should be read in conjunction with the Annex to the Council Decision (see
also 2.6.6 of this Report), defines 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  which  “contribute  significantly  to  the  further
development and implementation of Community environmental policy and legislation” – the
major group of NGOs (the Green Group of Seven) have compiled a ‘non-exhaustive list’ of
policy  areas,  in  which  they  argue  to  have  had  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 come
after many years of struggle and at that point, it may not be possible to identify what actors
were  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 difficult, 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 frequently 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 shared by the external contractor, who carried out
the evaluation of budget line B4-3060:

“Strengthening the relationship between the Commission and NGOs can help both parties to
be  more  successful  in  achieving  their  respective  goals.  NGOs  are  a  major  partner  of  the
consultative process, and dialogue 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 has been suggested that Article 2 should  more
strictly identify activities, which are  related to the Environment DG’s on-going policies  and
priorities.  This  should  also  apply  to  ‘gender  mainstreaming’  and  women’s  activities  in  the
field of environmental protection, where the present link between Community environmental
legislation  and  women  is  very  weak.  Some  also  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  legislation (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 criteria may seem fairly clear – the Commission
wishes to target organisations with a wide geographical scope, a high multiplier effect, with
solid  and  financially  feasible  activities  in  line  with  Community  environmental  policies,  in
order 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 effect
at  a  European  level”  or  “a  contribution  to  a  multinational  approach”  –  especially  for  an
applicant, which is new to the Commission evaluators?

6

In the survey, one of the consulted NGOs requested the Commission to clarify what “a sound
cost-benefit ratio” means in this context and how this ratio is measured. But in reality, there
are no fixed indictors to measure any of the above mentioned criteria. On a related theme, one
of  the  Commission  services  called  for  more  transparency,  in  general,  in  the  selection
procedure – stressing the need for  making  crystal-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, through the selection of NGOs receiving Activity
Funding, the involvement of the wider public in policymaking. Therefore it has been argued
that  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 since
the 6EAP will probably give a lot of importance to mobilising the citizens. In order to achieve
this the selection criteria could for instance be adapted to avoid institutionalisation by rotating
NGOs to be funded and not repeat funding to the same NGO in consecutive years. This would
give others, that may be more grassroots level 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  organisations,  which  have  been  selected  for  funding
several years in a row, have successively worked up a relationship with different Commission
services (as well as with other EU institutions).

NGOs have pointed out that some of the selection criteria, which the Commission has added
in  the  ‘Information  Dossier’,  are  not  very  clear.  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 and action in relation to
the  environment  and  sustainable  development”  could  be  interpreted  as  a  requirement  for
passive and  uncritical  distribution  of  EU  information.  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  on
them.

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 reference 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,  requesting  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 Action Programme – financial assistance, which
is given for both activities and administrative costs of a selected NGO (sometimes referred to
as  “activity  funding”).  The  consultation  with  the  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 control systems involved in this exercise, which they
find  disproportionate  to  the  sums  involved.  In  addition,  they  wish  to  make  the  Programme

7

compatible with project funding (see 3.1). The Commission, on the other hand, is in favour of
a  model,  which  would  limit  the  Programme  to  cover  only  the  audited  expenses  of  the
beneficiaries,  as  the  inclusion  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  White
Paper 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 Evaluation 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  and  accountability  of  reporting.  -…-  What  is  to
some extent excusable for small NGOs, which received subsidies once in the period and are
not  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 this 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  integration  of  environmental
concerns into all major policy areas and the principle of ‘shared responsibility’ (which means
that  all  areas  of  activity,  which  cause  environmental  problems,  should  form  part  of  the
solution to them). In 1998-2000, financial assistance 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 actively addressed the priority areas of the 5EAP -
manufacturing industry, transport, energy, agriculture and tourism - and have actively sought
co-operation  with  other  actors  in  the  Environment  (local  and  regional  authorities,  business
and industry, the general public, other NGOs, etc) in the pursuit of sustainable development.

But as for ‘complementarity’ (as opposed to ‘overlaps’), 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  of
overlapping funding7.

The  ‘self-imposed’  rule  of  not  accepting  project  funding  applications  from  beneficiaries  of
‘activity  funding’  under  the  Action  Programme  (see  3.1)  has,  at  least,  stopped  the
Environment DG from funding overlapping activities.

7

The 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.

8

                                                
2.6. 

Time frame, budget and the calculation of contributions

Article 6 defines the Programme length, 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 environmental 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 – together with the eligibility criteria (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  their
medium  and  –  to  some  extent  –  long  term  strategic  priorities.  A  decision  to  extend  the
Programme 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 five years, covering the period 2002-2006,
would  have  the  benefit  of  following  the  current  budget  and  major  political
agreements already made within the EU, as well as following the same time period as
for all pre-accession funds.

It  would  also  be  aligned  with  the  [Proposal  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 scheme has been discussed both within
and outside the scope of the survey and has quite a large number of advocates both among the
NGOs and within the Commission. Such a Programme would save administration work and
time both for the Commission (and thus reduce the 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  would  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 could
stop 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  of
different information and communication activities (that is, not just NGO funding),  a  multi-
annual NGO funding scheme with, for example, two-year contracts, would require almost the
whole  budget  allocation  of  B4-3060  for  the  first  year  of  implementation  just  to  cover  the
subsidies of the main NGOs.

8

Communication  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.

9

                                                
2.6.2.  Available budget

It  is  quite  clear  that  the  competition  for  the  limited  funds  available  under  the  Action
Programme  has  increased  considerably  during  the  period  1998-2000.  In  2000,  the
Commission 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 increase 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 more
effectively  and  transparently.  In  the  Communication,  the  Commission  also
acknowledges  that  “European  citizens  have  little  sense  of  ownership  over  the
structures  that  govern  their  lives”.  The  NGOs  thus  highlight  that  they  play  an
increasing  role  in  bridging  this  gap  and  in  assisting  the  EU  institutions  to  reach
European citizens – a task, which requires additional funds.

