EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 14.12.2011 
SEC(2011) 1562 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 
IMPACT ASSESSMENT 
Accompanying the document 
Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE CO UNCIL establishing for the period 2014-
2020 the programme "Europe for Citizens" to promote  Euro pean citizenship 
{COM(2011) 884 final} 
{SEC(2011) 1563 final}  
 
EN 1   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 4 
1.1. Development of the programme................................................................................... 4 1.2. Delivery mechanisms................................................................................................... 5 1.2.1. Eligibility............................................................................................................. ......... 5 
1.2.2. Co-financing............................................................................................................ ..... 7 
1.3. Current political context............................................................................................... 7 1.4. Financial framework .................................................................................................... 7 2. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES... 7 2.1. Organisation and timing............................................................................................... 8 2.2. Consultation and expertise ........................................................................................... 9 2.2.1. Consultation within the Commission........................................................................... 9 2.2.2. External expertise...................................................................................................... ... 9 
2.2.3. Consultation of stakeholders........................................................................................ 9 2.3. Main results and follow-up to th e consultations a nd evaluations .............................. 10 
2.3.1. Results of the interim evaluation of the Europe for Citizens programme (2007-2013)
............................................................................................................................... ..... 10 
2.3.1.1. Impact on organisations ............................................................................................. 11  
2.3.1.2. Impact on participants................................................................................................ 11 
2.3.1.3. Impact on policy development................................................................................... 11 2.3.2. Results of the public online consultation ................................................................... 12 2.3.3. Results of the stakeholder consul tation meeting on 21 June 2011............................. 13 
2.3.4. Focus group survey .................................................................................................... 15  
2.3.5. Eurobarometer survey ................................................................................................ 16 2.4. Conclusions............................................................................................................... . 16 
3. PROBLEM DEFINITION – WHAT I SSUE / PROBLEM IS THE PROPOSAL 
EXPECTED TO TACKLE? ...................................................................................... 16 
3.1. Context ................................................................................................................... .... 16 
3.1.1. Main issues at stake.................................................................................................... 17 
3.2. What are the underlying drivers of the problem?....................................................... 17 3.2.1. Complementing existing sectoral programmes for civil society................................ 17 
 
EN 2   EN 3.2.2. Weaknesses and strengths of the curr ent Europe for Citizens Programme ............... 18 
3.2.2.1. Weaknesses ............................................................................................................ .... 18 
3.2.2.2. Strengths............................................................................................................. ........ 19 
3.3. How would the problem evolve , all things being equal?........................................... 20 
3.4. Legal basis, subsidiarity and proportionality ............................................................. 20 4. OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................ 22 4.1. Policy objectives ........................................................................................................ 2 2 
4.1.1. Operational objectives................................................................................................ 23  
4.2. Consistency with other policies and objectives of the Union .................................... 23 
4.3. Simplification............................................................................................................ . 23 
5. WHAT ARE THE MAIN POLICY OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO REACH THE 
OBJECTIVES? .......................................................................................................... 24 
5.1. Option 1: Continue the Progr amme in its current form ............................................. 24 
5.2. Option 2: Adopt a re-vamped Programme................................................................. 24 5.2.1. Sub-option 1: Mixed approach................................................................................... 24 5.2.2. Sub-option 2: Support for larger grants only ............................................................. 25 5.2.3. Sub-option 3: Wider geographical coverage.............................................................. 25 
5.2.4. Sub-option 4: Consultation tool ................................................................................. 25 
5.3. Option 3: Decentralisation of the Programme ........................................................... 25 5.3.1. Sub-option 1: Member State based approach............................................................. 26 
5.3.2. Sub-option 2: Communica tion approach only ........................................................... 26 
5.3.3. Sub-option 3: Sectoral approach ................................................................................ 26 5.3.4. Sub-option 4: Merger with other programme ............................................................ 26 6. ANALYSIS OF POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF THE THREE 
OPTIONS................................................................................................................... 26 
6.1. Option 1: Continue the Progr amme in its current form ............................................. 26 
6.2. Option 2: Adopt a re-vamped Programme................................................................. 28 6.3. Option 3: Decentralisation of the Programme ........................................................... 30 7. COMPARING THE OPTIONS ................................................................................. 31 8. RISK AND ASSUMPTIONS .................................................................................... 31 9. COST-EFFECTIVENESS ......................................................................................... 32 
 
