Extended Briefing Note No.

Creating a European Civil Society House

European Citizen Action Service

April 2011

About ECAS
ECAS was created in 1991 as an international non-profit organization, independent of political parties, commercial interests and the EU Institutions. Our mission is to enable NGOs and individuals to make their voice heard with the EU by providing advice on how to lobby, fundraise, and defend European citizenship rights. We are a large cross-sectoral European association bringing together members from different areas of activity: civil liberties, culture, development, health and social welfare, as well as general civil society development agencies. For more information, please visit our webpage: www.ecas-citizens.eu

About this Briefing Note

This briefing note is a revised and updated version of the ones produced in May and December 2010. Author: Tony Venables Editor: Elisabeth Victoria Lasky

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank all those who replied to the survey and made some valuable comments. This project has grabbed the attention of the young generation: much is due to the trainees and volunteers at ECAS: Britney Wehrfritz, Aleksandra Czajkowska, William Trott and Monica Tiberi.

[0]

Contents
I. Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 2 II. Progress made so far ..................................................................................................................................... 5 a. What ECAS has done to promote and create the European Civil Society House .............................. 5 Resources............................................................................................................................................... 5 Voluntary and pro-bono work ............................................................................................................... 6 Evidence of support through the survey ............................................................................................... 6 Meetings held to discuss the European Civil Society House and the results ........................................ 7 Steering group ....................................................................................................................................... 9 b. What can be learned from other initiatives to create virtual or physical networking facilities and resource centres? ............................................................................................................................. 10 Virtual resource centres ...................................................................................................................... 10 Physical resource centres .................................................................................................................... 11 Creation of national contact points ..................................................................................................... 13 c. What support can be expected from the European Institutions?................................................... 14

III. Development of the concept ...................................................................................................................... 16 The gap between the EU and the citizens ........................................................................................... 16 The gap between insiders and outsiders............................................................................................. 17 The gap between bottom-up and top-down initiatives ...................................................................... 17 IV. Specific functions........................................................................................................................................ 19 C1. Civil Society .................................................................................................................................... 19 C2. Citizens rights ............................................................................................................................... 20 C3. Citizen Participation ...................................................................................................................... 25 V. Proposal for an awareness raising campaign and helpdesk on citizens initiatives .................................... 27 List of tasks for the helpdesk ................................................................................................................... 29 VI. Survey results ............................................................................................................................................. 31 VII. Conclusions and next steps ....................................................................................................................... 42 Annex I. Mapping exercise. ............................................................................................................................. 45 Annex II. Calendar of past meetings ................................................................................................................ 50 Annex III. Steering Group Members. ............................................................................................................... 51 Annex IV. Technical requirements for citizenhouse.eu................................................................................... 54

[1]

I. Executive Summary

The European Union has a new Treaty and a Charter of Fundamental Rights. The instruments are there to bridge the gap between the EU and the citizens. There is no denying however that that still appears a formidable task. A Union closer to the citizen means creating a European public sphere. One answer is the European Civil Society House (ESCH) as part of such a sphere. This should take the form in 2011 of a virtual house, accessible from anywhere in the EU and neighbouring countries through the online platform citizenhouse.eu, in order to facilitate cross-border dialogue and networking. In 2012 a start should be made on physical facilities bringing together associations particularly in the areas of human rights and democratic participation. This project has encouraged research into different models and generated ideas and proposals. What is innovative in adapting this approach to the European level is the emphasis on the use of social networks and ICT to create both a virtual and physical space as well as the broad definition of civil society to include citizens.

The house will be built on 3Cs:

C1. Civil Society: For local community groups or associations, there is a demand for networking and
cross-fertilisation of projects, and structured dialogue to find solutions to common problems. This will be met by using existing social network websites, such as Ning (www.ning.com) or Facebook. This participation space should be backed up by access to expertise. A resource centre should be developed beginning with a collection of central databases, open to Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) and EU Institutions alike, and leading publications on European funding, social innovation and citizen participation. To establish priorities in the setup of the ECSH, ECAS has launched a survey on the creation of the House. More than 550 people have replied

C2. Citizens rights. The European Commission is in favour of the onestop shop for citizens rights, but there is still some way to go before this is achieved. The main mechanisms for citizens to raise issues with the EU are scattered across different institutions. There are choices to be made among the channels towards the EU which can also be often linked despite the scattered way they are presented. This may be one explanation for why they are underused. Another possible reason is that there are few links made towards international petitioning websites which are growing exponentially or to the national equivalents of the 5 EU procedures. And yet, those most likely to petition the EU are those already most active back home. By creating a clearer focal [2]

point and links towards national procedures, the European Civil Society House should increase both the quantity and quality of requests to the EU. A critical mass of citizen input is the only way to support the reforms necessary for an EU which genuinely puts peoples concerns ahead of those of powerful lobbies. There will be a single access point and helpdesk for the various mechanisms available for citizens to make their voice heard with the EU: complaints, access to documents, petitions to the European Parliament, requests to the European Ombudsman as well as the new right of initiative1 (CAPRI), where by over a million people from across the Union can demand EU legislation.

C3. Citizen Participation. In the wake of the rejection in the French and Dutch referenda of the
Constitutional Treaty, there was a period of experimentation with new participatory ways to reach citizens under Plan D for democracy, dialogue and debate. The Europe for Citizens Programme2 was launched. The European Parliament created the Agora, a forum where citizens and representatives of civil society are invited to discuss EU policies with the Parliament3. The protagonists of Plan D were aware of the need to go beyond experimentation, hence their call for a European public sphere.

Creating the European Civil Society House and bridging the gap between them should be in the interest of both citizens and the EU Institutions:

Civil society is largely missing out on the opportunities Europe can offer. Despite the growth in European associations, the EU still seems a speciality for insiders. Commercial and producer interests still make up 85% of the estimated 2,600 associations and 15,000 lobbyists round the EU4. Citizens still find the EU complex and remote and that efforts taken in the direction of coming closer to them are not proving to be bearing expected results5. As one respondent to the survey put it, a Europe of lobbies is not a proper Europe.

ECAS was formally created as an international non-profit organisation under Belgian law in 1991. At that time, the emphasis was on the creation of new European associations and networks. ECAS itself housed several European associations in its early days and has helped to create new ones in areas such as public health and culture when these activities were added to the EU Treaties. Now practically every civil society activity is reflected in one or more European association or network. Substantial progress has been made with the Europeanisation of civil society, but there is still a long way to go to involve such a vast and scattered sector. Two needs stand out:

The Lisbon Treaty introduces a new, more empowering but also more challenging instrument the citizens initiative whereby over 1 million people from a significant number of member states can demand a legislative proposal from the Commission. Please visit http://www.ecas-citizens.eu/content/view/343/341/ for more information. 2 For more information, please visit http://ec.europa.eu/citizenship/index_en.htm 3 For more information, please visit http://forum.agora.europarl.europa.eu/jiveforums/category.jspa?categoryID=9 The most recent meeting of the Agora certainly showed the need for more promotion to increase the number of participants and back-up for preparation and organisation, which are could be provided by a facility such ECSH. 4 Estimates provided by the Association of Accredited Lobbyists to the European Parliament (AALEP). Please visit http://www.eulobby.net/ for further information. 5 As pointed out in the Green Paper on the European Transparency Initiative COM(2006) 194 final, available online at http://europa.eu/documents/comm/green_papers/pdf/com2006_194_en.pdf

[3]

There are local community or special interest issues which do not necessarily find their place in an organised European civil society, or need a permanent association. What emerges from the survey is less the need to lobby the EU Institutions than to create cross-border links of like-minded people and issues. The internet makes it possible (as never before) for disorganised civil society and citizens to get organised. As one respondent to the survey said, a social or networking space especially to bring together like-minded people who might not otherwise meet and engage. When it comes to European associations, the need is less to create new ones than it is to bring existing organisations together to increase capacity. This is being done through the emergence of broad sectoral groupings such as the European Social Platform6. Although there is nothing new in the suggestion of existing organisations coming together, what is more recent is the idea of sharing facilities under one roof, even if there are some EU-related examples, especially in the environmental and cultural sector. As one respondent to the survey stressed, it is about establishing communication and networking NGOs from all over Europe to synchronise efforts and measures to advance and further develop civic rights, liberties, participation etc..

The ECAS Board of Directors has made the creation of a European Civil Society House the priority of ECAS and set up a steering group for this purpose (see annex III for the composition of the steering group). Throughout 2010, the concept of the European Civil Society House was being developed through a survey, the results of which are described in section VI. In parallel, a major preoccupation for the EU institutions was the preparation and adoption of the legislation on citizens initiatives. There will still be a year of preparation before citizens can begin to collect one million signatures starting on 1 April 2012. Naturally there is a strong link between citizens initiatives and the creation of the European Civil Society House. It was because of this that in early 2011 the steering group for the house and the ECAS Board of Directors decided to make a start with a web platform on C2, European citizens rights. This means the creation of a one-stop shop for all the five mechanisms now available for citizens to make their voice hear with the EU: complaints, access to documents, petitions, requests to the Ombudsman and initiatives.

Available online at http://www.socialplatform.org/

[4]

II. Progress made so far

In this section, progress is described under 3 headings:

What ECAS has done to develop and promote the creation of the European Civil Society House

What can be learned from other initiatives to create virtual or physical resource centres

What support can be expected from the EU Institutions

a. What ECAS has done to promote and create the European Civil Society House
There is widespread support for this venture within and outside the EU Institutions. One of the main attractions is that people are able to read into the proposal all kinds of ideas of their own since what is proposed is a new and People are able to read into the open facility. A considerable amount of sharing of new ideas proposal all kinds of ideas of their own and knowhow can be accumulated therefore in the since what is proposed is a new and developmental process. The creation of a European Civil open facility Society House is a good practical way to open up a discussion and draw in research and proposals on how citizens and civil society can strengthen their European capacity and how the EU can bridge the gap to the citizen. At the end of the survey in part VI a selection of the comments and proposals can be found.

Resources

For this reason alone, the resources devoted so far to the project are well spent. ECAS is grateful to the Rowntree Charitable Trust for their support through an annual grant of 30,000 euro in 2009 and 40,000 euro in 2010. For 2011, Rowntree will make an application to NEF (Network of European Foundations) to enlarge the support from other foundations either in cash or in kind. This should provide the funding to recruit a full-time co-ordinator. Under the Europe for Citizens programme, a project in 2010 for the European Civil Society House worth 50,000 euro has allowed ECAS to develop a certain number of products and a prototype of the Virtual House, described below. In 2011, a larger scale project again under the Europe for Citizens programme called Carrousel for 258,000 Euro will allow for the development of the Virtual House and the creation of national contact [5]

points in a selection of EU Member States. The Commission grants represent 60% of the two total amounts quoted.