EU  Enlargement.  All  European  environmental  networks  have  increased  their
membership, as NGOs from the Candidate Countries have joined. This has increased
the need for additional activities and co-ordination, which – in terms of costs – can
seldom  be  balanced  by  newcomers’  contributions  as  many  of  them  still  have  very
scarce resources.

Integration  Process.  The  integration  of  environmental  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 NGOs
stress  that  the  integration  aspect  has  put  an  increased  demand  on  the  NGOs  for  a
widened expertise as they are now contacted by almost all DGs for input – and this
entails costs both for additional 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 the fact that the first Candidate Countries are
programmed  to  join  as  full  EU  Members  between  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  assistance,  which  should  not  –  in  principle  –
exceed 50% of the budgeted activities and the administrative 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  difficulties  in  finding  the  50%  of  ‘matching
funds’, which is required.

10

One  of  the  Commission  survey  contributions  stresses  that  the  phrase  “in  principle”  leaves
room for interpretation and that it should be made 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  adopted, highlighting the  fact that the Commission
and the European Parliament agreed to go for 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  the
Commission 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  well  as  their  constraints  better.”  Other  NGOs
argue that a 60% ‘cap’ would suffice, to allow for more flexibility for environmental groups
without compromising their integrity.

in 

to  100%  would 

to
A  flexible  percentage  up 
13 December 20009. 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  well  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:

theory  have  been  feasible  up 

“The  sustainability  of  most  European  NGOs  is  generally  weak.  Most  NGOs  receiving
Activity Funding are extremely dependent on the 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.  But,  in  no  circumstance  should  NGOs  take  those
subsidies for granted and consider that they will continue endlessly. As a general rule NGOs
should  in  future  secure  more  financial  independence,  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  eligibility  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 activities, and consulted NGOs are thus in favour of
keeping it as one of the provisions of a new Programme. In the present Action Programme,
unpaid work or donations in kind, if properly documented, may be taken into account, up to a

9

According  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.

11

                                                
level of 10% of total eligible costs, when assessing environmental NGOs’ revenue and costs
(Article 6, point 3 of the Council 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,  staff
secondments, 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  to
account for and therefore do not provide a sound basis for eligible costs. They would instead
suggest  a  stricter  definition  of  eligible  costs  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 Call for Proposals (the announcement must be
made  in  the  Official  Journal  before  31  January  every  year)  and  the  deadline  for  the
Commission’s decision of organisations 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  beneficiaries  before  the  start  of  the  grant  year.  This
would mean that  the annual work  programmes  presented  by  the  NGOs  in  their  applications
would actually be funded by the grant from the Commission (thanks to an alignment with the
calendar year). As it stands now, the Commission decision is not taken until the end of May,
which usually means that funds do not arrive until 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  used.  The  article  also  defines  the  obligations  of
beneficiaries  to  keep  supporting  documents  regarding  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  control
system 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 management of this Programme, they argue.

However, in this context it should be noted that Action 81 “Strengthening the role of the DG’s
control function” (A White Paper on Reforming the Commission – Part II, Action Plan) rather
provides an increase of systematic ex-post evaluations than a decrease:

12

“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  further  stressed  by  the  results  of  the  study  of
budget line B4-3060:

“However, ex-post evaluation in case of …Activity  Funding is still deficient, due to lack of
staff  time  invested.  Ex-post  evaluation  is  not  currently  regarded  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 the
obligation of the beneficiary to repay any undue payment.

No  grave  irregularities  have  been  detected  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 Article 9. One NGO has requested the Commission
to respect the provisions of the Vademecum on Grant Management on allowing 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  Programme  period  to  see
that proposed activities are really carried out. Furthermore, 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  magazines,  newsletters,  press  releases,  reports,  books,
CD-ROMs, videocassettes, etc.

“Overall the rate of achievement in the activity 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-ordinator 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  adhered  to  during  the  period
1998-2000,  and  the  results  have  been  duly  published  in  both  the  Official  Journal  of  the
Communities as well as on the Environment DG’s web site. No comments have been made to
this  article  in  the  survey  replies  by  either  the  Commission  or  the  consulted  NGOs.  But  an
earlier Call for Proposals and an earlier decision by the Commission on what organisations to
co-finance (as suggested in the survey) would, consequently, result in an earlier publication of
the beneficiaries – more in line with the calendar year.

13

Article  12  defines  the  obligation  of  the  Commission  to  report  to  the  Parliament  and  the
Council  on  the  implementation  of  this  Programme.  No  comments  have  been  made  to  this
article in the survey replies by either 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 activities
creates  a  difficult  framework  for  the  “programme  of  activities”,  as  there  are  numerous
overlaps.  In  an  oral  consultation  session  on  16  October  2000,  the  NGOs  described  their
difficulties  in  placing  their  activities  in  any  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 should be stressed that the Annex has caused the
same  difficulties  for  the  Programme  co-ordinator  in  evaluating  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  Commission  survey  contributions  that  “eligible
activities”  should  be  more  strictly  related  to  the  Environment  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  beneficiaries,  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-ordinator 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 experience
gained by the Commission in the years preceding 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 project funding  and ‘ad hoc’  funding.  Prior to
the introduction of the ‘exclusion rule’, funds for different NGO projects had been granted in
a decentralised way, which led to a situation where the sound financial management of funds
was no longer secured. The Commission ran the risk of funding overlapping activities and the
justification for this concern was later confirmed.

The NGOs, on the other hand, argue that the accounting systems of the NGOs have improved
and  there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  beneficiaries  of  both  ‘activity  funding’  and  ‘project
funding’  could  not  account  for  these  sources  separately  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  still  manage  to  keep  the  different  accounts
separated.

14

They  furthermore  argue  that  the  ‘exclusion  rule’  goes  against  the  Vademecum  on  Grant
Management  as  the  latter  does  not  exclude  ‘core  funding’  beneficiaries  from  applying  for
project grants, which is true.

However, it should be noted that the Action Programme 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 taken
this stance with reference to the above reasons.