EN 3   EN 9.1. Cost implications of the programme: €203 million ................................................... 32 
9.1.1. Total financial impact (including subsidy to  the executive agency  and expenditure on 
administrative management) ...................................................................................... 32 
9.1.2. Expenditure-related outputs ....................................................................................... 32 9.1.3. Impact on staff and administrative expe nditure not included in the reference amount
............................................................................................................................... ..... 33 
9.2. Could the same results be achieved at lower costs?................................................... 34 9.3. Could the same or better results be ach ieved with the same cost by using other 
instruments? ............................................................................................................... 35 
10. MONITORING AND EVALUATION ..................................................................... 35 
10.1. Direct and indirect impact indicators ......................................................................... 35 
10.2. Evaluation procedures................................................................................................ 37 10.2.1. Mid-term report........................................................................................................ .. 37 
10.2.2. Ex-post evaluation..................................................................................................... . 37 
 
EN 4   EN 1. INTRODUCTION  
1.1. Development of the programme 
The Europe for Citizens Programme 2007-2013 follows on from the Community Action 
programme to promote active Eu ropean Citizenship (civic participa tion) 2004-2006. This 
programme was established by the Council in Ja nuary 2004, for a period of three years ending 
in December 2006. 
The overarching aims were to reinforce an open dialogue with civil society on the principles 
of transparency and democratic control and to  intensify links between citizens of different 
countries. Although the EU had pr eviously been supporting active European Citi zenship for a 
number of years under various budget lines, ther e was no legal base fo r awarding grants in 
this field. 
The 2004-2006 programme had a budget of €72 m illion (an annual average of €24 million) 
and a specific remit to  co-fund, through an operating grant, organisations pursuing an aim of 
general European interest in the field of activ e European Citizenship (o rganisations promoting 
European ideas and debate a nd organisations and "think tanks " promoting European values 
and objectives) and actions initiated by civil society organi sations (actions by 
nongovernmental organisations, asso ciations and federations of European interest or cross-
industry trade unions and town twinning projects ). In total over 30 orga nisations received an 
operating grant, whereas around 250 NGOs, asso ciations and federations and trade union 
projects received funding between 2004 and 2005. Over 2,800 to wn twinning projects 
received funding during the same period. 
Prior to this, dating back as far as the years after the Second World War the first form of 
town-twinning was born. Particularly in France and Germany, the idea of building 
partnerships between cities, towns and muni cipalities gained speed. Since 1989, the EU has 
supported town-twinning projects  to strengthen existing li nks and encourage new ones, 
especially where a European added-value can be shown.  
Drawing on the experience gained from bot h town-twinning and the 2004-2006 Programme 
and justified by the lasting need for structur ed support for civic participation, the current 
Europe for Citizens Programme (2007-2013) was es tablished. Its main objectives are to give 
citizens the opportunity to participate in the cons truction of an ever closer Europe, to develop 
a European identity, to foster a sense of owne rship of the EU, and to enhance tolerance and 
mutual understanding. In order to  achieve this, four distinct "actions" we re conceived: 1) 
"Active citizens for Europe", 2) "Active civil so ciety in Europe", 3) "Together for Europe", 
and 4) "Active European Remembrance". 
Action 1 involves citizens directly  by means of town-twinning act ivities and citizens' projects 
to debate European issues. Action 2 provi des support for "think ta nks", civil society 
organisations at European level, and projects in itiated by civil society or ganisations at local, 
regional and national levels. Acti on 3 covers high-profile events  (such as commemorations of 
historical events, awards, artistic events), as well as studies and opinion polls. Action 4 
supports projects to preserve European reme mbrance (commemorating the victims of the 
crimes committed during Nazism and Stalinism regimes). 
 
EN 5   EN The current programme has a total budget of € 215 million. To date, it has supported more 
than 9.000 projects involving more than 1 million citizens per year in th ese activities (full list 
available at http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/citizensh ip/results_compendia/results_en.php). A rough 
breakdown per year indicates that Acti on 1 supports approx. 1.100 projects/year 
http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/citizenship/results _compendia/results_en.php, Action 2 approx. 190 
projects/year, Action 3, implemented exclus ively through service contracts, about 5 
projects/year, and Action 4 roughly 50 project s per year. See Annex 1 “Europe for Citizens 
programme outputs (2007-2010)". 
1.2. Delivery mechanisms 
A. PROJECT GRANTS - projects are actions with a limited lifetime during which proposed 
specific activities are implemente d. (Approximately 1 100 per year)  
B. OPERATING GRANTS - operating grants are di fferent from project grants in that they 
provide financial support for cost s required for the pr oper conduct of the usual and permanent 
activities of an organisation, namely staff costs,  the cost of internal meetings, publications, 
information and dissemination, travel costs ar ising from the implementation of the work 
programme, rental payments, depreciation and othe r costs directly linked to the organisation's 
work programme. (Approximately 50 per year) 
C. SERVICE CONTRACTS – following open Calls for Tender. (Approximately 1-2 per year) 
1.2.1.  Eligibility 
Eligible organisations and eligibility crit eria are detailed in the table below: 
 