Voluntary and pro-bono work

It should be stressed however that this project is not solely dependent on grants. It has also generated support from volunteers either on their own initiative or through the European Voluntary Service (EVS). This is a young peoples venture. As one of the respondents to the survey pointed out: I think this is the germ of a brilliant idea, but to achieve the scale of change envisaged will require a stronger ambition to engage with active social partnering organisations such as, in my case, universities, but realistically also commercial organisations as well since they too have responsibilities to facilitate the citizenship of their employees. Deloitte has already contributed by producing a business plan which was presented to a meeting of MEPs in Strasbourg on 7 September 2010.7

Evidence of support through the survey

When ECAS took this project to the European Parliament after the June 2009 European elections, MEPs emphasised the point that the house should not be too centralised on Brussels and they asked for evidence of support from civil society organisations. A survey was carried out8, the results of which are given in part VI. The overall level of support, as mentioned above, is significant. Moreover, what is equally significant is that the support comes from all Member States and beyond. The respondents reflect the diversity of civil society ranging from local and regional to national organizations, practitioners, academics and policy makers. Of the 596 who replied, only 29% of them work full time on European affairs. The majority have some involvement but want more. They need this additional facility to increase support and their networking capacity hence within the more detailed questions asked in the survey the strong emphasis placed on the idea of having a resource centre and access to data bases. On the basis of this updated briefing note, the survey will be re-launched to gather more suggestions. In a way any survey can be biased because of the political correctness with which people will tend to answer yes to any idea about which there is no reason to have strong objections except on grounds of cost and feasibility. From the results, the comments and discussions about this project, ECAS and the steering group are convinced nevertheless of the depth of the support and for a number of good reasons: In a period of economic uncertainty, there is pressure on all organisations to explore new ways of maximising their activity and output without increasing costs. Better sharing of ideas, office space, sinking or swimming together rather than aiming at selfsufficiency are becoming part of the strategy of civil society organisations.

Available online at http://www.ecascitizens.eu/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=674&Itemid= 8 The survey is available online at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/europeancivilsocietyhouse

[6]

Particularly in the new Member States of the EU, this project has significant support. Structures for dealing with the European dimension of civil society activities are less settled than in old Member States. In particular, the broad definition of civil society to include citizens is relevant. Associations as well as funders recognise that considerable efforts have been devoted to training civil society leaders, but not enough to their followers and to civic engagement, which remain at a low level. Even for people who are sufficiently well informed and have some involvement with European affairs, there is a sense of being outsiders and not part of some inner circle permanently established round the EU Institutions. There is a sense of willingness to do more for Europe and being frustrated in the process.

Meetings held to discuss the European Civil Society House and the results

Several meetings were held to discuss this project and a complete list is given in the annex. The project has become better known in and around the EU Institutions. The meetings have also provided significant input and advice on new contacts, sources of inspiration, funding and priorities. The input is from a diverse range of organisations (the Danish Board of Technology, the IEEA financial mechanism, Ethical Properties ltd., Realdania, to mention just a few). In addition, there have been five European events about the European Civil Society House9:

First Public meeting Presentation of the ECSH

June 2010
Survey carried out Meeting in the European Parliament

Debate on the PH vs VH

Sept 2010
Business plan Video is produced A newspaper on the ECSH is produced

Conference on European Citizens' Initiatives

Dec 2009

July 2010

March 2011

On 4 December 2009, Monica Frassoni chaired a first public kick-off meeting about the Civil Society House at Mundo B in Brussels. A number of offers of support were made. The general conclusions were that enforcement of European rights should be a priority both for the facility being created as well as for the European Commission. At the time, it was known that with the Lisbon Treaty in force, the Charter of Fundamental Rights would be legally binding. The new Commission was expected to appoint a Commissioner responsible for Fundamental Rights and Citizenship. This new function would need support from citizens. To start this project, the Virtual House should be first created. This was an idea subsequently validated by the steering group (see below). The next steps were then to undertake a widespread survey and set up a steering group. On 2 June 2010, Jean Lambert MEP hosted a meeting in the European Parliament, which had a high turnout since it brought together European associations, think tanks and delegates at the European
Reports of these four meetings can be found at http://www.ecas-citizens.eu/content/view/172/241/

[7]

Foundation Week. The basis for discussion was the first version of this Extended Briefing Note with the results of the survey. One of the main points to emerge from this discussion was that the European Civil Society House would in no way compete with established European associations. It would not be a membership structure claiming any representativity but an open facility for civil society organizations and citizens alike. The corollary of this was that the steering group should develop a statement of values to make sure that the services to be set up would be as open and inclusive as possible whilst being able to reject requests which were against the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Green group was sufficiently convinced by the progress made to put down a budget amendment (see below). On 1 July 2010, during the ECAS general assembly, another debate was held on a different aspect. Philip Weiss of ZN strategy and Janice Thompson of INVOLVE presented the case respectively for and against the Virtual and Physical house. What was helpful about this debate was that it generated a sense of the scope and also the limits of both options. It also showed that in the end the two have to come together. The development of the Virtual House should be pushed as far as possible since it is now possible to carry out most functions necessary for citizen participation online rather than on the spot and face-to-face. In turn this would create a demand to meet, but not necessarily in Brussels which would give a wrong top-down signal. Janice Thompson accepted the argument whilst stressing that genuine involvement had to bring people together not just in the same space, but in the same room. This would not necessarily mean having large premises. Her idea was that the Physical House should be providing the back-up for the web-platform and desk sharing for people visiting Brussels. On 7 September, Jean Lambert MEP and Gerald Hfner MEP hosted a meeting in the European Parliament in Strasbourg. This allowed for ECAS and the steering group to present a number of products which would be component parts for the launch of the virtual house in 2011 and the further development of the project: o Business plan by Deloitte. Marc Hoessels presented the business plan which contains a SWOT analysis, which showed that the risks of starting with the Virtual House are certainly less than those of becoming involved with renting and organising office and meeting room space. Nevertheless the Virtual House requires not only a significant up-dated webplatform but also a promotional effort and resources to back it up, even though there are often easier technical solutions to reducing risks. The mock-up of the Virtual House. ZN Strategy presented ideas, a mock-up for the webplatform and also a video. Philip Weiss of ZN put the emphasis on fully exploiting www.citizenhouse.eu as a domain name but also existing social networks such as causes on Facebook. The mapping exercise done by ZN which helped to define key words and use of e-questions and answer tools as well as e-petition practices.10 The newspaper on the project. ECAS ran a stand during the September Parliamentary session in Strasbourg which both showed the video and distributed a newspaper about the European Civil

10

The mapping exercise is available at http://www.ecascitizens.eu/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=701&Itemid=

[8]

Society House. This is intended to be a short, easy-to-read version of the Extended Briefing Note no.2.11 On 17 March 2011, ECAS conference Getting Citizens Initiatives started showed that much remains to be It will soon be possible to carry out done before the first citizens initiatives are launched most European civil society linking after 1 April 2012, to put European and national online for which specific tools are being procedures in place for signature collection in order to developed or already exist. eliminate red tape, ensure that an even more user friendly regime is supported by effective helpdesks and finally set up a communication campaign to make citizens aware of this new European right. A hotline on European Citizens Initiatives was launched as a result of those needs.

These meetings paved the way for the creation of the Virtual House in 2011.

Steering group The main vehicle to bring this process about is the steering group set up by the ECAS Board of Directors. At its meeting on 11 November 2010, the ECAS Board of Directors noted that the steering group which was created to guide the ECAS project to build a European Civil Society House should now be formally established and be given a mandate. In order to create the European Civil Society House, the Board recognizes the need to bring together on an informal basis a multi-disciplinary steering group. This membership is not fixed and may change as requirements change. The mandate of the steering group is as follows: o To provide advice and support to the ECAS staff and Board on all aspects of the development of the European Civil Society House; To help develop the first stage of the virtual house and look for opportunities to establish a physical headquarters in Brussels: To work on creating national contact points; To draw up draft guidelines for the governance structure of the ECSH.

o o

The steering group will be chaired by Tony Venables, ECAS Director and the staff will provide assistance. The steering group is free to decide its own composition, the frequency of its meetings and take all useful initiatives. The Board shall receive the minutes and all the documents of the steering group so it or its members can intervene at any time.

11

The documents are available at http://www.ecas-citizens.eu/content/view/172/241/

[9]

The steering group plays an essential role in drawing in a number of skills: internet and outreach strategy, civil society and citizen involvement, social entrepreneurs who have developed resource centres, corporate social responsibility and more links towards the EU Institutions and Brussels local authorities. The members of the steering group are listed in the annex III.

b. What can be learned from other initiatives to create virtual or physical networking facilities and resource centres?

Virtual resource centres

For the start of the project and the specific mapping exercise done by ZN Strategy, research has been carried out on social networks and the extent to which they create social capital12. This line of inquiry is necessary to establish whether there is to be a cost-effective way of creating a European Civil Society House accessible from anywhere in the Union. To some extent, the jury is still out but it will not be out for much longer. For the Commission, where citizens participation projects are still focused on meetings and seminars, this line of inquiry is also of interest since far more people could potentially be involved at far less cost in EU-wide citizens consultations. More research and technical developments will be driven by putting into place the regulation on citizens initiatives, which includes the possibility to gather electronic signatures. To this whole debate, the digital mapping findings by ZN on e-government and e-participation online make a contribution on how to inform, consult, involve, collaborate with and empower citizens13. Together with earlier research done by ECAS volunteers on online helpdesks and increasing evidence of legal services on the internet, we have now assembled a number of signposts for creating the Virtual House: On the basis of an extensive key word search submitted to Google for performance assessment, when narrowed down in terms of volume, we learned that the rankings do not necessarily follow the assumptions on which European information and advice services are based14.

The Virtual House will be launched in 2011

Answer is a key word for finding models to develop the Virtual House, with its different versions of services ranging from Just Answer, Yahoo! Answer, Answer bag etc. where twin functions of contacting an expert and creating online communities can be carried out. It is necessary to compare different services from Google the most successful in terms of simplicity to the possibility of more detailed research to examining a number of others: LinkedIn,

Social capital development on the internet via social networking websites such as Facebook tends to be bridging capital according to one study, though "virtual" social capital is a new area of research. Cf Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). 13 See note 10 on the mapping exercise. 14 See Annex I.

12

[10]

your Europe, direct.gov.uk and then to look at strengths and weaknesses of the different eparticipation tools and the lessons to be learned from them.

Physical resource centres

ECAS can learn from others. In Brussels there are many examples of instances of organisations or regions from the same country sharing premises. There are important cross-border sectoral initiatives for example to promote culture. Advice and inspiration has been taken from three initiatives in particular:

Mundo B, the Sustainable House at 26 Rue Edinbourg, Brussels near the European Parliament, is a good example of how the environmental movement is generally ahead15. This venture of Ethical Properties Ltd which has launched similar initiatives in Oxford, London and Namur brings together a European social enterprise and a group of tenants who are not only encouraged to take advantage of well-resourced facilities but also create synergy among themselves by meeting together and sharing information about campaigns and advocacy. According to one respondent to our survey, there is a waiting list of over a year for Mundo B, so demand for this type of facility is high. Moreover, Mundo B includes the Hive, which consists of several workstations available for personalized periods to be used by organisations visiting Brussels. Another facility with similar features is the Hub16, located in 12 international cities across 4 continents; it offers space to social entrepreneurs to share ideas and launch projects in an international environment of interconnected open-plan offices. Its Brussels location can be found on Rue du Prince Royal, 37. European Foundation House is a plan launched by a group of foundations at the European Foundation Centre (EFC) General Assembly which took place in Rome in May of 200917. The Realdania Foundation from Copenhagen18 is exploring the possibilities of creating such a House in Brussels with EFC as a tenant and possibly with ECAS, which in January 2010 moved next door to the EFC to develop synergies. The interest of the foundations to invest in property following the collapse of stock markets in autumn of 2008, as well as to share premises to reduce costs, was evident at the Rome event.