A few Commission survey contributions have revealed that they are in  favour of abolishing
the ‘incompatibility rule’ as they argue that it causes “managerial difficulties”. What happens
is that national members of co-financed European NGOs submit project applications in order
to avoid this rule - although the projects may be more closely connected to the activities of the
umbrella organisation than its national members and could 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 and income received during the funded period).
This Report is usually due at the  end of  March. 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 the applications for funding in the present year.
All  Final  Reports  are  scrutinised  for  any  deviations  to  the  agreed  contract  and  the  final
instalment depends on the outcome 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. It
is  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 governing what is actually recognised  as ‘matching
funds’.  The  beneficiaries  of  the  Action  Programme  are  umbrella  organisations  or  European
co-ordination  offices  for  a  number  of  national,  regional  and  local  member  organisations.
These members implement activities in the framework of the (co-financed) work programme
of  the  European  organisation.  They  then  raise  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 beneficiary (that is, the European organisation), it is not
taken into account.

15

This  is,  however,  regulated  by  the  Vademecum  on  Grant  Management  under  1.2  General
terms and conditions applicable to European Community operating grant agreements (Part B
on Financial Provisions, Article 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 identifiable 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  the
Programme  should  be  renewed,  preferably  for  a  period  of  5  years  –  but  with  certain
modifications, such as an expansion 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 financial instrument, has been duly taken 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  Programme  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 participation 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  stakeholders 
in  environmental  policy-making.  The
Programme also foresees co-operation with environmental NGOs in the Candidate Countries
in order to raise awareness.

16

ANNEX I

Community 
organisations primarily active in the field of environmental protection

non-governmental

programme 

promoting 

action 

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 potential candidates in deciding whether to apply
and in formulating their applications.

1.Context and objectives

Under  the  terms  of  Council  Decision  No.  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 financial contribution.  This contribution would be
towards  costs  inherent  in  carrying  out  the  activities  provided  for  in  their  annual  work
programme  (maximum  12  months).  Applicant  organisations  should  be  operating  at  a
European  level.  This  means  that  their  structure  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 significantly
to the further development and implementation of Community environmental policy and
legislation  and  meet  the  principles  underlying  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 indicates 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 environmental 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,

17

–  whose  financial  resources  are  not  exclusively  made  up  of  subsidies  from  European

Union institutions.

3. Selection criteria

When the proposals are  examined, the beneficiaries 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, local
and regional authorities, etc. in order to encourage lasting changes in the behaviour of
the 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  financial  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 in
relation 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  environmental  NGOs  which  provides  that  the  Commission
may finance in principle up to 50% of the budgeted activities and administrative costs. If
the  application  is  successful  the  Commission  will  co-finance  a  percentage  of  the  total
eligible expenditure in accordance with the attached financial conditions (Annex B).

These  conditions  will  form  an  integral  part  of  the  agreement  concluded  with  each
beneficiary.

18

Applicants’  attention  is  drawn  in  particular  to  the  following  provision  of  the  Council
Decision:

“In order to be able to receive a grant 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 receive
a  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 form
for the period in which the grant is used.”

This  means  in  practice  that  each  applicant  must  be  prepared  to  make  its  accounts
available  in  the  required  form  to  the  Commission  at  very  short  notice  once  their
application 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 explicitly requesting the subsidy. It should include
Annex  A  to  this  document,  duly  filled  by  machine  (not  handwritten),  as  well  as  full
details 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 activities
for  the  organisation’s  2000  financial  year.  This  should  cover  all  activities  such  as:
participation  in  co-ordination  actions  between  member  associations,  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  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 defines the areas of activity
eligible  for  Community  financial  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  summary  of  activities  carried  out  during  the
previous year for guidance.

6. Procedure for the submission and appraisal of requests

Proposals  must  be  submitted  (postmarked)  by  17th  January  2000  at  the  latest  to  the
following address:

European Commission
Environment Directorate-General
Saturnino Munoz Gómez
Head of Unit ENV.5
TRMF 00/74
Rue de la Loi 200
B-1049 Brussels
Tel. (0032) 2/2999332

19

All 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 form indicated in point 5, by registered letter.
Faxes, delivery by hand, incomplete or insufficiently 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 acknowledgement of receipt by the Commission,

examination by the services of the Commission,

formulation  of  the  final  decision  and  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) will
be concluded between the Commission and the party submitting the proposal.

Applicants  should  note  that  due  to  the  volume  of  applications  expected  the  evaluation
process  will  probably  take  several  months.  However,  it  should  be  completed  by
31 May 2000.  The  expected  volume  of  applications  also  means  that  the  Commission
must be very strict in applying the selection criteria and in eliminating applications which
are not presented according to the specifications set out above. Please read carefully all
information  supplied  and  check  that  you  have  fulfilled  all  the  requirements.  Any
omissions 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.

20

Supporting documentation to be annexed to the request for subsidy

Documents to be annexed systematically to the request for subsidy

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

Duly completed annex A (the fields indicated in bold-type are obligatory, all incomplete
requests will be systematically rejected)

Annual accounts of the applicant of the previous accounting period

Official statute and certificate of legal registration

Curriculum vitae of the people who will complete 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) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

List of the members of the administration or executive board (names, title or function within
the applicant organisation)

Audit certificate less than two years old from an agreed auditor

Financial guarantee

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

21

ANNEX A ACTIVITY FUNDING

Standard form for request of subsidy (to be completed if possible in English or French)

1. ADMINISTRATIVE 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 entitled 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 .

10

The 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)

22

                                                
1.2 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:

23

1.6 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 cover all activities such as: participation in co-
ordination  actions  between  member  associations,  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 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 defines 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  through  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  that  the  applicant  intends  to  deliver  to  the
Commission on completion of the activities of your organisation).

24

2.3 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 eventual agreement for financing in:

English(cid:1)

French(cid:1)

11

12

The dates of the start and end of work determine the period of eligibility of any expenditure.
All expenditure incurred after this date will not be eligible except where express authorisation has
been approved by the competent services.