EN 6   EN 
 
 
EN 7   EN  
1.2.2.  Co-financing 
The EU grant cannot finance the entire costs of the project or op erating costs of an 
organisation. Promoters must show their co mmitment to the proj ect by finding financing 
sources other than the Union grant. This can  be done, for example, by running fund-raising 
activities, by adding own resources, or by requ esting grants from othe r organisations (e.g. 
local or regional authorities, foundations, etc.). 
1.3. Current political context 
As stated by President Barroso in his State of the Union Address 2011, we are now faced with 
the greatest challenge that our Union has gone through in its whol e history. It is a financial, 
economic and social crisis, but also a cris is of confidence. Na tional plans or even 
intergovernmental co-operations are not sufficien t to tackle such large scale economic and 
social problems. In this situati on, it is even more important to  make known to the citizens the 
Union’s role and achievements. The Commissi on thus needs to find  ways of increasing 
citizens' awareness and unders tanding about the EU project. 
Despite the fact that Europ ean citizenship gives addition al rights and opportunities to 
everyone, the sense of belonging and of European  identity is not yet a reality. According to 
data from the Eurobarometer survey (August 2011) , less than half (41 %) of European citizens 
trust the EU or feel a sense of belonging to it.  While only 47% of citizens say they know their 
rights, 73% of respondents would like to know more about these. 
This gap between the EU and its citizens materialises in an increasing detachment, even euro-
scepticism in some cases, and a reduced interest in EU matters (evidenced by the decline in voter turn-out in European el ections: from almost 62% in 1979 to 45.47% in 2004 and 43% in 
2009). 
The Commission thus needs to ta ke action to promote civic pa rticipation, transform citizens 
from spectators into actors willing to contri bute to the European renewal, be it through 
participation in the political life or through engagement into their community at whatever 
level. This means also to give citizens and re presentative associations the opportunity to make 
known and exchange views in all areas of Union action, as called upon by the Treaty on 
European Union. 
1.4. Financial framework 
On 29 June 2011, the European Commission presen ted its multi-annual financial framework 
(MFF) for the period 2014-2020. The indicative  budget adopted for the future Europe for 
Citizens programme was €203 million with an estimated distribution of €29 million per year. These amounts do not take into acco unt future correction by indexation. 
2. P
ROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  
Lead Directorate-General: 
Directorate-General for Communication 
 
EN 8   EN Other services involved: 
Secretariat General 
Directorate-General for Justice Directorate-General for Education and Culture Directorate-General for Employment , Social Affairs and Inclusion 
Directorate-General for Budget Directorate-General for Regional Policy Legal Service 
Agenda planning or Work Programme reference: 
N/A 
2.1. Organisation and timing 
Chronology of the impact assessment: 
– 22 June 2010: First consultation meeting with stakeholders 
– 10 September 2010: First Impact Assessment Steering Group. The following DGs 
participated in the session: SG, JUST, EAC, EMPL and REGIO. Invited but not 
represented: SJ, BUDG , INFSO, MARKT, RTD. 
– October 2010: Interim evaluation of the cu rrent programme, Final Report (external 
contractor)
1 
– 27 October 2010 – 5 January 2011: Op en public online consultation 
– 1 March 2011: Communication on the mi d-term evaluation of the current 
programme2 
– 21 June 2011: Second consultation meeting with stakeholders 
– 5 July 2011: Second Impact Assessm ent Steering Group. The following DGs 
participated in this session: SG, SJ, JUST , EAC, EMPL. Invited but not represented: 
BUDG, INFSO, MARKT, REGIO, RTD. 
– 21 September 2011: the Impact Assessment Board discussed the draft Impact 
Assessment report and asked for several improve ments in the report, in particular to 
provide a more complete and focused problem  analysis, to be more specific about the 
                                                 