15 16

For more information, please visit http://www.mundo-b.org/ For more information, please visit http://brussels.the-hub.net/public/ 17 For more information, please visit http://www.efc.be/AgaConference/Pages/FightingPovertyCreatingOpportunities.aspx 18 For more information on Realdania, please visit http://www.realdania.dk/English.aspx

[11]

The House for Democracy and Human Rights in Berlin is an interesting model. Gerald Hfner MEP was a leading player in this development before he was elected to the European Parliament. Although the House is a special result of German history around the story of the fall of the Berlin wall, it has much to offer to a possible European counterpart. ECAS hopes to attract organisations working in the area of democracy and civil liberties. To a large extent, the services needed to help organisations in these areas are similar to those needed to develop both citizen participation and respect for fundamental and European rights. One feature of the Berlin House is that each tenant is encouraged to organise at least one public meeting there each year to publicise its existence.

From the research and meetings devoted to examining Virtual and Physical Houses, it has become apparent that the social entrepreneurs behind them are only vaguely aware of each others existence, even though they share many preoccupations. One project for 2011 is to bring together the promoters of this particular aspect of strengthening civil society and citizen participation which has not received attention so far at the European level. On the other hand there is a federation of non-profit resource centres in the US.19 This is one example of where this venture leads to fresh thinking about using existing structures to create a European public sphere, rather than necessarily creating something out of nothing. A major constraint is that the European Civil Society House should be near the Institutions, where rents are much higher than in the rest of Brussels. At the same time, the European quarter is undergoing change with ambitious plans for the transformation of the Rue de la Loi and the immediate proximity with European Institutions. Because of this period of transformation and the uncertain and very uneven state of the neighbourhood, it is estimated that 20% of office space is vacant. From time to time, buildings come on the market from the public sector, like those in Rue Wiertz, just behind the European Parliament, which may be turned into European artists residences20. Although general feedback has shown a strong support for the Virtual House, others stress that there is actually no substitute to giving civil society organisations and citizens an opportunity to see and sense the European Institutions as they are, and to interact with each other. As one respondent to the survey put it, the fact that a physical place exists can help enormously to focus attention on this issue. The steering group has come up with the idea that the actual European Civil Society House could be on a modest scale provided that there was some access offered by the EU institutions for meeting space. Support to establish a foothold in the European quarter for the first operation of the European Civil Society House might for example come in the form of access to one of the EU buildings for Civil Society meetings. Interest has been shown by members of the Economic and Social Committee and the Commission in ways in which the resources and meeting spaces of the Institutions might be opened up to this project free of charge to keep costs down. A similar suggestion came from the survey: I wonder if the Parliament in Strasbourg could provide some logistics for citizen deliberation and conference projects to trim costs for the European Civil Society House (ECSH) project. The Steering Group has stressed that if the House operates out of more than one location, it should have a strong brand and maintain its independence.This immediately raises the question of what support can be expected from the EU institutions, to which there is no clear answer yet. However, in a letter to Jean Lambert MEP, Viviane Reding Vice-President of the
For further information, please visit http://www.nprcenter.org/ The Foundation Atliers dArtistes sans Frontires is setting up such facility, which should be operational in the medium term. Please visit http://www.quartier-europeen.eu/La-Fondation-Ateliers-d-Artistes for more information.
20 19

[12]

European Commission floated the idea that a revamped visitors centre might be used for certain civil society activities.

Creation of national contact points

The concern expressed by members of the European Parliament that this project should not be too focussed on Brussels was echoed in the survey. Many respondents stressed this danger and argued for a decentralised bottom-up approach. The emphasis on the virtual house accessible from anywhere is part of the response, but that is not enough. Virtual and physical national contact points are also necessary. Setting them up across 27 member countries of the EU as well as possible candidate and neighbouring countries is a huge task, which cannot be achieved quickly. On the other hand, once set up a national contact point may well be the most costeffective and natural way to overcome the formidable issue of the language barriers. The emphasis on Europeanization and the broad definition of civil society to include citizens should be a common feature of all national contact points. The steering group should be the forum for exchanging ideas on initiatives to set up national contact points, but it cannot be too prescriptive given the differences in size, structures and interests of civil society across the Union. For example there is still a gap between new and old member states in terms of civil society development and levels of volunteering and civic engagement. Bearing this in mind, there are a number of steps which will have to be taken regardless of the size of the non-profit sector and how it is organised, particularly on European affairs: set up a multidisciplinary steering group of both stakeholders and potential supporters and funders, some of whom have already come forward; do a needs assessment through a questionnaire about the proposal to establish priorities for the services of the house; organise national and, where appropriate, regional meetings to explore the idea further; carry out a mapping exercise of what exists because national contact points rarely have to be created from scratch and can bring together existing structures and services; Council presidencies are a valuable opportunity because before and during the 6 months the country has the presidency of the Council there is more public debate or should be, about the degree of involvement and various channels of communication towards European networks.

Some of the MEPs ECAS has discussed this project with would be more than willing to give support for setting up national contact points. Once more countries have expressed interest and taken the first steps, it will be necessary to work out a democratic governance system among the national contact points for the European Civil Society House.

[13]

c. What support can be expected from the European Institutions?

ECAS took the idea of creating the European Civil Society House to the European Parliament with success after the European elections in June 2009. Jean Lambert, MEP for London, tabled an amendment on behalf of the Greens proposing an amount of 350,000 euro to carry out a feasibility study. This addition to the budgetary procedure was considered by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs on 31 August 201021. A majority of MEPs supported the idea, but some wondered whether there was sufficient demand from NGOs, whether it was too Brussels-centred and what would be the attitude of the new European Commission. These were reasonable doubts, which led the Committee to reach a compromise: the main political groups voted in favour of creating a new budget line but without the amount - a pro memoria. This position was supported by the Chairman of the Budget Committee, Alain Lamassoure MEP, who drafted a report for the French Presidency in 2009 on the citizen and the application of community law22 and by the Committee as a whole. ECAS closely followed this process and considers that the outcome was fair, leaving open the possibility to go back to the Parliament and convince MEPs to add funds to the budget line. During the budgetary procedure the In 2010, a new amendment was tabled by the Greens for Civil Society House gained considerable 350,000 euro with an indication that the majority of funds cross-party support, particularly in the would be used for a helpdesk and awareness campaign on Citizens Initiatives. The amendment was narrowly defeated Budget Committee. by 12 votes to 9 in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs on 6 September. There was some hesitation about the budget for the House and a sense that in a period of budget austerity the funds particularly for citizens initiatives should come from the Commissions existing communication budget. A new amendment to add 100,000 euro to the budget line was tabled with more narrowly defined functions and commitments. The request was reduced by 250,000 euro, because in the original amendment that was the amount considered necessary for the awareness campaign and helpdesk on Citizens Initiatives. This was not voted down but was victim of a decision by the Budget Committee to rule out earmarking or name organisations in all preparatory actions. It was not the purpose of the majority of MEPs who voted against the different versions of the amendment to vote against the project. For example, the general rapporteur on the budget, Sidonia Jdrzejewska MEP, was prepared to support an amendment in the Budget Committee which had not been supported by the specialised committee. The decision may not have a big impact on the resources for the House since many MEPs appeared to feel that this was a responsibility of the Commission and could be funded by them through projects. However, it is not thought to be feasible to create this project on such an ambitious scale only through Commission-funded projects alone. In the long run, it will be necessary for the European

To access the document, please visit http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/afco/dv/2010_afco_budg_amends_txt_/2010_afc o_budg_amends_txt_en.pdf 22 Lamassoure A, Le citoyen et lapplication du droit communautaire, rapport au Prsident de la Rpublique, (2008) available at http://www.alainlamassure.eu/liens/817.pdf .

21

[14]

Parliament and the other institutions to add core funding by putting their money where their mouth is. Until this happens, the budget line will simply remain in place.

[15]

III. Development of the concept

The European Civil Society House aims to fill 3 gaps.

the gap between the EU and the citizens

the gap between insiders and outsiders

the gap between topdown and bottom-up initiatives

The gap between the EU and the citizens

The starting point for this initiative is to decide which method would be best in order to adapt the familiar formula of sharing common facilities and building to increase capacity, whilst simultaneously encompassing the additional requirements of working across countries, languages, and at a European level. This has led to the realisation that the gap to be filled is not so much between the EU and civil society but above all with citizens. Recent institutional developments might help fill this gap. On one side, the European Charter of Fundamental Rights has become legally binding with the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty; on the other, the new Treatys article 11 increases the capacity of the European Union to relate to citizens through the European Citizens Initiative23. There is also the requirement to give both citizens and representative
23

Art. 11: 1. The institutions shall, by appropriate means, give citizens and representative associations the opportunity to make known and publicly exchange their views in all areas of Union action. 2. The institutions shall maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with representative associations and civil society. 3. The European Commission shall carry out broad consultations with parties concerned in order to ensure that the Union's actions are coherent and transparent. 4. Not less than one million citizens who are nationals of a significant number of Member States may take the initiative of inviting the European Commission, within the framework of its powers, to submit any appropriate proposal on matters where citizens consider that a legal act of the Union is required for the purpose of implementing the Treaties. (continues on the next page)

[16]

associations the opportunity for European dialogue. This gives this project a strong legal basis, but no-one really believes that the Treaty and the Charter are enough: it all depends on how they are implemented.

The gap between insiders and outsiders

By definition, the more the objectives of Article 11 can be achieved across language and cultural barriers, the more there will be a shift towards a virtual civil society linked to creating networks and building trust in people outside ones immediate circle. Online and face-to-face communication should ideally reinforce each other, and as the capacity of Internet technologies progresses, the distinction between the two is diminishing significantly - though it will never disappear completely24. Access must be open for all. This means from the local level, from countries bordering on the Union, and by third country nationals residing in the Union, not just European citizens. As one respondent points out: Both a physical European Civil Society House and a Virtual European civil society web platform should be developed to avoid geographically limiting access to the global project. The emphasis on the Virtual House is also important to reduce the gap between civil society organisations represented in Brussels and to get people involved with European and cross-border activities without interaction with EU Institutions. The notions of a resource centre, connecting local initiatives and networking received most emphasis in the responses to the survey.

The gap between bottom-up and top-down initiatives

Filling the gap is also about positioning this new facility. An intermediary approach is being proposed, which is neither bottom-up nor top-down. In proposing that citizens should have their own space, more is expected than just relying on market forces to create a European public sphere, that could work in some sectors and for some issues whilst leaving out

The house must find an original and complementary role in the already dense landscape in favour of civil society in Brussels.

The procedures and conditions required for such a citizens' initiative shall be determined in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 24 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. With regards to the regulation of future ECIs, the Commission launched a green paper and consultation exercise and held a hearing in February 2010 before presenting its draft regulation on March 31st, 2010. The pre-legislative debate has focused primarily on how to strike a compromise between making this new instrument for collecting 1 million signatures to support an initiative as citizen-friendly as possible, whilst at the same time setting minimum conditions for the number of countries, the time limit for collecting signatures, and their verification procedure. In the discussions and over 300 submissions to the consultations, a common theme has been how to make this a genuine instrument for citizens, not just for powerful lobbies and well-structured NGOs across the Union. Few have, though, come up with ideas for a supporting citizens infrastructure, and have concentrated instead on the basic legislative requirements. How much citizen support will be required should emerge after the first initiatives have begun. The regulation on the European Citizens Initiative right (Regulation EU 211/2011) was published on 11 March 2011. 24 In 2008, The Economist published a comprehensive report analysing the status of e-government versus off-line government indicating the way to go. Please visit http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displayStory.cfm?story_id=10638002 for further information.