25

                                                
3. 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 calculation established with the aid of the following
tables must be attached to this summary. The provisional 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 organisation 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

(in
Euros)

…….

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 partners

g) Other direct costs if applicable  (heating,  lighting,  rent  etc.  please
specify) :

Part B Financing Plan

(in Euros)

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 )

TOTAL ELIGIBLE COSTS

TOTAL

Estimation, if applicable, of “in kind” contributions (1)

Estimation, if applicable, of “in-kind” contributions13

TOTAL

TOTAL

13

Relates to contributions which do not generate invoices, eg :voluntary work, or free use of materials or premises.

26

                                                
3.2 Breakdown of eligible costs by category

A.

Personnel costs (ref:financial conditions art. 10.2 annexed)

Name

Function

Status14

Monthly 
cost15

salary

Duration
(in months)

TOTAL

TOTAL I.1

B.

Travel and subsistance costs

Destination  of
the mission

Travel costs

Hotel

Costs

Total

Other

Number

TOTAL

of days

Costs of purchase of durable equipment (depreciation)16 (REF.ART.10.2 of

C.
the financial conditions)

Type of equipment

Unit cost

Quantity

Eligible cost

TOTAL

(depreciation)

Total

D.
costs)

Costs of purchase of office supplies and materials (if not included in indirect

Nature of costs

Quantity

Unit cost

Total cost

Total

14

15

16

Permanent personnel or personnel recruited for the duration of the project
Monthly gross salary including social security charges, excluding all other expenses.
Please attach the method used for the calculation of depreciation to this request

27

                                                
Costs  of  printing,  publication, 

E.
subscription fees, CD Rom, distribution, ….)

translation, 

interpretation 

(including

Nature of costs

Quantity

Unit cost

Total cost

Total

Subcontracting and/or transfer of funds to partner(s) (art 10.2 financial

F.
conditions).

Please indicate :

The precise name and address of any sub-contractor/partner17

The precise nature of the tasks that will be entrusted to that person/organisation

The amount and the method of calculation (fully detailed estimate) .

– 

– 

– 

TOTAL

Other direct costs not specified in other categories mentioned above (heating,

G.
lighting, rent etc. please specify)

 Nature of costs

 Quantity

 Unit cost

 Total Cost

 Total

GRAND TOTAL

17

These documents must enable the relevant services to establish the eligibility of the expenditure.

28

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                
3.3 Details of other sources of financing, if applicable (to the exclusion of
community subsidies),

 (Please 
complete 
company/association/organisation)

the 

following 

information 

for 

each 

co-financing

(cid:1)  Company or organisation’s name (complete legal name) :

(cid:1)  Address:

(cid:1)  Person responsible in the co-financing organisation (name, title or grade, tel, fax, e-mail):

(cid:1)  Amount which the co-financing organisation agrees to commit to the activities of the organisation

under consideration:

(cid:1)  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:

29

 
 
 
 
ANNEX B

General terms and conditions applicable to grant agreements of the European
Communities

30

PART 
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

LEGAL 

A 

- 

AND

Article 1 - Performance

Subject 

cases  of 

force
to 
1.1
majeure, 
shall  do
the  beneficiary 
everything to ensure that the operation is
the
carried  out 
conditions and arrangements specified in
Annex I to the agreement.

in  accordance  with 

Any 

and
1.2
insurmountable  eventuality  shall  be
considered a case of force majeure.

unforeseeable 

Article 2 - Liability

2.1
The European Communities may
not, under any circumstances or  for  any
reason  whatsoever,  be held  liable  in  the
event  of  complaints  deriving  from  the
agreement  concerning  damage  or  injury
sustained by the  staff or property of the
beneficiary  while  the  operation  is  being
carried  out.  Consequently,  no  claim  for
compensation 
repayment
accompanying such a complaint shall be
accepted by the European Communities.

or 

Except in case  of force  majeure,
2.2
the  beneficiary  shall  be  required  to
indemnify  the  European  Communities
for  any  damage  resulting  from 
the
operation  or  from  failure  to  carry  it  out
properly.

2.3
The  beneficiary  shall  assume
third  parties,
towards 
sole 
liability 
including for damage of any kind caused
to them by the operation.

Article  3 
agreement

-  Termination  of 

the

3.1  The  beneficiary  may  terminate  the
agreement  at  any  time  by  serving  two
months’  formal  written  notice,  without
being  required  to  pay  compensation.  In
this  event,  the  beneficiary  shall  be

entitled to payment of the grant only for
the part of the operation carried out.

to  honour  one  of 

3.2
The  Commission  may  terminate
the  agreement  should  the  beneficiary,
for  no  valid  economic  or  technical
reason,  fail 
the
obligations  under  the  agreement  and,
after  being  given  notice  by  registered
letter  to  comply  with  these  obligations,
has still failed  to do so one  month  after
receiving that letter.
In  that  event  the  Commission  shall  pay
only  the  costs  actually  borne  by  the
beneficiary  at  the  time  of  termination,
and no costs related to contracts already
concluded  but for  performance  after  the
date of termination.

3.3
The  Commission  may  terminate
the agreement, without giving notice and
without  paying  compensation  of  any
kind, 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  of
amounts 
the
agreement.

already  paid  under 

Termination of the agreement for
3.4
financial  irregularities  shall  be  without
prejudice  to  the  application  of  other
administrative  measures  or  penalties
which  may  be  imposed  in  accordance
with  Council  Regulation  (EC,  Euratom)
No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the
European
of 
protection 
Communities’ financial interests.

the 

Article 4 - Confidentiality

The  Commission  and  the  beneficiary
undertake to preserve the confidentiality
of  any  document,  information  or  other
in
material  communicated 

them 

to 

31

confidence whose disclosure could harm
the other party.

documents relating to it shall vest in the
beneficiary.