1 Interim Evaluation of the European for Citizens Programme 2007-13, Final Report, ECORYS, October 
2010 (http://ec.europa.eu/citizenship/news/news1293_en.htm) 
2 COM(2011) 83 final of 11.3.2011 Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the 
Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions "Report on 
the mid-term evaluation of the Europe for Citizens Programme 2007-2013" 
 
EN 9   EN objectives, to design and assess substantive policy options, and to clarify evaluation 
arrangements and define more robust progre ss indicators. These elements have been 
included in the current report which has been submitted to the Board. 
2.2. Consultation and expertise 
2.2.1.  Consultation within the Commission 
DGs and services consulted are stated above (2.1). 
2.2.2.  External expertise 
An external contractor, ECORYS UK Limited, was commissioned under the Framework 
Contract for Evaluation, Impact Assessment a nd Related Services (EAC /03/06) to carry out 
an interim evaluation of the EU's Eu rope for Citizens programme (2007-2013). 
Besides providing an overview of the results ob tained in the first three years of the current 
programme, the interim evaluation was also intended to feed into the reflections on the preparation of the post-2013 programme. The in terim evaluation, final report was completed 
in October 2010 and provided the basis for the Commission Communication adopted on the 1 
March 2011. 
ECORYS UK Limited also supported the Commissi on in the final analys is of the responses 
received under the online  consultation 27 October 2010 - 5 January 2011 on the next 
generation of the Programme. 
2.2.3.  Consultation of stakeholders 
Stakeholder meetings 
Consultation with the main stakeholders of  the "Citizens for Europe " programme has been 
substantial. Their views have b een sought on the following occasions: 
– On 20 June 2010, a consultation meeting wa s held in Brussels with the major 
stakeholders: the group members of the re gular NGO consultation (for details, see 
below), the national contact points for Eur opean Citizenship (P ECs), the Council for 
European Municipalities and Regi ons (CEMR) and the Town-Twinning 
Coordinators, and members of the Progr amme Committee. The proceedings were 
based on an open agenda with a highly participatory approach. 
– On 27 October 2010, an open public online co nsultation was launched (see below) 
– On 21 June 2011, a second stak eholder meeting took place in Brussels with 100 
participants. 
– May-June 2011, three focus group surveys he ld in Paris, Warsaw and Vienna on 
different aspects of the Programme (tow n-twinning, the impact on the development 
of civil society, remembrance) bringing stake holders together with  researchers, local 
and national governments, and journalists (see 2.3.4.).  
– Regular NGO consultation: Comprises of re gular meetings between the Commission 
and approximately 70 key European organi sations actively involved in the Europe 
 
EN 10   EN for Citizens Programme. Participation in this group follows an expression of interest 
to do so by the different organisations. Ma ny of these are beneficiaries of operating 
grants in the framework of  the Programme. Discussions cover a range of issues 
associated with methodology, participation and the international or political context, 
designed to bolster the effi ciency of the Programme and help the Commission to 
better tailor it to the needs of partners. The detailed consultations  carried out for the 
mid-term evaluation of the Programme suggest  that this was seen as a useful and 
constructive process, helping st akeholders to play a role in shaping the Programme.  
Open public online consultation 
An open public online consultation on the future of the "Europe for Citizens" programme was 
launched on 27 October 2010 by means of th e Commission’s IPM (Interactive Policy 
Making) tool. The consultation was open until 5 January 2011 and invited contributions from 
all interested parties: individua l citizens, civil society organi sations, public authorities and 
administrations, research institutions, European  and international orga nisations and others. 
412 respondents participated, with 5 addi tional submissions received separately. 
Wide publicity was given to this public c onsultation by placing it on the “Your Voice in 
Europe” website and by sending inform ation about the consultation to: 
- the Programme Committee members; 
- the group members of the regular NGO consultation;  - the Europe for Citizens Contact Points;  - the CEMR's network of Town twinning coordinators; - and other Europe for Citizens Progra mme stakeholders an d beneficiaries; 
- the networks of Europe Direct Information centres; 
- several contact points and stakeholders  within DG EAC and DG REGIO programmes. 
The opinions expressed have been analysed by th e Commission with the help of an external 
consultant (see section 2.2.2.). The results and a detailed analys is of the public consultation 
are available at: http://ec.europa.eu/citizenship
  
2.3. Main results and follow-up to the consultations and evaluations 
2.3.1.  Results of the interim evaluation of the Europe for Citizens programme (2007-2013) 
The results of two st udies (conducted in 2008  and 2009) and the inte rim evaluation of the 
current "Europe for Citizens" programme (conducted in 2009/2010) already provide an 
indication of the programme's achievements up to  present. The interim evaluation looked at 
the impact of the programme on participating organisations , on individuals, and on policy 
development. 
To address the concern of having a too positively biased midterm report, the interim 
evaluation also included a survey among ineligib le and unsuccessful bids, which was able to 
explore some views from outside th e circle of supported organisations. 
 