[17]

others. On the other hand, when the Institutions attempt to fill the gaps by setting up agencies lacking independence, these often appear as artificial creations distant from citizens. Some respondents clearly fear that this initiative could end up as just another European top-down initiative25. An open facility is being created, not another umbrella body for civil society. As one respondent stated, The house must find an original and complementary role in the already dense landscape in favour of civil society in Brussels. An advice and problem-solving facility is being created, not another information service. Eurobarometer opinion polls reveal an information deficit about how the EU works and lack of awareness of European rights, as well as a high demand for more information26. It should be the responsibility of public authorities and not of this initiative, to meet these needs. The European Civil Society House should operate at the next stage: associations and individuals are already informed, but have a problem to be solved, an idea to pursue or a network to create. The basis is promoting active citizenship rather than passively feeding civil society with information. A strong component could be an alliance between civil society and academics. Among those making detailed comments on this initiative, there is the following proposal: lecturing - meeting point where academics and citizens dialogue with each other, where political scientists, sociologists, anthropologists, philosophers, environmental scientist etc. provide citizens and organizations with first-hand information of academic research and ideas. This could be done in collaboration with various European Universities and academic organizations. The spirit should be it is never too late to learn something. Being well informed before one voices his or her opinion. The Europe for Citizens Programme provides support for both civil society organisations and European think-tanks.

Comments on the survey are available in the Annex I. For example, see the Special Eurobarometer 256 on The Future of Europe, published in May 2006. To access the document, please visit http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_251_en.pdf . The same concerns were stressed in the Flash Eurobarometer 213 on European Citizenship published in February 2008, available at http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_213_en.pdf
26

25

[18]

IV. Specific functions

We will now consider functions for the Virtual and Physical house under the 3 Cs in more detail:

C1. Civil Society

For civil society organisations responding to the questionnaire, the Virtual House is the priority if only for cost reasons which would be involved in travelling to Brussels. In the business plan by Deloitte, the SWOT analysis shows that the risks are far less with the Virtual than the Physical House. Moreover, the demands are not necessarily focused on Brussels. In a wider EU of 27 countries with a number of candidate and potential candidate countries, more and more policy initiatives and funds have a regional or decentralised dimension. From the response to the survey, it appears that finding examples of how a given problem i.e. an environmental, public health or particular governance issue Civil society demands may not be is tackled in communities with similar characteristics in other focussed only on Brussels but also on a cross-border local dimension countries is a priority. Once the Virtual House has been set up and demand tested, the next stage should be to look for premises. The European Civil Society House should aim to bring together a core group of associations which are medium-sized in terms of European organisations. 10-15 people is ideal in the sense that they are large enough to make a contribution but not large enough to be self-sufficient. Potentially, there are several facilities that can be shared: not only the building, meeting rooms and a shared receptionist, but also press and information work and databases. Many organisations which have expressed interest are smaller in size and want either to share an office or just a desk full-time or part-time. Thus, the hive concept is an interesting model. The challenge is to find like-minded organisations working within the themes of fundamental rights, active citizenship and democratic participation, which remain relatively under-developed at the European level. Such organisations, as well as national or regional groupings visiting Brussels need more than just office facilities. Ideally, they should be able to consult online helpdesks when they are not in Brussels. Here, there is a strong link between the Physical and the Virtual house. The first stage should be to respond to the clear priority shown by the survey for the creation of a resource centre on European civil society. Assembling contact databases could be useful both for citizens and civil society organisations and the EU Institutions. The survey shows a demand to create contact points in Member States relevant for a particular issue or proposal. Behind the different civil society facades of lay or religious organisations, single issue pressure groups or more general purpose associations, finding [19]

the right contacts is not at all evident. This could be achieved online through search and assistance from the European Civil Society House. This could also be useful for the EU Institutions when they seek to consult widely, and particularly beyond the immediate audience concerned with the issue. Response to the Commissions consultations among civil society organisations and in particular by citizens is on the low side. When large-scale events are organised, outreach is far from always achieved, whether for civil society events organised round Council Presidencies, Commission conferences or European Parliament hearings. A resource centre is needed to develop general information and contacts on European civil society. In 2011, it will be necessary to start the web platform on a selective basis. The survey showed that despite all the information available, a significant priority is given to European funding and projects. ECAS already provides an annual funding guide and regular updates of Commission calls for proposals. The resource centre should gradually build up its capacity to provide updated and good quality information of civil society The resource centre should be used as a developments in other areas. For example, social innovation preparatory phase to gradually build up and citizen participation are new areas of concern for civil capacity and provide services in a society development and fit the functions under the 3Cs. number of areas which have been identified by the survey One important question to consider is the extent to which there could be a demand for training programmes, particularly with the possibility to make use of the virtual houses online platform.

C2. Citizens rights

The proposal to create the European Civil Society House fits well with the priority given by the Commission to enforcement and the appointment of Viviane Reding to a new post as Vice President responsible for Justice, Citizenship and Fundamental Rights. On 27 October 2010, the Commission published the communications An area of freedom, security and justice serving the citizen27 and Towards a single market act28. In the consultation document issued before the communications were published, the Commission points out that Union citizenship marked a clear departure from the market logic that had initially characterized European integration and that according to the European Court of Justice, it is destined to be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States. The Commission remarks that there remains a gap between the applicable legal rules
27 28

To access the documents, please visit http://www.eucitizenship-conference.net/init.xhtml?event=19 To access the document, please visit http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/smact/docs/single-market-act_en.pdf. Other relevant documents are: Report on progress towards effective EU citizenship 2007-2010 (COM (2010) 602/2, available at http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/citizenship/docs/com_2010_602_en.pdf ), EU Citizenship report 2010. Dismantling the obstacles to EU citizens rights (COM (2010) 605/49, available at http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/citizenship/docs/com_2010_603_en.pdf). On 19 October, the Commission published a strategy for the effective implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, available at http://ec.europa.eu/justice/news/intro/doc/com_2010_573_4_en.pdf

[20]

and the practical reality citizens are faced with in their daily life, in particular in cross-border situations. For its part, ECAS has produced a report with the help of a high level panel of practicing and academic lawyers, chaired by Sir David Edward, former judge of the European Court: Mind the gap: towards a better enforcement of European citizens free movement rights29. Furthermore, the Commission asks questions in this consultation exercise, the answers to which will also help shape this aspect of the European Civil Society House: What A helpdesk for citizens should seek to improve access to European are the main obstacles European citizens currently face in the mechanisms, especially the right to exercise of their rights resulting from Union citizenship? What access to documents, petitions and could be done to address these obstacles (for example, by application of the Charter of providing citizens better and simpler access to information, Fundamental Rights advice and problem-solving, assistance, etc.)? The Commission has provided its answers in the communication of 27 October which identified 25 barriers. At the information meeting on the House held in December 2009, Monica Frassoni, a former rapporteur for the European Parliaments legal committee, placed emphasis on the need to improve enforcement. As the summary below shows, EU procedures which can be used by citizens have the advantage of being easily accessible and free of charge. They are however slow and some lack transparency. The European Commission is in favour of the one-stop shop, but there is still some way to go before this is achieved. The main mechanisms for citizens to raise issues with the EU are scattered across different institutions. There are choices to be made between the channels available to citizens which can also be linked despite the dispersed way they are presented.

Complaints to the EC
100,000 questions to Europe Direct 2,900 complaints and infringements Delays in answering

Access to documents
Around 8,000 Mostly in the hands of academics and lobbyists Individual citizens do not figure as such

Petitions to the EP
1924 in 2009 Many are insufficient in substance or comprehension

Requests to the European Ombudsman

3098 complaints in 2009 Its powers could be enlarged through the ECFR

European Citizens' Initiative

The regulation puts a heavy organisational burden on the organisers The European Commission will provide only limited help to the organisers

Complaints to the Commission. Europe Direct and its contact points deal with about 100, 000 requests per year. This is not a high number and suggests that the majority of European and cross

29

To access the document, please visit http://www.ecas-citizens.eu/content/view/291/113/

[21]

border complaints are handled by local advice services. Your Europe Advice handles some 12,000 questions per year. Fostering cooperation between European and national services is one aim for the civil society house. Only about 2% of the questions to the Commission become formal complaints. If a citizen considers that there is a violation of his or her European rights, it is relatively easy to send a complaint using the official form provided .This is not compulsory and a letter can be enough. The real problem however is that what happens next is in the hands of the Commission which has wide discretionary power to decide whether or not to act on a complaint. The Commissions freedom as guardian of the Treaty is protected by the European Court of Justice. Access documents of the EU Institutions and agencies is an effective instrument, but it is used mostly by interest groups and law firms rather than by individual citizens for whom it was intended. If documents are refused, the citizens may appeal to the European Ombudsman or the European Court of First Instance. Currently negotiations are re-starting for the adoption of a new regulation on access to documents. Now is the time to consider ways to make the system more citizen friendly, not just an instrument for lobbies and stakeholders. The Commission handled 5,055 applications in 200930 and the Council 2,66631. Both the annual report of the Commission and that of the Council point to the relatively high number of requests coming from Belgium (over 20%) because of the number of enterprises, law firms, associations and NGOs operating at European level. The breakdown of requests for Council documents puts researchers and academics at the top of the list followed by lawyers and interest groups. Applications from journalists represented only 6%. Individual citizens do not figure as such. Yet, the right of access to documents to the EU Institutions is a significant right backed by clear deadlines for response and a system of appeal. An instrument to bridge the gap with the citizen has failed to do so. Petitions to the European Parliament some 1,924 in 200932 are classified by the Committee as campaign type, influence type (usually in the form of mass petitions or more citizen-oriented, relating to the application of EU law) and individual rights. Selected petitioners are heard in the Petitions Committee (PETI), which can put pressure, but not much else, on the Commission and Member States. The advantage is that everything is public, which is certainly not the case with the Commissions system for handling complaints which lacks transparency. However, there are problems especially with the introduction of electronic petitions, many are insufficient in substance or comprehension according to the annual report of the Committee for 200833. In 2009, 65% petitions were received in electronic form. Requests to the European Ombudsman. Citizens also need advice about the scope and limits of the European Ombudsmans remit about which there is confusion 34 . It is limited to

30

The report is available at http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/access_documents/docs/rapport_2009/COM2010351_EN_ACT_part1_v1.pdf 31 The report is available at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/librairie/PDF/EN_access-2009.pdf 32 Please visit http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/FindByProcnum.do?lang=en&procnum=INI/2009/2139 for more information. 33 The report is available online at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL+PE-418.130+01+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN 34 To access the document, please visit http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/showResource?resourceId=1272294789807_ar_2009_en.pdf&type=pdf&downlo ad=true&lang=en

[22]

maladministration by the European Institutions and does not extend to the Member States when they apply EU law, which is the source of two thirds of complaints received from citizens. On the other hand, the Charter of Fundamental Rights does apply to Member States on issues within EU competence and contains a new right to good administration. This could result in a de facto enlargement of the European Ombudsmans remit working together with his national counterparts. Although the Ombudsmans findings on complaints are not legally binding, his reports carry authority and are generally followed. However, the process takes at least one year. In 2009, the European Ombudsman received 3,098 complaints. The European Citizens Initiative regulation was welcomed with concerns from Civil Society because of its cumbersome requirements (such as signature collection) and the short timeframe for collecting signatures (12 months instead of the 18-24 months proposed by both the European Parliament and civil society organisations). Pilot initiatives showed that it will be extremely difficult for the organisers of an initiative to be successful under the requirements. Although the Commission will provide a contact point for organisers, it has become clear that help and guidance will be needed in several other aspects (see chapter V).