Article 5 - Publicity

Unless  the  Commission  requests
5.1
otherwise,  any  notice  or  publication  by
the  beneficiary  about 
the  operation,
including  at  a  conference  or  seminar,
must specify that the action has received
funding 
European
Communities.

from 

the 

including 

Any  notice  or  publication  by 
the
beneficiary,  in  whatever  form  and  by
whatever  medium, 
the
Internet, must specify that it reflects the
author’s views and that the Commission
is  not  liable  for  any  use  that  may  be
made  of  the  information  contained  in
that notice or publication.

The  Commission 

5.2
be
authorised  to  publish,  in  whatever  form
and by  whatever  medium,  including  the
Internet, the following information:

shall 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

the  name  of  the  beneficiary,
except  where 
this  may
jeopardise 
the  beneficiary’s
security,

the purpose of the grant,

the  amount  granted  and  the
proportion  of  the  total  cost  of
the  operation  accounted  for  by
the 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 
intellectual
industrial  and 
property  rights  in  the  results  of  the
operation  and  the  reports  and  other

6.2
Notwithstanding  the  provisions
of  the  first  paragraph,  the  beneficiary
grants  the  Commission  the  right  to  use
freely  and  as  it  sees  fit  the  results
deriving  from  the  operation,  subject  to
any  confidentiality  arrangements  agreed
between  them  and  the  industrial  and
intellectual  property 
rights  already
existing.

Article 7 - Evaluation of the operation

Where  the  Commission  undertakes  an
the
interim  or  ex  post  evaluation, 
beneficiary  undertakes  to  provide 
it
and/or the persons designated by it with
any  document  or  information,  which
will assist with this evaluation.

Article  8 
agreement

-  Amendment  of 

the

of 

Any 

amendment 

8.1
the
agreement,  including  its  annexes,  must
be  set  out  in  a  written  agreement  to  be
concluded  in  the  same  way  as  the
original agreement. The parties shall not
be bound by any oral agreement on such
matters.

8.2 Where the change does not affect
the  basic  purpose  of  the  operation  and
the  financial  impact  is  limited  to  a
transfer between headings of the budget
involving an increase of less than l0% of
the
a  heading 
beneficiary  may  apply  the  change  and
shall  inform  the  Commission  without
delay.

for  eligible  costs, 

Any 

8.3
transfer  between  budget
headings  involving  more  than  10%  of
the amount of the heading to be credited
shall  be  subject  to  the  prior  written
Commission.
agreement 

the 

of 

32

Article 9 - Jurisdiction

the 

application 

The  beneficiary  may  bring  a  complaint
against  decisions  by  the  Commission
concerning 
or
interpretation  of  the  provisions  of  the
agreement, including its annexes, before
the  Court  of  First  Instance  of 
the
European Communities and, in the event
of  appeal,  the  Court  of  Justice  of  the
European communities.

PART B-FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

Article 10 - Eligible costs

To be considered eligible for the
the

costs  must 

satisfy 

10.1
operation, 
following criteria:

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

be directly linked to the subject
matter of the agreement and be
provided  for  in  the  agreement
(Annex III);

be  necessary  for  carrying  out
the  operation  covered  by  the
agreement;

principles 

be  reasonable  and  comply  with
sound
the 
financial  management,  and  in
particular  of  value  for  money
and cost-effectiveness;

of 

have  been  incurred  during  the
lifetime  of  the  operation  as
defined in the agreement;

have actually been incurred,  be
recorded  in  the  beneficiary’s
accounts  or  tax  documents  and
be identifiable and controllable.

The  following  direct  costs  shall

10.2
be eligible:

– 

the cost of staff assigned to the
project,  corresponding  to  real
salaries  plus  social  security
costs
charges 

other 

(and 

– 

– 

– 

– 

33

up 

expenses 

making 
remuneration),
excluding 
staff  expenditure,
office 
and  other
indirect 
administrative
expenditure 
to  be  charged
indirect  costs.  Time
against 
spent  on  the  project  shall  be
recorded on timesheets filled in
the
by 
project  and  certified  at  least
once  a  month  by  the  project
head.

throughout 

the  staff 

part 

taking 

travel  and  subsistence  costs  for
staff 
the
operation, at the rates and under
the  terms  normally  applied  by
the beneficiary;

in 

the 

items  concerned 

purchase  costs  for  equipment
(new  or  used),  provided  that
these  correspond 
to  normal
market  costs  and that  the  value
is
of 
written  off  in  accordance  with
the  tax  and  accounting  rules
applicable  to  the  beneficiary.
proportion 
of
the 
Only 
depreciation 
item
of 
corresponding  to  the  duration
of  the  operation  may  be  taken
into 
the
Commission,  except  where  the
nature  and/or  use  of  the  item
justifies  different  treatment  by
the Commission;

account 

the 

by 

the  costs  of  consumables  and
supplies  (insofar  as  these  are
identifiable 
not
and 
assigned  to  another  item  of  the
budget in the agreement);

are 

expenditure  on  subcontracting,
provided  that  the  Commission
has  given  advance  written
agreement  for  subcontracting.
In this case the beneficiary shall
ensure that the terms applicable
to  it  under  the  agreement  are

– 

– 

applicable 

also 
subcontractors;

to 

the

evaluation  of 

costs deriving directly from the
requirements  of  the  agreement
(dissemination  of  information,
specific 
the
operation, 
translation,
reproduction,  etc.),  including,
financial
where  appropriate, 
service  costs  (in  particular  the
cost  of  financial  guarantees),
including  exchange
but  not 
risks  unless  these  are  expressly
provided for in the agreement;

a  “contingency  reserve”  of  no
more than 5% of eligible direct
costs.

10.3 As  a  rule,  a  fixed  percentage  of
the  total  amount  of  eligible  direct  costs
shall be eligible as indirect costs.

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

exchange  losses,  except  where
the  agreement  makes  explicit
provision for them;

in 

contributions 
kind.
(However, contributions in kind
may  be 
into  account
when  the  maximum  amount  of
the grant is set);

taken 

inordinate  or 
costs;

ill-considered

travel expenses, living expenses
and  any  form  of  remuneration
paid 
staff
the  European
employed  by 
Institutions;

permanent 

to 

expenditure 
incurred  outside
the agreed period of eligibility;

salaries  of  staff  employed  by  a
public authority.