EN 11   EN As far as the relevance  of the programme is concerned the evidence provided by the interim 
evaluation suggests that the objectives of the pr ogramme are valid to th e overarching aim of 
"giving citizens the opportunity to interact an d participate in constructing an ever-closer 
Europe, thus developing citizen ship of the European Union"3. 
On efficiency , the interim evaluation argues that "the re is a case for concluding that the 
current programme strikes a good balance and achieves good cost-effectiveness, by 
combining actions which reach out to small sc ale operators and newcomers and those which 
support capacity building"4. 
On effectiveness , the report concludes that "Programme  spending to support projects is 
consistent with expectations at this stage and in general annual and medium-term targets 
related to activities (e.g. number of projects and part icipation rates) are being met5". 
2.3.1.1.  Impact on organisations 
82% of the respondents (and 84% of  those representing civil societ y) felt that the programme 
had helped to develop the capacity of their organisation. While most believed that the 
programme had served to extend the scale and the scope of activities, many others highlighted 
its impact in terms of innovation, knowledge-sharing, dissemination activity and mobility. 
The interim evaluation also showed that th e programme had a positive impact on the town 
twinning movement, which is one of the most  significant benefici aries of the current 
programme. The selection criteria  induced potential beneficiaries to develop links with policy 
issues, such as remembrance or the environment, and to achieve greater thematic coverage. The persons participating in these twinning acti vities are also important multipliers at the 
local level, spreading a feeli ng of solidarity and mutual unde rstanding among the participants. 
2.3.1.2.  Impact on participants 
The study on developing impact indicators for the Europe for Citizens programme and 
adapting them to the 2009 Annual Management  Plan "Europe for Citizens Survey 2009" 
highlighted the changes in attit udes of those who participated in  the activities financed by the 
programme either once or repeated ly. Results show that 83% of respondents in th e survey feel 
more aware of aspects relating to European culture, identity and heritage as a result of participation in the programme' s activities. 75% of respondents cl aim to feel more European 
and 71% claim to feel more part of the European Union. The proportion of respondents 
claiming to feel more solidarity with fellow Europeans was 82%. 
2.3.1.3.  Impact on policy development 
Less than half of the stakeholders taking part in the web survey believed that the programme 
supports institutional and process improvements at either EU or Member State level; although 
two-thirds felt that the programme helps to pr omote more coherent po licy development in the 
                                                
 
3 Interim Evaluation of the European for Citizens Programme 2007-13, Final Report, ECORYS, October 
2010 
COM(2011) 83 final of 11.3.2011 Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the 
Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions "Report on the mid-term evaluation of the Europe for Citizens Programme 2007-2013" 
4 idem 
5 idem 
 
EN 12   EN area of citizenship. There are no cl ear patterns in responses by type  of stakeholder. Europe for 
Citizens Contact Points in the MS (PECs) and European level civil society organisations are 
split relatively evenly between those who feel the programme has an in fluence on policy or 
practice and those who feel it does not. 
2.3.2.  Results of the public online consultation 
The consultation ran for 10 weeks between 27 October 2010 and 5 January 2011 and invited 
contributions from all interested parties: indivi dual citizens, civil soci ety organisations, public 
authorities and administrations, research institut ions, European and inte rnational organisations 
and others. The largest single group of respondents is indivi dual citizens with 160 responses 
(or 39% of the total), followed by representatives of regional or local government with 82 
(20%), civil society organisations  with 68 (17%) and third sector  organisations or foundations 
with 31 (8%)6. The responses of individual citizens diffe r from the rest of the respondents, in 
that one third were provided by euro sceptics whose negative re sponses were directed towards 
the European Union and EU institutions in general rather than towards the Europe for Citizens programme itself, as explicated in their comm ents. In conclusion, it can be said that the 
consultation generated a good distribution of responses, by country of origin, type of 
respondent and size of organisation. 
69% of respondents have not be nefitted from earlier rounds of the Europe for Citizens 
programme , suggesting the consultation contains larg e numbers from outside the circle of 
supported organisations, potentially with less of a vested interest  in the design of the future 
programme. (Page 2 of the final re port on the onlin e consultation) 
The main observations resulting from this  online consultation were the following: 
• The majority of respondents (81%) agree that  there is a need for an EU programme 
promoting and supporting civic participati on, with civil society respondents more 
likely to agree than individual citizens. 
• There is strong support for objectives ar ound promoting tolerance and mutual 
understanding, enhancing the participation of citizens in EU decision-making and 
promoting a culture of  civic participation. 
• Respondents prioritise cooperation and ne tworking between different types of 
organisations, dialogue between civil society and EU instit utions and citizen-focused 
methods, such as citizens panels, helpi ng them to get organised and promoting 
citizenship education. 
• On balance there is strongest support for collaborative, transnational and thematic 
approaches, especially ‘joint projects by lo cal authorities, civil society organisations 
and other local actors’,  with lowest levels of support for EU-level events and one-off 
town twinning citizens' meetings. 
• There appears to be some consensus ar ound the value of networking and platforms 
for information exchange or sharing of  knowledge and best practice, including 
                                                
