- 1 -
Brussels, 18 April 2012
MINUTES
of the 21st meeting
of the Liaison Group
with European civil society organisations and networks
held at the Committee building in Brussels
on 21 November 2011
______
R/CESE 734/2012 FR/CD/hn
- 1 -
The Liaison Group with European civil society organisations and networks held its 21st meeting in Brussels on 21November 2011, chaired by its two co-presidents, Staffan Nilsson, President of the EESC, and Jean-Marc Roirant, President of the European Civic Forum (ECF). The meeting started at 2.30p.m. and finished at 5.30 p.m.
ATTENDANCE LIST
- Liaison Group members present
EESC representatives
MrStaffan NilssonMrSandy Boyle
MrGeorgios Dassis
MrEdgardo Iozia
MrLuca Jahier
MsLeila Kurki
MrKrzysztof Pater
MrJorge Pegado Liz
MrMichael Smyth
MrJoost van Iersel
MrHans-Joachim Wilms / President of the EESC
President of the REX section
President of Group II
President of the Single Market Observatory (SMO)
President of the Various Interests Group
President of the SOC section
President of the Labour Market Observatory (LMO)
President of the CCMI
President of the ECO section
President of the Europe 2020 steering committee
President of the Sustainable Development Observatory (SDO)
Representatives of European civil society organisations and networks
Members
R/CESE 734/2012 FR/CD/hn
- 1 -
MsArielle GarciaMrDiegoPinto
MrConny Reuter
MrJean-Marc Roirant
MrLuk Zelderloo
Alternates
MsValentina Abita
MsLuiza Bara
MsEmmanuelle Faure
MsAudrey Frith
MsAlexandrina Najmowicz
MrYves Roland-Gosselin / Deputy director of the Federation of French Mutual Health Insurance Schemes (FNMF)
Secretary-General of the International European Movement (IEM)
President of thePlatform of European Social NGOs
President of the European Civic Forum (FCE)
Secretary-General of the European Association of Service Providers for Persons with Disabilities (EASPD)
Project manager, European Council for Non-Profit Organisations (CEDAG)
Director of the European Public Health Alliance (EPHA)
European Affairs Senior Officer, European Foundation Centre (EFC)
Director of the European civil society platform on lifelong learning (EUCIS-LLL)
Coordinator, European Civic Forum (ECF)
President of the Confederation of Family Organisations in the EU (COFACE)
- Liaison Group members absent
EESC representatives
MrStéphane BuffetautMrMario Campli (apologies received)
MrBrian Cassidy (apologies received)
MrHenri Malosse (apologies received) / President of the TEN section
President of the NAT section
President of the INT section
President of Group I
Representatives of European civil society organisations and networks
Members
MrPierre Barge (apologies received)MrOlivier Consolo
MsMonique Goyens
MrChristopher Harrison
MsIlona Kish
MsMonika Kosinska
MrMaciej Kucharczyk
MrWilliam Lay
MrGérard Peltre
MrÉtienne Pflimlin
MrGiuseppe Porcaro (apologies received)
MrGerry Salole
MrJan-Robert Suesser
Alternates
MrPatrice Collignon
MrJulien Dijol
MsSabine Frank
MsCécile Greboval
MrJavier Güemes
MsJana Hainsworth
MrDirk Jarré
MsRita Kessler
MrGérard Leseul
MrPeter Matjašič
MsUrsula Pachl
MrChristian Wenning / President of the European Association for Human Rights (AEDH)
Director of the European NGO Confederation for Relief and Development (CONCORD)
Director-General of the European Consumers’ Organisation (BEUC)
Former president of the European School Heads Association (ESHA)
Secretary-General of Culture Action Europe
Secretary-General of the European Public Health Alliance (EPHA)
Director-General of the European Older People's Platform (AGE)
Director of the Confederation of Family Organisations in the EU (COFACE)
President of the Rurality-Environment-Development International Association (RED)
Co-president of Cooperatives Europe
Secretary-General of the European Youth Forum (EYF)
Director-General of the European Foundation Centre (EFC)
Vice-president of the European Civic Forum (ECF)
Director of the Rurality-Environment-Development International Association (RED)
Policy coordinator, European Liaison Committee for Social Housing (CECODHAS)
Secretary-General of the Platform for Intercultural Europe
Policy director, European Women's Lobby (EWL)
Acting director of the European Disability Forum (EDF)