The Charter of Fundamental Rights now becomes legally binding and will generate increasing numbers of complaints about violation of Human Rights. The Lisbon Treaty also provides that the Union should adhere to the European Convention on Human Rights thus strengthening the European architecture for protecting fundamental rights. These developments will lead to an increase in complaints. It will be difficult to meet citizens expectations and explain that the remit of the Charter is narrowly focused on the EU and that it is not a general recipe for all human rights in Europe. However, if citizens recognize the real scope of the Charter it will offer substantial support to enhancing European rights. For the reasons listed above, there is a growing risk of disappointing expectations as official channels at the national and European level are often slow, cumbersome, and fail to solve practical issues. Citizens can find themselves in an impasse, faced with no option but to go to Court or make official complaints for which there is increasing demand. The success of citizens, or more likely groups of citizens, with the use of these official channels is often achieved by combining more than one i.e. a complaint to the European Commission and a petition to the European Parliament and by showing unusual persistence backing up a strong case with good evidence. Therefore, the European Civil Society House will test a new way of approaching European citizen advice and problem-solving which was already recommended by Alain Lamassoure in his report on the European Citizen and Implementation of Community Law. He wonders whether it would not be more efficient and cost-effective in some instances for citizens to share experiences on social media about the best way to overcome obstacles to the exercise of their European rights (i.e. how to get around red tape, appeal or find sources of good advice). At the moment, European information and advice are handled on a one-toone basis between the citizen and a call centre or experts, so the system is not participatory. A more participatory approach is in any case needed when the barriers to free movement become serious and reflect a general administrative malpractice by Member States so that isolated complaints are insufficient. The best possible chance of success for citizens is often to group together and make their voice heard with the European Commission and the European Parliament. [23]

5 key areas
Complaints to the EC Access to documents Petitions to the EP Requests to the Ombudsman Citizens' Initiatives

Citizenhouse. eu
3 ways of interaction
FAQs Discussion forum Helpdesk

The aim of the project is to pioneer the one-stop shop approach towards the EU35 , whereby the citizen finds in one place everything he/she needs, or at least links towards what is needed rather than being sent from one service to the next. Citizenhouse.eu will test the ground for such a one-stop shop by providing citizens with three possibilities: 1. There will be a FAQ section covering all the procedures and the European rights, with a special emphasis on providing examples and good practice cases. In this way, citizens will be better equipped to know where in the EU to take their concerns, and which procedures are best suited to their particular case. A special emphasis will be placed on how to succeed with the new instrument of citizens initiatives which will come into force in early 2012. 2. There will be a discussion forum for testing out European concerns and possible campaigns so that they come together across borders before necessarily rushing individually to the EU36. In case of more serious obstacles, preparatory networking for collective action would give citizens greater weight with the EU and national authorities. Citizens initiatives are a form of collective action which hopefully will spill over and strengthen other procedures.

The European Commission is making progress towards the one-stop shop. There is a long way to go however before there is an EU one-stop shop covering all the different Institutions. The current promotional efforts still give the appearance of a scattered and complex environment in which citizens have to find their way. As the extended briefing note and the relevant annual reports of EU Institutions make clear, the various services which exist are, as a consequence, underused. 36 In a report done for the French Presidency of the Council in 2008, Alain Lamassoure MEP proposed that in this way, citizens could find their own solutions to making Europe work better by sharing experience and knowledge of how to overcome the barriers. The document is available at http://www.alainlamassure.eu/liens/817.pdf .

35

[24]

3. A helpdesk drawing on ECAS experience will provide the necessary back-up. The helpdesk will be provided by ECAS staff with the support of volunteer work. ECAS runs Your Europe Advice (YEA) for the European Commission. YEA handles 10,000 12,000 questions per year in all languages. There will be the possibility of drawing on the multilingual team of 60 legal experts for more difficult questions. The leading law firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer already does pro-bono work for ECAS. Citizenhouse.eu is more to do with problem solving, the next stage after people have studied the possibilities in relation to their issue. Requests for prior information and advice will be directed towards the relevant EU services. The expectation is that the main emphasis will be on design, testing and a launch in 2011. The search should be for good quality requests to be made to the helpdesk rather than quantity. Of a likely 1000 requests, our estimation is that about 10% would require research and back-up from legal experts. After 2011 more resources will be needed for the helpdesk. By creating a clearer focal point and links towards national procedures, the web platform citizenhouse.eu, should increase both the quantity and quality of the use of the CAPRI instruments37.

C3. Citizen Participation

Citizen participation should not only depend on collecting over 1 million signatures. When Margot Wallstrm was in charge of the European Commissions Communication policy, experiments were encouraged under Plan D with citizens summits, consultations, deliberative polling, panels and eparticipation38. It is a paradox that whilst the European Union gives citizens the possibility to defend their interests with a number of community bodies and to take their case to national courts, other channels of communication are weak when it comes to citizens not just defending their rights, but wanting to have a say in European affairs and hold their elected representatives to account. In theory consultation mechanisms are open to ordinary citizens, but the perceived feeling is that they are dominated by more prominent and influential stakeholders. Following a project funded by the Europe for Citizens programme bringing together panels of citizens to discuss these issues, ECAS has published a policy research paper, How the participatory toolbox can make the European Union less remote from citizens.39 This will help to develop the Resource Centre and shape the future activities of the House. The

A separate document on CAPRI is available on ECAS website, http://www.ecas-citizens.eu/content/view/285/295/ For more information, please visit http://ec.europa.eu/archives/debateeurope/index_en.htm 39 To access the document, please visit http://www.ecascitizens.eu/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=652&Itemid= For further information, please consult the Citizens consultation Learning from the past, looking towards the future workshop on the 27th November 2009, organised by the Directorate General for Communication; the Evaluation of Plan D/Debate Europe projects by Eureval, Matrix and Rambll Management; the IFOK GmbH consultation contribution as part of the European CitizensPanels; Danish the INVOLVE publication Governance of the European Research Area: The Role of Civil Society; the booklet Citizens as partners OECD Handbook for governments on information, consultation and public participation in policy-making and Participatory and deliberative methods toolkit. How to connect with citizens - A practitioners manual presented at the EFC annual General Assembly, May 2006 in Brussels.
38

37

[25]

organisation of panEuropean citizen events has been shown to work and should now be placed on a more structured basis. In 2011, a Europe for citizens project called Carrousel will help manage the Virtual House on European citizens rights. Its name comes from an innovative technique for citizen deliberations that will be used throughout the project. Four national level and one European level panels will be organised. They will build up a picture of the virtual ECSH including an integrated help-desk function. The national panels will examine the different instruments for citizens to make their voice heard with the EU: Complaints to the European Commission, Petitions to the European Parliament, Requests to the European Ombudsman, Access to documents as well as the new right of Citizens Initiative. The steps are as follows: Preparatory work is being done by ECAS on contents (preparation of the FAQs covering the 5 instruments, drafts for webpages and links); Toute lEurope, one of the partners in the Carrousel project, will identify a web developer and guide the process of creating the website according to the requirements in the annex. These will be discussed at a partners meeting on 18 April. A further partners meeting with the web developer and the steering group for the European Civil Society House will take place in May to examine first results. The partners will streamline the virtual component during the panels. The creation of the website and help-desk will be announced to the citizens and discussed at the panels, so they will be able to give suggestions on how to make these services more user friendly;

Each of the four national panels will meet for one day examining the one-stop shop and the European Civil Society House as a whole, as shown below:

4.06 Budapest 11.06 Sofia 18.06 Paris 28.06 Warsaw

The partner NIOK will concentrate on access to documents OSI will concentrate on creating a national contact point for Bulgaria Toute l Europe will devote their event to citizens initiatives The Robert Schuman Foundation will give prominence to the role of national and European ombudsmen in defending European rights

[26]

V. Proposal for an awareness raising campaign and helpdesk on citizens initiatives

The Citizens Initiative has its legal basis in Article 11 paragraph 4 of the Treaty of Lisbon: Not less than one million citizens who are nationals of a significant number of Member States may take the initiative of inviting the European Commission, within the framework of its powers, to submit any appropriate proposal on matters where citizens consider that a legal act of the Union is required for the purpose of implementing the Treaties. The regulation on the European Citizens Initiative (EU regulation 211/2011) was officially signed in March 201140, after an intense year of work by the Institutions (notably the European Parliament, which appointed four rapporteurs, two from the Petitions Committee and two from the Constitutional Affairs Committee) and civil society organisations. Before the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon, pilot initiatives were launched as early as in 2006, sometimes breaking the 1 million signatures threshold41. The regulations key components are:

1. The initiative must be within the powers of the European Commission to propose legislation under the Treaties and is not manifestly frivolous or contrary to the Unions values. 2. The organisers must form a citizens committee of at least seven members and designate one representative and one substitute as contact persons. They should, like the future signatories, be citizens of the Union eligible to vote in the European elections. 3. Before collecting signatures, the organisers request registration of the initiative with the Commission using the standard form for this purpose, and annexing further justification and a legal text if they so wish.

40

The regulation is available online at http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:065:0001:0022:EN:PDF 41 In the 2008 Initiative and Referendum Institute (IRI) publication Initiative for Europe. Handbook 2008, Carsten Berg enumerates a total of 20 European Initiatives launched since 2006, three of which received more than one million signatures, namely: the One seat initiative to establish Brussels as the only seat for the EP, the Labelling of Genetically Engineered Food by Greenpeace and the Initiatives of Applied Anthroposophy by Aktion Eliant. For the complete publication, please visit the website http://www.iri-europe.org/en/publications/handbooks/

[27]

4. Within two months the Commission either registers the initiative or rejects it for failing the tests under 1, and informs the organisers of the reasons and of all possible judicial and extrajudicial remedies open to them. 5. The 1 million signatures should come from at least one quarter of the member states. The number of signatures for each member state is equal to the number of members of the European Parliament multiplied by 750. The minimum number for each country is in Annex 1. 6. On registration and throughout the process, organisers must declare and ensure full transparency about their sources of funding. 7. It will be possible to collect signatures on-line for which a certificate has to be obtained or on paper. Organisers face different national procedures for signature registration and verification. Of 27 member states, 18 require an ID or passport number with the signature, 9 do not.42 8. The timeframe for collecting signature certificates and meeting the conditions is limited to 12 months before it is submitted to the Commission. 9. The citizens committee can present the initiative in person to the Commission at an appropriate level and there will be a hearing in the European Parliament. Within 3 months, the Commission will publish a communication setting out its legal and political conclusions and reasons for acting or not doing so. 10. The organisers of citizens initiatives and the authorities are subject to data protection rules to ensure that personal data is only collected for the purpose of the initiative, for no other reason and destroyed thereafter. The organisers are also liable to penalties for any other breach of the regulation, such as fraudulent signatures.

Taking into consideration all the requirements listed above, it emerges that the regulation will set high demands on the organisers of European Citizens Initiatives. During the public hearings organized by different political groups in the European Parliament, the European Commission was requested to provide some advice and help to the organisers of a Citizens Initiative. However, there will be many important issues left aside that could be tackled by setting up an external, independent facility.