– 

– 

Indirect  costs  shall  be
eligible  provided  they  do  not
include 
to
another  item  of  the  budget  in
the agreement.

assigned 

costs 

the 
concerns 

Indirect  costs  shall  not  be
grant
eligible  where 
agreement 
the
financing  of 
an  operation
conducted  by  a  body  which  is
already  receiving  an  operating
subsidy from the Commission.

The  following  costs  shall  not  be

10.4
considered eligible:

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

capital investment costs;

provisions  for  possible  future
losses or debts;

interest owed;

debts;

doubtful debts;

Article  11  -  Statements  of  costs  and
repayment arrangements

a 

The  beneficiary  shall,  within  the
11.1
agreed  deadline,  present 
final
statement of all expenditure and revenue
actually  incurred  in  the  course  of  the
an
accompanied 
operation, 
list  of 
exhaustive 
supporting
the 
the
used 
documents 
statement.  These  documents  must  be
certified by the authorised representative
of the beneficiary.

produce 

by 

to 

The  beneficiary  shall  be  required  to
present  interim  statements  of  eligible
costs  only  if  the  agreement  expressly
provides for this.

11.2 On  the  basis  of  an  examination
of  the  final  statement,  and  without
prejudice to the provisions of Article 13
of this annex, the Commission shall pay
the  balance  of  the  grant  as  provided  in
the  agreement.  Under  no  circumstances

34

may  the  total  amount  paid  by  the
Commission  to  the  beneficiary  exceed
the maximum amount of the grant set in
the agreement, even if the total real costs
exceed the  estimated  total  budget  as  set
in Annex III to the agreement.

reduced 

11.3
The  maximum  amount  of  the
grant to be paid by the Commission shall
if
be 
examination  of  the  final  statement  in
relation  to  the  total  budget  as  estimated
in the agreement reveals that:

proportionately 

– 

– 

– 

– 

the  beneficiary  has  obtained
interest on the part of the  grant
paid as an advance;

revenue  exceeds 

total 
expenditure;

total

the
revenue  generated  by 
operation  exceeds 
total
the 
revenue  shown  in  the  budget
estimate;

eligible  real  costs  are  less  than
shown in the budget estimate.

to the  date on which  the sum  is  debited
to the Commission’s account.

that 

12.2 At any time during the sixty days
following  the  date  of  the  event  giving
rise  to  payment,  the  Commission  may
this  payment  period  by
suspend 
informing 
the
the  beneficiary 
request  for  payment  is  not  admissible,
either  because  the  debt  is  not  due  or
because 
supporting
documents  have  not  been  produced  or
because  the  Commission  considers  it
necessary  to  carry  out  further  checks.
The  sixty-day  period  shall  begin  to  run
again from the date on which a correctly
is
presented 
registered.

for  payment 

necessary 

request 

the 

to 

the 

12.3 On  expiry  of  the  time  limit
specified  in  the  first  paragraph  and
without  prejudice 
second
paragraph,  the  beneficiary  may,  within
late
two  months  of 
the 
payment,  claim 
the  rate
applied  by 
the  European  Monetary
Institute  to  its  operations  in  euros  plus
one and a half percentage points.

receiving 
interest  at 

The  amount  of  the  grant  to  be
the  Commission  shall  be

11.4
paid  by 
reduced by means of:

Article  13  -  Technical  and  financial
control

– 

– 

a reduction in the balance of the
grant payable on  completion of
the operation;

to 

a  request  for  repayment  of
the
overpayments  made 
beneficiary,  if  the  total  amount
already 
the
Commission  exceeds  the  final
amount actually due.

paid 

by 

Article 12 - Interest on late payment

The  Commission  undertakes  to
12.1
pay 
this
the  amounts  due  under 
agreement  within  sixty  days  of  the  date
of  the  event,  giving  rise  to  payment  up

by 

the 
to 

13.1
The  beneficiary  undertakes  to
allow  Commission  staff  and  persons
Commission
authorised 
appropriate  access 
the  sites  or
premises  where  the  operation  is  being
carried  out  and 
to  all  documents
concerning  the  technical  and  financial
management of the operation. Access by
persons  authorised  by  the  Commission
may  be 
to  confidentiality
arrangements  to  be  agreed  between  the
Commission and the beneficiary.

subject 

The  beneficiary  agrees  to  the
13.2
Commission  and  the  Court  of  Auditors
of  the  European  Communities  verifying
the  use  to  which  the  grant  is  put  in
Financial
accordance 
21 December 1977
Regulation 

with 
of 

the 

35

applicable  to  the  general  budget  of  the
European  Communities,  as  amended,
throughout the duration of the agreement
and  for  five  years  after  the  date  of
completion of the operation.

13.3
The  beneficiary  undertakes  to
ensure that any subcontractors accept the
same obligation.

13.4 Controls  by  the  Commission  or
the  Court  of  Auditors  of  the  European
Communities  may  be carried out  on the
basis  of  documents  or  on  the  spot  and
shall  consist  of  an  examination  of  the
accounts 
supporting
of 
documents  relating  to  the  costs  of  the
operation.

and 

all 

Article 14 - Repayment of the grant

to 

In 

the  cases  referred 

14.1
in
Articles 3.1,  3.2  and  11  of  this  annex,
the  beneficiary  undertakes  to  repay  to
the  Commission,  in  the  manner  and
within 
the
Commission,  any  amounts  which  have
been  paid  in  excess  of  the  real  eligible
costs of the operation.

limits  set  by 

time 

the 

of 

this 

14.2
In the event of termination of the
agreement  in  the  cases  specified  in
Article 3.3 
the
Commission  may  request  full  or  partial
the
repayment  of 
beneficiary.  The  Commission 
shall
determine  the  manner  and  the  time
limits for such full or partial repayment.

sums  paid 

annex, 

to 

14.3
Should  the  beneficiary  fail  to
repay such amounts within the time limit
set by the Commission, the Commission
may  increase  the  sums  due  by  adding
penalty interest at the rate applied by the
European Central Bank to its operations
in  euros  plus  one  and  a  half  percentage
points.