Secretary-General, EUROCHILD
International Cooperation Officer, European Federation of Older Persons (EURAG)
Project manager, International Association of Mutual Benefit Societies (AIM)
Deputy general delegate, Coordinating Committee of European Cooperative Associations (CCACE)
Secretary-General of the European Youth Forum (EYF)
Deputy Director-General of the European Consumers’ Organisation (BEUC)
Secretary-General of the Union of European Federalists (UEF)
- Other participants
MsAriane Rodert / EESC member, rapporteur for the EESC opinion on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Year of Citizens
EESC member, rapporteur for the opinion on Social entrepreneurship and social enterprise
- EESC Secretariat
MrNicolas Alexopoulos
MsMaria Echevarria
MrPatrick Fève
MrChristian Weger
MsCoralia Catana
MsSusanna Florio
MsFausta Palombelli / Secretary-General
Deputy Secretary-General
Director for General Affairs
Head of Unit for Relations with civil society organisations, constitutional affairs
Administrator, Unit for Relations with civil society organisations, constitutional affairs
Member of the EESC president’s private office
Assistant, Workers' Group
Administrator, secretariat of the Various Interests Group
*** * *
MrRoirant opened the meeting and presented the items on the agenda. He then asked MrWilms andMrvan Iersel,who would have to leave during the meeting, to brief those present on the Committee's work on preparations for the Rio+20 Conference, to take place at the EESC on 7 and 8February 2012, and the Europe 2020 strategy respectively.
1.Adoption of the draft agenda (R/CESE 1670/2011)
The draft agenda was adopted.
2.Approval of the minutes of the 20th meeting held on 27 June 2011
(R/CESE 1569/2011)
The minutes were approved.
3.Exchange of views with AndrisGobiņš, EESC rapporteur on the Proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Year of Citizens (2013) (COM(2011) 489 final)
Mr Roirant introducedMrGobiņš and asked him to kick off the discussion.
MrGobiņšwas pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the Commission proposal with the members of the Liaison Group; the discussions would feed usefully into the working document that he would submit to the study group responsible for preparing the Committee's opinion. He proposed to organise his presentation and the discussion around the following points: the timeframe and working methods for preparing the opinion, aspects of the Commission proposal which should be supported, those which were open to criticism and finally additional issues which could be raised.
As regards the timeframe, the opinion had to be adopted by the Committee at its plenary session on 28 and 29 March 2012. The study group would meet twice before then, on 20 December 2011 and 26 January 2012, and the section would adopt its opinion on 29 February. A public hearing would also be held on 26 January, and he called on the European organisations and networks which were Liaison Group members to take part in this. Webstreaming would be arranged for the hearing.
As regards the working methods, Mr Gobiņš wanted transparency to be a priority throughout the drafting process. He also wanted this process to be as inclusive as possible as regards the involvement of civil society organisations.
He said that the following aspects of the Commission proposal deserved support:
The theme of the 2013 European Year, which expressed the desire to boost the feeling of belonging to the EU;
The link between the notion of citizenship and the goal of enabling Europeans to play a part in the EU's democratic life, despite the fact that the Commission proposal rather glossed over this point;
The Commission's intention to open up the process of planning and implementing the 2013 European Year by involving the EESC, the Committee of the Regions and civil society organisations;
The Commission's firm intention to remove remaining barriers to the exercise of the rights conferred by European citizenship;
The fact that the goal of free movement was considered a priority; however, mobility needed to be interpreted broadly, covering goods, services and capital, consumer rights and the voting rights which were part of European citizenship.