The Virtual House will create a Resource Centre with links to Citizens Initiatives on the Europa site, those of other CSOs and think tanks, as well as include the EU regulation and the legislative process in full, background and comments, national examples, European initiatives already tried and academic research.

2011 is a preparatory year, during which several groups will consider preparing an initiative. Independently from the conditions in the regulation, a helpdesk will be needed; without a citizens infrastructure many good ideas
42

The nine are Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Netherlands, Slovakia, Finland and the United Kingdom. ECAS carried out a survey which suggested that there could be resistance from citizens to providing their identity number.

[28]

could fail or never get off the ground or this new instrument will be captured by powerful lobbies rather than genuine citizens interests. The Virtual House will create a resource with links to Citizens Initiatives on the Europa website, those of other CSOs and think tanks, as well as include the EU regulation and the legislative process in full, background and comments, national examples, European initiatives already tried and academic research. This should be backed by a promotional media campaign to raise awareness of the helpdesk. For this, a taskforce is needed. Such a task force should be assembled from two different backgrounds: people with sufficient professional experience on the workings of the EU in fields relevant to the proposed initiative and experts in techniques of direct democracy, organisation of debates, campaigns and fundraising as well as in the collection of signatures face-to-face or online. ECAS sees the task force as a group formed by different organisations and coalitions such as the ECI campaign43 experts and resource centres in direct and participatory democracy.

List of tasks for the helpdesk

The helpdesk task force should be a hands-on accompaniment through all stages of the process.

The Idea Stage

Admissibility of the Initiative

Outreach strategy

Fundraising

Signature collection

Submission of the initiative

Alternatives to Citizens Initiatives

Evaluation and next steps

The idea stage. This is primarily for the organisers. Outside assistance can be brought in to advise on certain aspects such as legal analysis, promotional tools or procedures. Admissibility of the initiative. The helpdesk should give an opinion on whether the initiative proposed is in the legal competence of the European Union and Treaty articles which will be cited as a basis. Help with drafting may be necessary to meet the requirements of meeting EU legislative criteria. Outreach strategy. The helpdesk may be a useful sounding board for testing ideas about motivating existing networks or setting up new ones to collect signatures. Advice on media and communication strategy and external support can also be useful. In particular, the helpdesk should

43

For more information, please visit www.citizens-initiative.eu

[29]

assist with adding contacts in countries where the organisers have none or where they are too weak to deliver a significant number of signatures. Fundraising. This is likely to be the main issue for most genuine Citizens Initiatives. Fundraising can be targeted at a large number of objectives, such as help with translation and dissemination, organising public debates, supporting the work of volunteers, and so on. The helpdesk itself should be prepared to do fundraising for the organisers. Signature collection. The helpdesk should draw in different kinds of expertise. For example, there are those who can assist the organisers in making sure that the signature collection techniques - face-to-face or online - meet the national and European criteria, so that the initiative is not rejected on procedural grounds when verification of signatures takes place. Submission of the initiative. There is no doubt that the organisers, especially if they are not already established in Brussels, will need advice and support at this stage. This could mean for example: sustaining efforts to make sure that the right decision-makers in the Institutions know about the Initiative, organising an awareness raising event in Brussels, establishing contacts with European associations and so on. Alternatives to Citizens Initiatives. Article 11 of the Treaty is a fine instrument giving citizens the chance to debate, form coalitions across borders and not just react to the EU, but propose to the EU in their own terms. However, this is not always an achievable aim. The danger is that the organisers and the EU Institutions start to see collecting over 1 million signatures as a sine qua non and then create considerable disappointment. One of the most valuable tasks for a helpdesk would be to help manage expectations and possibly advise on alternative ways to get an issue on the EU agenda. In the case of initiatives already launched and not meeting their objective, the helpdesk should also advise about the possibility of appeal to the European Ombudsman or the Court of First Instance if it can be shown that the Commission is guilty of maladministration in its treatment of the Initiative. Evaluation and next steps. The work load involved in collecting over 1 million signatures is not to be underestimated. In order to help the organisers, its own future work and others taking up this challenge, an evaluation of the steps taken up to the submission of the initiative and the reaction to it is essential. In this way, know-how can be accumulated for future Citizens Initiatives. Evaluation is also necessary so that lessons are learned by EU decision-makers when the regulation is open for revision 3 years after its entry into force.

The issues of support by the Commission and the other institutions on one hand and ideas for a civil society house helpdesk on the other were discussed at the ECAS Conference on 17 March 201144.

44

To access the documents from the conference, please visit http://www.ecas-citizens.eu/content/view/375/1/

[30]

VI. Survey results

On 11 April 2011, a total of 596 respondents had completed the survey in either English or French. 63 different nationalities were registered, with the totality of the European Union covered. The combined statistics of the two versions of the questionnaire are here displayed, based on answered questions; unanswered questions are not taken into consideration. The average respondent profile was of a EU national (81%) frequently (41%) or full-time (29%) involved in European affairs. Results show that there are minor differences in the importance granted to Civil Society Development (most important for the 48 % of the respondents), Citizens rights and better enforcement (49%) and Citizen Participation (50%). A convergence of answers about the key features of the Physical (PH) and Virtual (VH) Houses is highlighted. Respondents underlined that the ECSH should: provide advice about European citizens rights (54% VH, 48% PH) for the enforcement of Citizens Rights; be a meeting place between citizens and the EU institutions to reinforce dialogue and results (51% VH, 54% PH) for enhancing Citizen Participation; offer European funding advice and assistance with filling in applications (49% VH, 48% PH) for Civil Society Development as well as foster European Coalition Building for projects and advocacy in its virtual components (49% VH).

Finally, the ECSH received an overall 93% approval rate. 94% of the respondents have asked to be kept informed about the future developments of the house, and 75% have shown active interest in collaborating for its setup.

[31]

Q1. Respondents by country

9% 10% EU 27

Wider Europe; Accession and Potential Accession Candidate Countries, EES) 81% Rest of the World

Q2. What is the extent of your own and/or your organizations involvement in European Affairs?

8% 29% 22% Full time Frequent In-Frequent Never 41%

[32]

Q3. In what order of importance would you rank the following 3 subjects?

49.65% Citizen Participation and initiatives 14.71% 35.64%

Citizens rights and better enforcement 17.63%

33.16%

49.21% 1 - most important 2 - important 3 - least important

48.19% Civil Society Development and the EU 21.17% 30.64%

Q4. Which of the following services would you consider most important to have available online in the Virtual House? C1. Civil Society Development:
49.41% European Coalition building for projects and advocacy 35.43% 15.16% 1 - most important 42.83% 27.90% 2 - important 3 - least important 48.83% European funding advice and assistance with filling in applications 33.66% 17.51%

29.27% Lobbying the EU Institutions and promotion of your organization

[33]

Q5. C2. Citizens' Rights:

30.22% Researching and campaigning on generic issues such as application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights 42.15% 27.63%

33.86% Helping formulate complaints and following them up with the European Commission 40.79% 25.35%

1 - most important 2 - important 3 - least important

54.16% Advice about European citizens rights and civil liberties for NGOs and Individuals 33.27% 12.57%

Q6. C3. Citizen Participation:

38.66% Support for the promoters of citizens initiatives under article 11 of the Lisbon Treaty 38.26% 23.08%

51.27% A meeting place between citizens and the EU institutions to reinforce dialogue and results 35.09% 13.65%

1 - most important 2 - important 3 - least important

37.65% Providing advice and a clearing house on citizens deliberations and citizens initiatives 41.37% 20.98%

[34]

Q7. Which of the following services would you consider most important to have available face to face in the physical House in Brussels? C1. Civil Society Development:
39.87% 42.24% 17.89% 1 - most important 2 - important 3 - least important

European Coalition building for projects and advocacy

Lobbying the EU Institutions and promotion of your organization

32.33% 39.61% 28.05%

48.10% European funding advice and assistance with filling in applications 32.28% 19.62%

Q8. C2. Citizens' Rights:

23.68% Researching and campaigning on generic issues such as application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights 39.47% 36.84%

38.41% Helping formulate complaints and following them up with the European Commission 38.86% 22.73%

1 - most important 2 - important 3 - least important

48.19% Advice about European citizens rights and civil liberties for NGOs and Individuals 35.52% 16.29%

[35]

Q9. C3. Citizen Participation:

30.74% Support for the promoters of citizens initiatives under article 11 of the Lisbon Treaty 34.42% 34.85%

53.93% A meeting place between citizens and the EU institutions to reinforce dialogue and results 34.28% 11.79%

1 - most important 2 - important 3 - least important

33.41% Providing advice and a clearing house on citizens deliberations and citizens initiatives 41.43% 25.17%

Q10.What would be the most important facility at the physical Civil Society House in Brussels?
Resource centre on Civil Society in Europe 10% 30% 18% Bringing together a group of European associations to share premises and facilities Providing a desk and a fully equipped office for visiting organizations 17% 11% Meeting room facilities for NGOs and citizens Training courses

14%

Other

For other, please see Infra (point 1.1)

[36]

Q11. What aspect of this project in your opinion would be most advantageous for the EU Institutions seeking to improve access for citizens?
Resource centre on civil society with a database of organizations which can be consulted or invited to events 46% Support to citizens so that their requests and complaints are better directed and easier to handle An intermediary organization to support citizens initiatives (the 1 million signatures) and citizens deliberations Other (please specify)

3% 24%

27%

For other, please see infra (point 1.2)

Q12. Do you think it is a good idea to create a European Civil Society House?
3.22% 4.08%

Yes No N/A 92.70%

[37]

Q13. Would you like to be kept informed of future developments on this project?

6%

Yes No

94%

Q14 Would you like to become actively involved and discuss possible cooperation or partnership with us?

25%

Yes No 75%

[38]

1.1 Supplement to question 10. In what order do you rank the following facilities offered in the Physical House? Free comments.
a. Coordination, networking and debate

A social or networking space, especially to bring together like-minded people who might not otherwise meet and engage. Le bureau ne devra pas que accueillir mais tre en connexion Internet permanente avec tous les services de l'UE tant sur le territoire belge que dans tous les pays de l'UE ce qui sous-entend, qu'une maison virtuelle doit tre installe dans chaque pays, pas uniquement a Bruxelles. Networking with other European NGOs and Development Agencies. To work with other NGO outside EU countries, especially in third-world countries. Establishing communications and networks of NGOs from all over Europe to synchronize efforts and measures to advance and further develop civic rights, liberties, participation etc.

b. Advice and Support

Advice centre of for certain association areas, such as Fundraising, PR etc. Helping organizations in small towns. (Education and equipment) Helping small organizations to their capacity building. It should give priority to legitimate NGOs which do not have yet offices in Brussels!

c. Relationship with the EU Institutions and with EU Member States

An office for NGOs representing the country of the rotating Presidency of the EU. Giving proposals to the Member States for systematic use of the possibilities which the EU makes available. Provide meeting places with European employees and R&D project implementers to understand how to help them develop and implement projects in a consistent manner, i.e. facilitate implementation. To be able to provide opportunity for the NGO's representatives to represent the group in EU meetings.

d. Resources and information centre

Bulletin d'change d'information + 3 sances annuelles d'change d'information sur les sujets de plaidoyer, les collaborations entre Organisations de la socit civile et l'Etat de lieu du dossier. European Civil Society Library, Consultancy Centre for European Funding. Informer sur les directives qui ont des consquences pour les associations et fondations. Lecturing - Meeting point where academics and citizens dialogue with each other; Political scientists, Sociologists, Anthropologists; Philosophers, Environmental scientist etc. providing citizens and organizations with first-hand information of academic research and ideas. This could be done in collaboration with various European Universities and academic organizations. The spirit should be it is never too late to learn something. Being well informed before one voices his or her opinion. Resource centre on research and social action that takes place in each member state to allow common initiatives. Sharing best practices and lesson learned.

