Europe for Citizens 2014-2020Background information for discussion

EESC Liaison Group, Brussels, 20.04.2012

____SOC/458 – Opinion of the European Econmic and Social Committee

on COM(2011) 884 final – 2011/0436 (APP)

Andris GobiņšRapporteur, Member of the EESC, Group III

President of the European Movement - Latvia

Content

1. Basic info and timetable 2. Working methods 3. EC aims4. EESC opinion ideas5. Detailed comments

1.1. People in charge

President Gintaras Morkis, EESC Group 1

Draft document prepared by :

Andris Gobins (Rapporteur)andris.gobins@eesc.europa.eu, gobins@web.de

Diana Potjomkina (Expert) info@eiropaskustiba.lv

1.2. Draft timetable

1. 20 April – EESC Liaison Group2. 3 May – Hearing and 1st Study group3. 29 May – 2nd study group 4. 27 June – Section 5. 11, 12 July – Plenary Session

6. 10 May – Debate/examination by Council7. EP draft report in July8. 09 October – EP CULT 1st/single reading

2. Working methods: transparency and involvement

1. Interaction with CSOs and other partners2. Invitation to participate in Study Group

meetings3. Public hearing and hopefully its web-stream,4. Feeding in via Expert or Rapporteur and

others5. Exchange with CSOs, members of EESC,

MEPs and employees of the EC, to get the best possible quality and impact

3.1. EC aims

The programme consists of two strands:1 "Remembrance and European citizenship"2 "Democratic engagement and civic

participation"(3) Valorisation actions

Actions, implemented on a transnational level or with a clear European dimension

3.2. Objectives I

• Citizens' meetings, town-twinning• Creation and operations of transnational

partnerships and networks• Support for organisations of a general European

interest • Community building and debates on citizenship

issues based on the use of ICT and/or social media• Union level events• Debates/studies and interventions on defining

moments in European history, in particular to keep the memory alive of the crimes committed under Nazism and Stalinism

3.3. Objectives II

• Reflection/debates on common values• Initiatives to raise awareness on the EU

institutions and their functioning• Actions that exploit and further valorise the

results of the supported initiatives• Studies on issues related to citizenship and

civic participation• Support to programme information/advice

structures in the Member States

4.1. Ideas for EESC opinion I

1.1 strong support for programme and aim 1.2. recommendations and amendments for further

improvements – with aim: closer to citizens1.3 EU institutions, all levels involved have

difficulties with legitimacy (including national, regional, local)

1.4 Articles 10 and 11 are keys, ECI only one step1.5 A package of EU homework necessary in parallel 1.6 Links with other programmes good – though

lacks links to ENP and others

4.2 Ideas for EESC opinion II

1.7 vertical dialogue & horizontal dialogue needed1.8 sustainable, meaningful and structured

opportunities and funding, especially at EU and national level

1.9 widening of remembrance part is good – special focus on Nazi and totalitarian communism up till European reunification

1.10 high importance of annual action programmes – risks for long term goals

1.11 Involvement of EESC and (!) Committee of Regions representatives & structural dialogue partners in steering committee

1.12 two-stage project evaluation system needed

4.3. Ideas for EESC opinion III

2.1 Long list of articles to be mentioned somewhere: LES 10, 11. 15, CoFR: 39, 11 (freedom of speech and freedom of information), 12 (freedom of assembly and freedom of association), the 41 (right to good administration), 20. to 26. legal defense, and others.

2.2 National and local level has to be kept in mind and funded as well –if EU related project –no demand of partners for them

2.3 administrative grants incl. for "watchdog" organizations

includedincluded

4.4. Ideas for EESC opinion II

2.4. widening of rememberance is good2.5 The "Town twinning" involving the public, not

just the officials. Special support for new partnerships, particularly East-West.

2.6 EY 2013 results to be continued2.7 Links to ENP and development necessary,

overlaps with others to avoid2.8 coordinated information needed2.9 coordination between the various European

Commission Directorates-General

5.1. Detailed comments I

Financial aspects3.1 shifts from other programmes if not used there3.2 against discrimination of smaller and poorer

organizations – minimum amounts and co-financing, amount of partners, EU issues in the centre, administrative burden, EUR 80 000 as average project for participation projects,

3.3 Special support for less supportive member state civil society

3.4 eligibility of volunteer work as co-financing.3.5 inclusion of former JiA Youth Initiative projects

5.2. Detailed comments II

Programme management and administration3.6 decentralized administration for smallest projects3.7 CoR, EESC & structured dialogue partners in

programme steering committee 3.8 reducing the role of annual action programme,

short-term and campaign type events3.9 civil society to determine own annual priorities3.10 two phase project evaluation system needed

(resistance from Agency)3.11 Reduce agency costs (now about 11%) 3.12 focal points in all programme countries needed

5.3. Detailed comments III

Efficiency, sustainability and return on investment of resources

3.13 long term and sustainable results are necessary

3.14 legislative impact should be envisaged (to get LES 11 alive a.o.m.)

3.15 Increased operational grants, focusing on EU and national level (ensuring institutional memory, quality etc.) & lower minimum amount or longer period

3.16 more funds to avoid disappointment.

Thank you! Looking forward for a close and fruitful

cooperation.

Diāna Potjomkina (Expert)

info@eiropaskustiba.lv Andris Gobiņš (Rapporteur)

andris.gobins@eesc.europa.eu, gobins@web.de