Mr Gobiņš said that the following issues were open to criticism:
The fact that the Commission's proposal showed a rather narrow view of European citizenship and largely ignored the issues of public participation in democratic life and the implementation of the new rights conferred on Europeans by the Treaty of Lisbon in the area of participatory democracy. He asked whether it would be possible to change the title of the 2013 European Year to better reflect these fundamental priorities; it could be changed to the European Year of active and participatory citizenship, which would broaden the scope of the event;
The provisions for follow-up and legislative activity to eliminate barriers to the exercise of citizenship which were inadequate and overly vague; the key point however was still to highlight issues related to public participation and dialogue with civil society;
The emphasis placed on raising awareness and providing information in a basically top-down approach, when Europeans should be actively involved in the process of learning about their rights and how to exercise them.The list of objectives for the European Year should be extended to include the implementation of Articles 10 and 11 of the Treaty on European Union dealing with representative and participatory democracy respectively, and more generally with active citizenship.
He referred to the following financial and organisational aspects:
The budget proposed by the Commission: EUR 1 million, which he felt was inadequate, particularly compared to the EUR 11 million set aside for the European Year of volunteering (2011), or the EUR 17 million spent on the European Year of combating poverty (2010). Furthermore, the budget would be drawn from DG Communication's existing budget lines and would largely be used to fund communication campaigns by PR companies with which this DG had signed framework agreements. No additional funding nor co-funding of civil society initiatives was planned;
The activities proposed throughout the Year: these activities could not be limited to information campaigns. Practical activities needed to be rolled out involving civil society; these activities had to have a lasting impact and involve both the national and European levels;
Information sources: the Commission planned to mobilise information sources such as Europe Direct, the "Your Europe" portal or SOLVIT; Mr Gobiņš felt that this choice was debatable given their low profile and the fact that Europeans knew very little about them.
Additional aspects which could be considered in the opinion included the following:
Encouraging the establishment of a European public forum for dialogue and debate, to which the media should also contribute;
Linking up the various European Years and ensuring that the activities undertaken during the Year had a lasting impact;
Launching initiatives to remove barriers to mobility created by education systems, difficulty in gaining access to lifelong learning, gaps in language skills, and health, social security and housing issues, etc.;
Promoting the development by the EU institutions and the Member States of participatory tools at every level and every stage in the decision-making process;
Setting up an Alliance of civil society organisations responsible for coordinating and implementing civil society initiatives throughout the 2013 European Year, as was done for previous European Years; establishing interaction with the Liaison Group and the EESC;
The financial means and instruments to guarantee the 2013 European Year's legacy;
Ways of guaranteeing real participation by civil society, at both European and national level, in shaping and implementing activities to be rolled out during the 2013 Year.
MrGobiņš concluded that there were three key issues which he asked the Liaison Group to discuss, namely:
How could organised civil society be effectively involved in implementing the 2013 European Year; what roles should be played by the EESC, the Liaison Group and the nascent Alliance, and what synergies should be established between them?
Objectives and priorities for the 2013 European Year: should we aim only to change the content or, for the sake of visibility, should we propose that the European Year's title be changed as well?
What joint strategy should be used to put forward the positions and proposals made with regard to the Commission's proposal and ensure that they are taken on board by the other institutions?
MrRoirant thankedMrGobiņš and opened the general discussion.
MrIozia said that the Commission proposal was very disappointing as the topics chosen for the 2013 European Year were not key concerns for the general public. In view of the crisis currently hitting Europe, he had hoped that the Commission would place the European values underpinning European citizenship at the core of its proposal. Citizenship was more than free movement, and so the proposal could not be accepted as it stood either by the Committee or by civil society organisations. He called on the rapporteur to be unbending on this point.
MrRoirant said that many civil society organisations had already expressed concerns to the Commission about this minimalist view of citizenship and that, according to some information, this had been a deliberate choice on the Commission's part, as some Member States felt that only freedom of movement was an EU competence; the other aspects of citizenship fell under national competence and thus subsidiarity.