[39]

e. Relationship with citizens

Meeting rooms we can find anywhere, the house in Brussels should be a very strong representative house of the citizens, not an info point!!! Should be staffed walk-in resource centre which can make citizens welcome and provide study facilities and support. Organize study tours.

1.2 Supplement to question 12. Do you think it is a good idea to create a ECSH? Free comments.
a. Role of the ESCH in the civil society landscape

Civil society is a very broad term and we would be keen to ensure that the voice of local voluntary and community action is best supported as it can often be lost amongst the big players of civil society. If this is about changing cultures and supporting participation rather than being a club for specific interests then this is key. Excellent idea, also because in the majority of cases CSOs are now represented through the different platforms like Concord and many organizations are excluded. It is crucial to make the European Civil Society House a house for the emerging European Civil Society. If, on the contrary, it becomes a house for the national civil societies and their umbrella organizations, it could - potentially - do more harm than good. Its important it to have a proactive role. It should be a real added value and coordination between all existing civil society voicing expertise or similar initiatives. It would be a good opportunity to share experiences and learn by each other best practice in order to strengthen the Civil Society. La Maison de la Socit Civile doit trouver une place originale et complmentaire dans le paysage, dj important, des organisations en faveur de la socit civile a Bruxelles. Il me semble important que la Maison puisse russir a dsenclaver la socit civile actuelle qui reste une Elite et qui est encore identifie par les "simples citoyens" comme une Elite proche des "technocrates" et dputes "de Bruxelles". It would be important that this Civil Society House is not a monolithic institution that crowds out other civil society initiatives. Careful attention would have to be paid to its representativeness, transparency and independence, especially the latter if it is to be funded throughout the EU budget. Such a house could considerably contribute to strengthening of common European identity, citizenship, values and spirit. It could launch even operative projects and programme in this field, undertake joint campaigns; it could be co-funded by not only EU but by all European countries, even symbolically. Voluntary activities should be stressed more as a means and an expression of European active citizenship in the concept of the House. Yes, as long as it is open to organizations based outside Brussels and especially on the periphery of the EU.

b. Relationship with the EU Institutions

I think it is important that the Civil Society House builds links with the EU representations in each member state and in third countries. Several Member States are turning their EC representations into 'Europe Houses' with the idea of welcoming civil society and citizens more into their space, and moreover the representations often do not know where to direct citizens and civil society which come to them with questions about funding, about campaigning, about creating partnerships with other organizations.

[40]

It is the first project aimed at streamlining the participation of the European citizens in the formulation of EU policies and at helping the same citizens of making full profit of their rights. Only if it is a support center for citizens who are interested in engaging with the EU and not another Brussels-based umbrella body for civil society/NGOs. The Initiative with the European Civil Society House is a very promising one and the public citizens really need to be more involved in the decision making process.

c. Virtual and Physical Houses

Both physical European Civil Society House and virtual European Civil Society Web Platform should be developed as to avoid geographically limiting access to the global project. The fact that a physical place exists can help enormously to focus the attention on the issue The House shall have a small (if any) staff but very clear functions and rules. It shall be easily accessible and open for even small organizations and citizen groups. Un centre physique avec quelqu'un de comptant en face de nous pour nous expliquer n'est un projet qu'on peut considrer comme une trs ingnieuse ide.

[41]

VII. Conclusions and next steps

Continuing the survey work

Creating the Virtual House

Helpdesk on Citizens' Initiative

Looking for a coordinator

A sound basis exists for setting up a European Civil Society House, since the European Parliament has created a budget line for this purpose. Thanks to grants from the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust45, ECAS has been able to do exploratory work through several meetings and a survey in 2009-2010. The results of the survey are encouraging. 93% of people that participated like the idea, and the different activities foreseen under the 3Cs civil society, citizens rights and citizen participation score rather equally. What stands out is the support for the Virtual House which would be accessible from anywhere in the Union and the idea of a user friendly resource centre for civil society and the Institutions alike. The results of the survey and some of the individual comments go in a similar direction to that of some MEPs during the budgetary procedure in 2009 who warned against the house being too centralised in Brussels. There is also considerable political support which has yet to become an organized critical mass to realise an ambitious vision. As one respondent to the survey put it, Such a house could considerably contribute to strengthening of common European identity, citizenship, values and spirit. It could launch even operative projects and programme in this field, undertake joint campaigns; it could be co-funded by not only EU but by all European countries, even symbolically. We call the European Civil Society House a win-win scheme for citizens and the EU Institutions because over time the European Civil Society House will increase citizen engagement with the EU. An increase in the number of petitions and complaints will provide the EU with more feedback of citizens concerns and evidence of where European law is not working well. Citizens have more European rights than they imagine but there is a gap when it comes to enforcement, which they and the EU Institutions have an evident interest in closing. The EU Institutions would benefit from more collective cross-border rather than scattered individual complaints; in turn this will strengthen the citizen position. Finally, if
45

For more information, please visit http://www.jrct.org.uk/

[42]

access to the EU is free and quick, follow-up is cumbersome and slow. The helpdesk should develop a follow up role to chase up the Institutions and follow-up complaints on behalf of citizens at different geographical levels. A daunting task! With this type of venture, there is an element of unpredictability. For example, suitable premises might be found near the EU Institutions next month or not until next year. In opting for a first launch of the Virtual European Civil Society House on a specific theme, it will be easier to predict and keep costs under control. In the annex IV, technical requirements for citizenhouse.eu are described. The basic plan for 2011 is as follows: Continue with the survey and gathering of proposals by creating a forum of all people involved so far; Look for a full-time coordinator for the European Civil Society House project; Create the prototype of the Virtual House through the Carrousel project; Start to build an online resource centre with material on EU funds, social innovation and citizen participation; Create the helpdesk on citizens rights to encourage a more collective approach to enforcement as well as a helpdesk on Citizens Initiatives; Make a start with encouraging National Contact Points, for example in Hungary and Poland, the countries holding the Council Presidency in 2011.

Some aspects of the plan for 2011 reflect priorities revealed by the survey, such as the idea of a resource centre, others follow more the timetable and the priorities seen from the perspective of the EU such as creating the helpdesk on Citizens Initiatives.

Looking for a coordinator

The creation of the European Civil Society House moves in 2011 from a conceptual to an operational phase. To support this process, a fulltime coordinator will be recruited. This person will be responsible for making a success of the first examples of what the European Civil Society House will do, whilst at the same time furthering the development of the project as a whole. The coordinator will work closely with ECAS Director and have the following functions: Assist the work of the steering committee by preparing its meetings and following them up; Recruit and oversee the work of volunteers. Ensure that there is continuity from one project to the next and that results are maximised and put to practical use; [43]

Keep the web platform up to date and actively promote the development on social networks and with the media; Promote the website in order to keep the instrument alive and functioning.

[44]

Annex I. Mapping exercise.

Answers sites
Just Answer (http://www.justanswer.com/). US-based pay-per-use e-answer site. Users can ask questions in over 100 categories to experts via email, text message, or as notification on the site. Yahoo! Answer (http://answers.yahoo.com/). Free Community-driven question-andanswer (Q&A) site launched by Yahoo! that allows users to both submit questions to be answered and answer questions asked by other users. The site gives members the chance to earn points as a way to encourage participation. Yahoo! Answers is available in twelve languages. Answers.com (http://www.answers.com/). Answers.com is a Q&A website, which includes Wiki Answers and Reference Answers. It generates monthly more than 56 million visitors in the USA and 83.0 million worldwide. WikiAnswers is an adsupported website where knowledge is shared freely in the form of questions and answers. Anyone can ask a question and anyone from anywhere in the world can answer it. This sharing of knowledge in turn becomes part of a permanent information resource. Each question has a "living" answer, which is edited and improved over time by the WikiAnswers.com community. WikiAnswers.com uses an Alternates System where every answer can have dozens of different Questions that "trigger" it. When a Contributor asks a question similar to an existing one, the system connects the question to it as an "alternate". This prevents duplicate entries in an effort to promote cohesive answers and a better user experience. Answer bag (http://www.answerbag.com/). Answer bag is a collaborative online database of FAQs, where questions are asked and answered by users. Instead of the one questionone answer model, multiple answers to a given question are presented, in descending order of user ratings. A user who has created an account can ask and answer questions, comment on answers, rate questions and answers, and suggest new categories. Users can rate both questions and answers by giving positive or negative points, from plus or minus 1 for beginners, to plus or minus 6 for very experienced users. Through their contributions to the site, users can "level up" and earn the right to give or take away more points from other users' questions and answers. Users can also accumulate points by flagging questions and answers as "Wrong Category", "Nonsense", "Spam/Offensive", and "Duplicate.

[45]

Directgov.co.uk (http://www.direct.gov.uk/). Directgov is the UK government's digital service for people in England and Wales. It delivers information and practical advice about public services, bringing them all together in one place. Directgov is accessible on the web, on mobile phones or on the television. LinkedIn answer (http://www.linkedin.com/answers/). Q&A Service available in five languages. Like Yahoo! Answers, it allows everyone to become an expert through an answer rating system. The Community is composed of professional experts whose profile is available on the LinkedIn platform.

Citizens advice online

Europe Direct (http://ec.europa.eu/europedirect/write_to_us/mailbox/index_en.htm). General information about EU matters in any of the official EU languages as well as practical information on different subjects: for example, how to get qualifications recognised or how to complain about unsafe products. Citizens Advice International (http://www.citizensadvice-international.org/). Citizens Advice International is an umbrella organisation enabling a global fast growing network of Citizens Advice Bureaux and other information and advice services to identify, share, apply and promote the best practices in empowering people to exercise their rights and in shaping social policy making. They attend 7 million questions a year. Community legal advice (http://www.communitylegaladvice.org.uk/ ). This website offers free, confidential and independent legal advice for residents of England and Wales.

Virtual communities with potential for civil society empowerment

Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/). Facebook is an online social platform which can help co-workers share documents and ideas. It is used within major companies for developing online collaboration. Twitter (http://twitter.com/). Micro-blogging site which allows constant updates on a variety of topics. It is widely used in journalism and by civil society platforms.