14.4 Bank  charges  involved  in  the
the
repayment  of 

sums  due 

to 

Commission  shall  be  borne  entirely  by
the beneficiary.

14.5
The  recovery  decision  drawn  up
by  the  Commission  and  transmitted  to
the beneficiary owing a repayment to the
Commission shall be enforceable within
the
the  meaning  of  Article 192  of 
EC Treaty,  Article 92  of 
the  ECSC
Treaty  and  Article 164  of  the  Euratom
Treaty.

14.6 Amounts  to  be  repaid  to  the
Commission  may  be  set  off  against
amounts  due  to  the  beneficiary  under
any heading.

36

1.2 Financial Guarantee

(For the application of options 1 or 2 of Article 4.1 of the grant agreement, model letters of
guarantee  will  be  inserted  here  by  DG  XIX,  in  agreement  with  the  Legal  Service  and
Financial Control.)

37

ANNEX 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

The  Commission has decided to award a  grant  on the terms  and  conditions set  out  in
1.1
this agreement and its annexes, which the beneficiary hereby declares it has taken note of and
accepts, for the operation entitled: “”(“the operation”).

The beneficiary  accepts the  grant  and undertakes to carry out the operation under its

1.2
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").

The  beneficiary  undertakes  to  keep  all  supporting  documents  justifying  payments

2.3
made under this agreement for a period of five years for inspection purposes.

38

Article 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  this
agreement, and comprises only costs eligible for Community funding, as defined in Annex II.
[A  flat rate  of  [no  more  than]  7%  of  the  total  amount  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 specified separately in Annex III.

However, as contributions in kind were taken into account by the Commission when
it  set  its  contribution  to  the  operation,  the  beneficiary  undertakes  to  supply  these
contributions  on  the  terms  laid  down  in  this  agreement.  Failure  to  honour  this
undertaking  may  entail  termination  of  the  agreement  as  specified  in  Article  3  of
Annex II.]19

The Commission shall provide a maximum amount of € equivalent to % of the eligible

3.2
real costs (see Art. 3.3).

3.3
Should  the  actual  eligible  costs  on  completion  of  the  operation,  be  lower  than  the
estimated total cost specified in paragraph 1, the Commission’s contribution will be limited to
the  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  required to  balance  revenue  and expenditure for  the
operation.

The beneficiary accepts that the grant does not constitute a claim on the Commission

3.5
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:

– 

– 

– 

18

19

€ [ ] [ % 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.

Standard clause for overheads.
Paragraph to be inserted where the beneficiary makes contributions in kind.

39

                                                
Payments due from the Commission shall be made to the following bank account of

4.2
the beneficiary:

– 

[Insert details of beneficiary's bank account]

The  Commission  shall  make  payments  in  Euro.  Real  costs  shall  be  converted  into
4.3
Euros at the rate published in the C series of the Official Journal for the first working day of
the 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  beneficiary  undertakes  to  forward  to  the
Commission within three months of the date referred 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 an
exhaustive list of the supporting documents used to draw up the final financial statement.
These documents must be certified by the authorised representative of the beneficiary;

–  3 copies (including at least one printed on paper) of the final report on the use made of the

above-mentioned grant.

Article 6 - General administrative 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:
European Communities

General  terms  and  conditions  applicable  to  grant  agreements  of  the

Annex III: Budget for the operation

40

7.2
Should the provisions of the annexes and those 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]

41

ANNEX 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

42

Contribution to the Community 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  development  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.

20

This 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.

43

                                                
Fields of work

Trade, Economics and Environment

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

EC Trade policy and EU regional
trade  agreements  effects  on
in
sustainable 
developing  countries  related  to
sustainable  management 
of
natural resources

development 

Definition  and  promotion  of
Strategic  Impact  Assessment  in
the  implementation  of  the  EC
trade policy

Involvement 
the  Euro-
in 
Mediterranean  Partnership  and
MFTZ:  civil  forum  (Stuttgart)
and parliament hearing

Participation  to  the  Commission
initiative Contact group with DG
trade

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
EC
into 
integration 
development policy

the 

Communication 
Forest 
developing countries.

on  Tropical
in

conservation 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Communication on Climate change in
developing countries

Communication on Coherence

Promoting 
EC 
development policy

co-operation

Participation in the Group inter sector
NGOs  for  co-ordination  on  the  EC
communication  on  Partnership  with
NGOs.

Participation to the EC working group
on "Grant management" conducted by
the Secretariat general.

RIO  +  10  conference:  Joint  initiative
with  EPE,  European  Movement,
GLOBE,
ETUC, 
UNEP, 
ICDA,ICLEI,WBCSD

Co-operation with development NGO
networks  to  work  with  the  working
group of the Development Council.

Internal  co-ordination  of  network
policy  work  on  EU  Development
policy

Balkan  Sustainability  Pact  (Regional
Environmental 
Reconstruction
Programme)

Mediterranean policy

Euro Mediterranean Partnership

SMAP: Assessment and proposals for
strengthening 
environmental
its 
components

Environmental  integration  within  the
Euro 
strategic
partnership.

Mediterranean 

Effects 
investment

of  EU 

foreign 

direct

– 

– 

– 

– 

44

Co-ordination  of 
the 
networks  policy  work 
Mediterranean.

internal
the
in 

Monitoring  the  development  of
the  Mediterranean  Free  Trade
Zone

– 

– 

Water

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

EU freshwater policy

for
Greening  EU 
hydrologic  projects  in  the  EU
Member States and CEECs

funding 

Water  Framework  Directive:
adoption and implementation

Promotion of water pricing.

Communication on Water pricing
(input  to  EC  conference  and  EU
debate, discussion paper)

Commission proposal on a list of
priority  substances  and  selection
of priority hazardous substances

Mine 
waste
waste/mine 
management and its impact in the
freshwater environment.