 
6 Online Consultation on the Future of the Europe fo r Citizens Programme, Final Analysis of responses, 
ECORYS, March 2011 
 
EN 13   EN specific methods such as extending the us e of information technologies, databases 
and social media. 
• Civil society organisations, "hard-to -reach" groups (e.g. ethnic minorities, 
underrepresented social groups), policymak ers and local authorities are felt by 
respondents to be the most important target groups for the programme.  
• The most significant themes for a future  programme ought to embrace European 
values as enshrined in Articles 2 and 3 of the Treaty on the Union:  "values of respect 
for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equa lity, the rule of law and respect for 
human rights, including the rights of pers ons belonging to minorities. These values 
are common to the Member States in  a society in which pluralism, non-
discrimination, tolerance, justice, solid arity and equality between women and men 
prevail".  
2.3.3.  Results of the stakeholder cons ultation meeting on 21 June 2011 
Based on the results of the first stakeholder consultation meeting held  in June 2010, which 
focused on the general purpose of a possible future programme, a second stakeholder consultation meeting was held in June 2011. In  this meeting a number of questions about 
opportunities and challenges for a next generation Programme were raised and the discussions 
provided ideas that will feed into the proposal  for a new Programme structure. For the full 
report, see Annex II. 
It should be noted that consulta tion with stakeholders has in most cases been dealt with in a 
'consensus seeking manner' – that is, the focus ha s been on a particular  issue or question to 
solve, not the identification of the organisation or the individual  behind the stand-point. This 
was particularly true for the st akeholder meeting on 21 June 2011.  
Setting of annual priorities  
The exercise focused on the link between part icipation and policy making. A more focused 
approach is needed to increase the impact of actions under a future programme, The group 
considered whether thematic priorities are ne eded, how detailed they should be and who 
should set them (should the appro ach be top-down, bottom-up or a mixture of the two?). All 
the groups consulted showed a clear preference  for a bottom-up or hybrid approach which 
would not only bring in the view s of NGOs to the Institutions , but also bring the local, 
regional and national level to th e EU. The regular dialogues with  stakeholders and with the 
Member States were identified as the best fo ra to achieve this. There was consensus that 
priorities should have a longer-term 'validity' and should not be comple tely abandoned after 
one year - even in the ca se of European Years. 
Balance between operational & projects grants  
There was consensus in the discussion that bo th operating grants an d project grants are 
needed. In the case of operating grants, there was a strong preference for the multi-annual 
grants. They provide a more medium-term perspe ctive that allows for better forward planning. 
The group also strongly advocated flexibility w ith regard to the amounts available - for both 
types of grants: both small and large amounts being needed. The possibility of introducing 
start-up grants was welcomed, but with a cav eat against too many very small grants. One 
issue that remained unresolved was whether the proportion of operating grants should be 
increased at the expense of pr oject grants. Opinions were di vided on this. Nor was there any 
 