E-Democracy and Participation

[46]

e-Practice (http://ePractice.eu/) is a portal created by the European Commission. It is an interactive initiative that empowers its users to discuss and influence open government, policy-making and the way in which public administrations operate and deliver services. Civil Society Network web portal of UN (http://esango.un.org/irene/). A web portal devoted to non-governmental organizations and to members of United Nations agencies, funds and programmes in order to share and promote best practices in the field of economic and social development, as well for the purpose of establish collaborative development solutions and partnerships among these groups. e-Participate (http://www.eparticipate.eu/). It enables accessible and transparent communication between government and citizens through a cost-effective multimedia webcasting system. The system is now being launched in 8 Member States. PloneGov (http://www.plonegov.org). This initiative is a collaborative software ecosystem, where government organizations, non-profits and the private sector work together to share the cost of enhanced capabilities. The project currently has its centre of gravity in Europe and spans over 4 continents reaching more than 20 countries. Buitenbeter (http://springwise.com/government/buitenbeter/). A mobile phone based application to enhance citizens dialogue with the local government in Dordrecht, Netherlands. e-Response, Dordrecht town hall (http://cms.dordrecht.nl/). The public administration in the city of Dordrecht provides the citizens with a code (ticket) in order to enable them to follow the status of their applications, inquiries, documents and so on. SIMAC (http://www.gva.es). SIMAC (Integral and Multi-Channel Citizen Service System, Valencia, Spain) is a project that includes several performance lines in order to achieve intelligent, interconnected, integrated, efficient and high quality administration focused on the citizen. It receives more than 10 million information requests annually through its different channels. PIC (http://www.pic.si/). The Legal informational Centre for NGOs in Slovenia aims to Build NGO capacity by providing legal expert support, increasing NGOs knowledge on public participation mechanisms and raising awareness on the importance of public participation in public affairs. Momentum (http://www.ep-momentum.eu/) The project aims to monitor the existing and on coming e-participation projects co-funded by European Commission, to consolidate their results and provide feedback to them and to the respective EC bodies and other designated stakeholders, advancing the high-level political and [47]

institutional engagement. Their goals include promoting the output of European Union eParticipation projects and initiatives towards stakeholders in the various member states and internationally, processing and disseminating the results and achievements of the projects in a way that citizens can understand, interact with the projects as well as utilising their already developed networking and knowledge management infrastructures. The project consortium consists of 5 partners from 4 different EU member states, bringing together the innovative know-how of academic and research institutions, the deployment capabilities of the IT industry and the administrative experience of highly specialized consulting firms. Twenty initiatives have been included so far in the project.

Virtual/physical houses
Mundo-b (http://www.mundo-b.org/). Mundo-B is a key focal for environment and development NGOs lobbying the European Parliament and Commission. The centre provides for 25 organisations as well as shared facilities including six meeting rooms, a conference suite with translation booths, social cafe, reception, garden and storage as well as space for 200 workstations for NGOs and charities in the city. The Hub (http://brussels.the-hub.net/public/). Award-winning incubator for social innovation. It offers access to collaborative work and meeting spaces for entrepreneurs and people with imaginative ideas. House for Democracy and Human Rights, Berlin (http://www.hausderdemokratie.de/). The House of Democracy and Human Rights is a workplace for creation and implementation of the civil and human rights, bringing dozens of associations and NGOs under one roof. It organizes seminars, exhibitions, conferences around the topics of democracy and human rights. It also serves as a temporary workspace for visiting associations. House of Democracy and the Rule of Law, The Hague (http://www.democratierechtsstaat.nl/). The house for Democracy and the Rule of Law will be an independent foundation in the Hague aiming to involve people in issues like the Constitution, the history of Dutch democracy, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Europe, law and human rights through simulations, visits, tours, debates, exhibitions and courses. It will be operative in 2014.

E-petition sites
Number 10 Downing Street (http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/). E-petitions website that allows UK citizens to send their petitions to the British Prime Minister. [48]

E-petition, European Parliament (https://www.secure.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/public/petition/secured/submi t.do?language=EN). EU citizens can submit their petition to the European Parliament on a secured website. Causes (www.causes.com). Causes was founded in 2007 as an online advocacy and fundraising application within Facebook, which is the world's largest online social network. Causes is the world's largest platform for activism with 100 million installed users and $25 million raised for nonprofits. The platform enables users to create grassroots groups that take action on a social issue or support a specific non-profit organization. These groups, individually called a "cause," are building blocks for most activity on the site. Avaaz (http://www.avaaz.org/). Avaaz.org is an international civic organization established in 2007 that promotes activism on issues such as climate change, human rights, and religious conflicts. Its stated mission is to "ensure that the views and values of the world's people inform global decision-making." The organization operates in thirteen languages, and claims more than five million members worldwide. Avaaz together with Greenpeace collected over one million signatures for GMO ban in Europe, becoming the first organization to potentially meet the requirements for a Citizens Initiative.

[49]

Annex II. Calendar of past meetings

04.12.2009 19.01.2010

04.02.2010 25-26.02.2010 12.03.2010 24.03.2010 08.05.2010 27.05.2010 02.06.2010 09.06.2010 01.07.2010 07.09.2010 22.06.2010 03.11.2010 09.02.2011 16.03.2011 17.03.2011

First meeting open to the public on the European Civil Society House Presentation of the report of the high level panel Mind the Gap: towards a better enforcement of European Citizens rights to free movement Meeting with the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust Citizens panel on participatory democracy at the EU level: final event Participation in NCVO meeting for the European network of National Associations Meeting with the Danish Board of Technology and Realdania Foundation Stand for the European Civil Society House at Europe Day First meeting of the steering group Meeting hosted by Jean Lambert, MEP, in the European Parliament Meeting with the civil society contact group ECAS General Assembly and open discussion on the European Civil Society House Meeting in the European Parliament and Helpdesk for MEPs (Strasbourg) Meeting in Strasbourg with MEPs ECAS Conference Mind the gap: towards a better enforcement of European citizens rights of free movement Steering group for ECSH Informal brainstorming meeting about helpdesks for European Citizens Initiatives (ECI) ECAS Conference on citizens initiatives

[50]

Annex III. Steering Group Members.

Carsten Berg

Journalist Director of the Initiative for the European Citizens Initiative www.citizensinitiative.eu Representative to the EU/Media Relations, Initiative and Referendum Institute Europe

Joseph Carew Project Manager, European Platform for National Non-Profit Umbrella Organisations and for National Associations of General Interest (CEDAG)

Monica Frassoni

Former President of the European Coordinating Bureau of Youth' NGOs. Former advisor on institutional issues, internal rules and immunity fighting for a democratic constitution of the European Union by championing the cause of European citizenship and fundamental rights. Member of the European Parliament (1999-2009) Former Co-President of the Green/EFA Group in the EP, together with Daniel Cohn-Bendit (until 2009). Member of the Conference of Presidents.

Marc Hoessels

Deloitte Partner with focus on Tax Management Consulting Advisor for companies with setting up their business plan, assisting with the finding the financing and the right business partners EU Commission tenders specialist in the field of VAT EU Directive implementation as well as the harmonization of the e-invoicing throughout Europe. Member of the OECD working group regarding the use of the Standard Audit File for Tax [51]

Assya Kavrakova

Director of the European Policies and Civic Participation Program at the Open Society Institute Sofia Former Public Policies and Outreach Director at the Democracy Network Program (DemNet) of the United States Agency for International Development. Former Executive Director of Transparency without Borders Association, the national branch office of Transparency International.

Laetitia Sedou (observer)

Coordinator of the Civil Society Contact Group

Dr. Stefan Schepers

former director general of the European Institute of Public Administration, Partner EPPA Stefan Schepers concentrates on facilitating convergence between public policy and business strategy to create win-win outcomes for both the private and the general interest.

Corinna Schulze

Governmental Programs Executive IBM Europe, Middle East and Africa

Rachel Sheppard (observer)

Parliamentary Assistant to Jean Lambert MEP

Malachy Vallely

Specialist in NGOs management Former president of CICEB (now EUNIC Brussels) the umbrella organisation for national cultural institutes with a permanent presence in Belgium. [52]

Former president of the Europe of Cultures Forum which promotes respect for cultural diversity. Honorary treasurer of the Vlaamse Volksport Centrale.

Philip Weiss

Director, ZN, eCommunications agency for global organisations. Devising online strategy for European HQ.

Christelle Werquin Head of partnerships and Communication of the French Internet media for European policies Touteleurope.eu

Richard Wilson

Founder and director of Involve (www.involve.co.uk) He has designed and delivered 100's of public engagement programmes for governments and businesses across the world including: the European Commission, the BBC, most UK government departments, the French treasury and the State of California. Creator or IZWE, online tool for e participation (http://izwe.us/)

[53]

Annex IV. Technical requirements for citizenhouse.eu

For the setup of the Virtual House, ECASs strategy will be focussed on three actions: 1. Build on the results of the ZN website mock-up; 2. Give the House an overall one-stop shop feeling; 3. Maintain a similar approach while designing the content of each one of the five instruments. The website will be developed bearing in mind that the average user is aware to some extent of European procedures and in the spirit of not reduplicating existent platforms, but rather guiding the user to the right instrument through an interactive approach. 1. Build on the results of the ZN website mock-up In 2010, ECAS partnered with an e-strategy company, ZN, to create a mock-up of the house available at www.citizenhouse.eu. This pilot project was useful to gather a first insight into different models and methods, from which ECAS will retain: - The look and feel of the website, that is to say, its branding and structure; - The overall helpdesk design. As shown in the mock-up, a helpdesk will be available as overarching structure. It is important to recognize that the ZN pilot covered the project as a whole, but it can inspire this more narrowly focussed approach. 2. Give the House an overall one-stop shop feeling As stated above, the focus will be put on promoting a one-stop shop feeling, where different functions and instruments are easy to browse and use. More in detail, the website will feature: - A meta engine built on the page will recollect relevant information found on the website and external platforms through search engine optimization (SEO), giving the user the possibility to explore more results both within and outside the Virtual House. - A toolbar will be available on each page. Through this toolbar, it will be possible to browse a topic both vertically (in the same section) and horizontally (in different instruments).

[54]

3. Maintain a similar approach while designing the content of each one of the five instruments. 3. The website will be a comprehensive resource on the five different instruments for citizens and Civil Society Organizations (CAPRI) to interact with European and national institutions: Complaints to the European Commission; Access to documents; Petitions to the European Parliament: Requests to the European ombudsman; Citizens Initiatives. It will be possible to access the five different sections of the Virtual House directly (by clicking on the corresponding link). Every instrument will be presented with a short description. Case studies and links to Europa and national sites will be made available. It will be a feature of the website to link European instruments and the equivalent national ones to the maximum extent possible. 1. The FAQ section will be easy to browse by inserting key words into the toolbar. A wide choice of keywords will we made in order to optimize the results. Should it be the case, the engine will also display results from the discussion forum, thus avoiding posting already answered questions. 2. A major transversal feature of the Virtual House will be the networking aspect. This will work both actively (by taking part in the social network, www.citizenhouse.ning.com launched in an earlier stage of the project) and passively through Social Media Optimisation (SMO). Content and users will be put in correlation through RSS feeds, social news and sharing buttons, user rating and polling tools. Suggestions for each users (both content and user wise) will be available when browsing according to its search history on the website. Transoperability of the different components will be guaranteed. The issues of confidentiality and liability will be treated according to legislation. 3. The ask a question/discussion forum will be open to both citizens and CSOs, in the fashion of a community driven question-and-answer (Q&A) site. In this section, users will be allowed to post and tag their requests. Answers will be rated by the community, making the most exhaustive ones appear on the top of the page. The content will be moderated by a legal expert in order to avoid false or misleading answers. The community will also be allowed to flag incorrect or inappropriate answers and report them to the webmaster. 4. The helpdesk will be accessible remotely via email, Skype, fax and telephone. It will predominantly provide answers to concrete questions regarding content, but also cover more technical questions. Skype is a good way to reduce the gap between ecommunication and face-to-face. It will be important to build in assurance of confidentiality and data protection.

[55]

77, Avenue de la Toison dOr B-1060 Brussels Belgium Tel: +32 2 548 04 90 Fax: +32 2 548 04 99 Email: info@ecas.org Website: http://www.ecas-citizens.eu/