Conservation  and  wise  use  of
wetlands

Organisation  of  seminars  on  EU
freshwater 
the
policy 
the  Water
implementation  of 
Framework Directive.

and 

Internal 
European 
work.

co-ordination 
freshwater 

of
policy

Habitats, 
biotechnology

bio-diversity 

and

– 

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  Conservation
NGOs)

Implementation 
conservation legislation in CEECs.

of  EC 

nature

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 habitats and species.

Revision  of  the  90/220  directive  on
the  deliberate  release  of  GMOs  into
the environment

Publication  "Important  Bird  Areas

Agriculture and land use

Reform of the CAP

Agenda 2000

Cross  compliance  (Common  rules
Regulation 1259/1999)

Rural 
1257/1999

development 

Regulation

Integrated 
development

Principles 
development

rural 

sustainable

for 

rural 

sustainable

Reform of CAP in 2006

Agriculture and trade (WTO)

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

45

Capacity  building  in  CEECs  and
Mediterranean  countries  on  EU
agriculture 
rural
development policy

and 

Putting  Urban 
Development  stronger  on 
Agenda

and  Spatial
the

Internal  co-ordination  of 
policy 
related 
work 
agriculture.

the
to

Participation 
advisory Committees

in  DG  AGRI

– 

– 

– 

– 

Forests

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

EU 
discussions

forest 

certification

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 
the
Convention 
Biological
of 
Diversity and forest

of 

Pan-European  process  (Helsinki
process)

Forest  protected  areas  (Natura
2000)

Climate 
(negotiations on Sinks)

change 

and 

forest

Monitoring 
EU forest policy

implementation  of

– 

– 

– 

EU  Forest 
Committee

and 

cork  Advisory

FBI Committee (DG Enterprise)

Coordination  for  European  Forest
NGOs.

Fisheries

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Integration of environmental policy in
the Common Fisheries policy

Common  Fisheries  Policy 
(tax, quotas, etc)

review

Biodiversity Action Plan on Fisheries

Reform  of  the  Fisheries  subsidies
including fuel tax and state aids

Structural Funds (FIFG) Regulation

of 

the 

Evaluation 
operational
programmes  for  the  implementation
of  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  fisheries
issues.

Climate change and energy

(Co-generation), 

Promotion  of  co-generated  heat  and
the  most
power 
efficient and environmentally friendly
of  all  conventional  power  production
technologies

Support  to  the  Commission  White
Paper on Renewable Electricity

– 

– 

46

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

"Monti  Directive"  on  minimum
taxes on energy products

Promote 
the  agreement  of  a
Directive 
on 
Renewable
the  aim  of
Electricity  with 
doubling the share of renewables
by 2010

Definition  of  a  European-wide
policy  for  reducing  residential
and 
heat
consumption

office 

space 

Increasing  energy  efficiency  and
reduction  of  greenhouse  gas
emissions  post  Kyoto  in  selected
sectors  of  European  countries
together  with
(not  only  EU) 
the
and 
Utrecht  University 
Fraunhofer Institute.

Promotion  of  fuel  cells  in  both
stationary
transport  and 
power 
(and  heat)  production
sector

the 

Promote  solar  thermal  electricity
implementation  as  a  supplement
to 
photovoltaic
technologies.

decentralised 

in 

Participation 
global
partnership in the transport sector
– probably on mass production of
a  car  with  a  maximum  of  petrol
consumption  of  no  more  than  3
liter per 100 km.

Promotion of a clean energy label
based on third party certification;

Green  electricity  and  later  other
green energy products

Promotion  of  Climate  change
policy  work 
developing
countries.

in 

Energy  Consultative  Committee
of DG TREN

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Climate 
working 

European 
Change
groups
Programme 
(attendance at all and co-ordination of
the NGO participation

Green  Paper  on  an  EU  emission
trading programme

Directive 
sources 
market

in 

on 
the 

energy
renewable 
internal  electricity

Communication 
efficiency action plan for the EU

for 

an 

energy

Guidelines 
state 
environmental protection

on 

aid 

for

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 
environment and aviation

communication 

on

Common Transport Policy review

TENS guidelines

Air quality -  for example the auto-oil
daughter
programme 
directives

and 

the 

Building  up  an  effective  EU  Noise
Policy

Advisory  input  -  for  example,  expert
contribution  to  the  GNSS  advisory
forum

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

47

– 

– 

Sustainable 
Green paper

urban 

transport

to 

Road 
rail,  a  project  on
encouraging the transfer of goods
from the roads onto the rails - not
but
a  Commission 
project, 
closely 
the
to 
stated  goal  of
Community's 
saving 
and
the 
improving the railways

railways 

related 

– 

Sustainable  Tourism 
Tourism and Employment

Policy,

Sustainability  Processes,  Dialogues  and
Instruments

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Papers  and  presentations  on  the
assessment of the 5th EAP.

6th 
Program

Environmental 

Action

Europe’s 
environmental
responsibility  and  impact  of  EU
policies  on  the  world’s  carrying
capacity.

Commission’s 5 year programme
priorities.

Integration Strategy

Sustainable 
Strategy

Transparency 
Participation 
Convention

development

and 
– 

Public
Aarhus

Access 
Fundamental Rights

to  Justice,  Chart  of

Environment for Europe

Promoting  the  use  of  Structural
Funds,  Cohesion  Funds  and  Pre-
Accession  Aid  for  Sustainable
Development (EU legislation and
implementation on national level)

– 

– 

– 

– 

Environmental

Transatlantic 
Dialogue

CSD, Agenda 21

Precautionary Principle

OECD Liaison

EU Institutional Issues

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Reform of EC Institutions

the  Treaty,  part 

III:
Greening 
proposals 
2000
Intergovernmental  Conference  (treaty
of Nice)

the 

for 

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  Contribution  to  the
European Forum for Recycling

Ecological Product Policy

Developing European Eco-Labels

Phase-out of Hazardous Chemicals

Waste 
Management

Prevention 

and 

Sound

Technical  standards,  setting  up  an
environmental standardisation bureau

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

48