Europe for Citizens Background information for discussion E E SC Liaison Group, Brussels, ____ SOC/4 5 8 – Opinion of the European Eco nmic and Social Committee on COM(2011) 884 final – 2011/0436 (APP) Andris Gobiņš Rapporteur, Member of the EESC, Group III President of the European Movement - Latvia

Content 1. Basic info and timetable 2. Working methods 3. EC aims 4. EESC opinion ideas 5. Detailed comments

1.1. People in charge President Gintaras Morkis, EESC Group 1 Draft document prepared by : Andris Gobins (Rapporteur) Diana Potjomkina (Expert)

1.2. Draft timetable April – EESC Liaison Group 2. 3 May – Hearing and 1st Study group May – 2 nd study group June – Section 5. 11, 12 July – Plenary Session May – Debate/examination by Council 7. EP draft report in July October – EP CULT 1st/single reading

2. Working methods: transparency and involvement 1. Interaction with CSOs and other partners 2. Invitation to participate in Study Group meetings 3. Public hearing and hopefully its web-stream, 4. Feeding in via Expert or Rapporteur and others 5. 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 citizens 1.3 EU institutions, all levels involved have difficulties with legitimacy (including national, regional, local) 1.4 Articles 10 and 11 are keys, ECI only one step 1.5 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 needed 1.8 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, , 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 included

4.4. Ideas for EESC opinion II 2.4. widening of rememberance is good 2.5 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 continued 2.7 Links to ENP and development necessary, overlaps with others to avoid 2.8 coordinated information needed 2.9 coordination between the various European Commission Directorates-General

5.1. Detailed comments I Financial aspects 3.1 shifts from other programmes if not used there 3.2 against discrimination of smaller and poorer organizations – minimum amounts and co- financing, amount of partners, EU issues in the centre, administrative burden, EUR 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 administration 3.6 decentralized administration for smallest projects 3.7 CoR, EESC & structured dialogue partners in programme steering committee 3.8 reducing the role of annual action programme, short-term and campaign type events 3.9 civil society to determine own annual priorities 3.10 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) Andris Gobiņš (Rapporteur)