EN 14   EN clear consensus on whether it should be possible to combine an operating grant with project 
funding. 
Capacity-building  
The result of the discussions unde rlined the need to keep cap acity building as a transversal 
element of all actions, combining it with th e review of the current 'support measures', 
strengthening and re-focusing it and renaming it to 'Capacity Building'. Potential activities under these measures would include peer-to-p eer exchange, training for trainers and the 
development of a database on the organi sations/projects funded by the Programme. 
Dialogue with stakeholders  
There was clear support for main taining a regular di alogue with the programme stakeholders 
and making this action an integral part of the programme. The current approach, regular 
dialogue with civil society organisations a nd think tanks, should be enhanced, building 
capacity to create a community of practice, which w ould become both a 'collective brain' for 
the programme, able to impact policy developm ents. Concrete sugges tions included having it 
more content-oriented and focu sed on policy issues (as opposed to administrative, financial 
and logistical matters), making it more open, finding ways to dialogue at national level 
(PECs, Presidencies), organising joint meet ings with EfC Contact Points, Programme 
Committee, to foster more interaction, and invite  the participation also of "non beneficiaries" 
(academics, experts, foundations, national funds, private companies). 
Measurement of impact  
This group was created and led by stakeholder initiative. The discussion focused on what kind 
of impact the EU is looking for, and how th is could be measured. The group concluded that 
there are areas where impact is difficult to meas ure – e.g. when it come s to awareness-raising, 
tolerance and open-mindedness – and where change does not happen over night. Still it was 
considered important that impact indicators are defined and that the EU sets the benchmarks. 
Measuring tools/methods are need ed - these should also includ e methods for self-evaluation. 
Better exploitation of results  
Optimising results has to be done both at progr amme and project levels. There was consensus 
that the keys to better use and dissemination of results are well-defined themes, a good match 
between the needs of the citizens and the prior ities of the Programme, identifying concrete 
results, improving quality and sust ainability and developing eval uation processes. It emerged 
from the discussion that the value of high-visibility events is questionable, but that decision-
makers (particularly high-level  ones) should participate more in projects. The importance of 
traditional media (TV, radio, newspaper) should not be neglected and presence in the new 
social media should be ensured. Databases of ex isting projects, tools for identifying potential 
partners and for capitalising on collective l earning (e.g. exchange of  best practices) can 
increase impact. 
 
EN 15   EN Scope of Memory & Remembrance 
There was an overwhelming consensus that the scope of Action 4 (Active European 
Remembrance) should be broadened. Where there was no particular indication as to what new 
specific events or periods (oth er than those related to Nazi sm and Stalinism) should be 
covered, there was a strong indication that th ere should be a greater emphasis on 'defining 
moments of modern European history' relevant to the greatest extent possible, to all EU 
countries. It was suggested that the "European Memory" part of a future programme ought to 
encourage and promote critical reflections on  history and contribute to a grass-roots 
construction of a broader view of European  history and its juxtapositioning vis-à-vis a 
forward-looking, modern Union. A new progra mme would thus, on one hand, continue to 
preserve the memory of the past  horrors of all totalitarian re gimes but also, on the other hand, 
highlight the Union's reconciliation process – f ounded on the respect for, and inviolability of, 
fundamental rights and the positive dynami c that it should continue to develop.  
2.3.4.  Focus group survey 
In May-June 2011, three focus group surveys were held in Paris, Warsaw and Vienna. They 
brought stakeholders together with resear chers, local and national governments, and 
journalists to focus on areas of the current  Programme. The participation was broad and 
involved both beneficiarie s and non-beneficiaries. 
The findings of these groups7 were very much in line with what emerged from the stakeholder 
consultation meeting in June 2010 and the onl ine consultation (Oct ober 2010-January 2011): 
– The importance of reaching out to people and organisations that have not yet 
participated in activities fi nanced through the Europe for Citizens programme itself, 
nor through other EU progr ammes and initiatives; 
– The need for greater impact through cap acity-building, a longer-term horizon, 
follow-up and experimentation; 
– The need for greater programme flexibility to  attract relevant and interesting projects 
and initiatives; 
– The need for inviting a broad discussion as regards the poten tial scope of the 
"memory" strand; 
– The importance of strategic networking and multipliers to bring target groups 
together and to establish c ontacts with policy-makers; 
– The need for connecting the EU/transnationa l and local level through involvement of 
national civil society organisations; 
– The need for better dissemination of results through for instance, social media tools. 
                                                 