MsGarciaendorsed the idea of proposing a change in the title of the Year; it might be changed toEuropean Year of active participation. However, this should only be done if the Commission also changed its approach (in terms of content) to the concept of citizenship. This was the key issue in the debate, as the real question was to know whether the EU really wanted to place citizens at the centre of its concerns.
MrReuteragreed with Ms Garcia. He underscoredEurope's democratic deficit and the legitimacy crisis of which its institutions were victims; he was concerned about the anti-European and anti-democratic movements which were gaining strength at national level. In this context, he considered that it should be possible to convince the Commission that addressing this situation was a political challenge for the EU as a whole, particularly with a view to the next European elections in 2014 in which only a minority of Europeans took part.
Civil society therefore needed to insist that the 2013 European Year be not for communication but for participation, enabling Europeans to voice their concerns and expectations.
MsFrithwas pleased that this exchange of views with the Committee rapporteur was taking place even before the study group responsible for preparing the opinion had held its first meeting. It enabled the Liaison Group members to make a real contribution to shaping the Committee opinion.
She supported Mr Iozia's comments as regards the gaps in the Commission proposal and considered that this proposal was a real disappointment owing to the restrictive approach to citizenship adopted by the Commission. Simply changing the title would not be enough: the very concept of the Year also needed to be altered.
Echoing MrReuter's comments, Ms Frith also expressed concern regarding the rise in extremism and nationalism in Europe, and more generally the ebbing of democracy which she considered particularly worrying with a view to the coming European elections. This made it all the more necessary to change the direction of the Commission proposal for the 2013 Year.
MrPinto thankedMrGobiņš for his introduction and was pleased that he had stressed the lack of substance in the Commission proposal which was its chief problem.However, he considered that the approach chosen by the Commission should not surprise anyone, as for the last two years citizenship issues had been dealt with by DG Communication since the unit responsible for citizenship policy was transferred to that DG from DG Education and Culture. From this he deduced that the Commission considered citizenship to be largely a communication issue.
He then said that the concerns voiced during the debate had also been expressed at the European Parliament and stressed that the 2013 European Year needed to help re-dynamise the European venture and not fuel disappointment in it.
MsNajmowicz was pleased that the rapporteur wished to involve the Liaison Group in preparations for his opinion at an early stage, and applauded his open-minded attitude.
She then pointed out that the European organisations and networks which were members of the Liaison Group had been working on issues relating to citizenship for a number of years. In this context, she mentioned the manifesto For a Genuine European Civil Dialogue drafted in 2009 shortly before the European elections, which called on the political parties to make a strong commitment to a more participatory form of European democracy and the development of civil dialogue. She therefore considered that the 2013 European Year was an opportunity to pass on that message. The European organisations and networks which were members of the Liaison Group had therefore sent an open letter to all the MEPs to make them aware of the need to expand the scope of the European Year so that the full meaning of citizenship was conveyed by taking into account the prospects opened up by Article 11 of the Treaty on European Union in terms of public participation in the EU's democratic life.
MsNajmowicz also pointed out that contact had been made with the rapporteurs of the various Parliament committees to which the Commission proposal had been referred, including the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs which had competence, in order to push forward the positions taken in the letter. She also said that there would be a fairly broad consensus in the Parliament in favour of expanding the Commission's approach. She hoped that the MEPs would agree to increase the budget.
Lastly, MsNajmowicz confirmed that at the initiative of the European organisations and networks which were members of the Liaison Group, a Civil Society Alliance for the 2013 European Year had been set up, and currently included around 20 European networks. The initial aim of the Alliance was to lobby MEPs, encouraging them to support the positions taken in the open letter sent to them. However, the ultimate aim was for the Alliance to be officially recognised by the Commission as the partner of the European institutions for the European Year and, in pursuit of this goal, European civil society needed to be brought behind the Alliance, along the lines of Alliances formed for previous European Years. A proposal to this effect had been made to the Commission and its response was awaited.