7 Europe for Citizens Programme – Focus Groups and Support for Impact Assessment, Progress Report, 
ECORYS, 13 June 2011 
 
EN 16   EN 2.3.5.  Eurobarometer survey 
Regarding consultation and dial ogue with civil soci ety (Eurobarometer of September 2011 on 
"Local Authorities and the govern ance of the Single Market"), ju st over half of the Member 
States considered this important8. Those who did support such dialogue, considered it 
indispensable: "The knowledge and expertise of these groups wh en a specific topic is being 
debated is extremely valuable in order to ensu re that proposals are not only appropriate, but 
also relevant and adequate and will lessen th e perceived gap between the EU and citizens".  
2.4. Conclusions 
From the above consultations and repor ts, it can be concluded that on: 
Participation & target groups : The programme scope is wide enough to cover in principle any 
citizen or organisation, but ther e is still a need for reaching out to new groups outside the 
circle of the already converted. In particular, there is a need to include "hard-to-reach" groups, 
e.g. ethnic minorities or underrepresented social groups. 
Relevance : The programme is considered relevant both to civil society organisations and 
participating individuals. 
Impact : The programme is considered to have an impact at an organisational level when it 
comes to building capacity, as well on the personal level in terms of increased interest in 
European matters – particularly regardi ng culture, languages, other peoples.  
Dissemination : there is a strong need  – and consensus between  the Commission and the 
consulted entities/individuals - fo r better "valorisation" and di ssemination of project results. 
3. PROBLEM  DEFINITION  – WHAT  ISSUE  / PROBLEM  IS THE  PROPOSAL  
EXPECTED  TO TACKLE? 
3.1. Context 
Encouraging and facilitating citizens' wider i nvolvement in the European Union and what it 
stands for is of great significan ce and importance. This  ranges from the need to increase their 
involvement in current affairs right back to the need of ensuring a broader understanding of 
the history of the Union and its origins in the aftermath of two horrifi c world wars. Previous 
citizens' programmes have tackled these challe nges with success and there is a substantial 
need for the continuation of this work at EU-level to address these issues. 
The problem which the programme addresses is th e lack of capacity of citizens' organisations 
- general interest organisations, different type s of NGOs, stakeholder organisations, different 
groups of intermediaries - to launch and/or infl uence genuine debates on EU related issues at 
the local, regional and national levels, whic h can be translated into a pan-European 
perspective. As long as this problem persists , citizens are not encouraged to link and to 
upscale their commitment for their community  and their engagement for democratic 
principles to the European level. Increased understanding about the EU, the acquaintance with 
the historical foundations and values on whic h the Union is built, and the knowledge about 
                                                 
8 NL, EL, LV, BG, EE, FI, LU, DK, UK, SI, IT, CY, HU, ES, DE, IT  
 
EN 17   EN the impact of EU policies on people's daily lives allows citizens to fully benefit from the 
advantages of European citizenship and to connect with the mission of the EU. 
The challenge is to reach out through intermediaries to larg e groups of citizens who would 
normally not seek to influence or take part in  EU affairs and to facilitate the first steps 
towards involvement into EU related topics or format across national borders or with a European dimension. There is a need for a horiz ontal approach that does not aim to replace 
specific dialogues or consultation processes at th e EU level, but to mobilise citizens at local 
level to debate on concrete i ssues of European interest. 
The current Europe for Citizens programme 2007-2013 is an important instrument which 
provides a framework for greater citizens' participa tion in EU affairs. However, it needs to be 
built upon by further intervention so  as to provide the incentive for civic participation in EU 
affairs, an a real catalyst for European citizens'  associations to become more involved in such 
matters.  
3.1.1.  Main issues at stake 
The ambitious challenge that the new Program me sets out to tackle is three-fold: 
(1) develop civil society capacity to partic ipate in the EU policy making process; 
(2) develop supportive structures to channel the results of such debates to policy-makers 
at the relevant levels; and 
(3) offer additional opportunities for individual citizens to particip ate in debates and 
discussions on EU-related issues. 
3.2. What are the underlying drivers of the problem? 
The underlying driver of this problem is the need for more genuine debates on EU related 
issues at the local, regional and national levels , which can be translated into a pan-European 
perspective.  
3.2.1.  Complementing existing sectoral  programmes for civil society 
While there are a number of different instruments that cater for civic participation in sectoral 
policies in quite elaborate forms, the Eur ope for Citizens programme focuses on seeding 
interest in the EU integration and stimulating civic participation. It seeks to encourage and 
invite the large group of "non-converted" – thos e who would normally not seek to influence 
or take part in EU affairs - to take a fi rst step towards involve ment by going from being 
"spectators" to being "actors"  – whatever the (EU related) topic or format, as long as it is 
trans-national or has a European dimensi on. The aim is not to replace the thematic 
programmes, or to duplicate their consultation pro cess, but to mobilise citizens at local level 
to debate on concrete issues of European interest. By doing this, they become aware of the 
impact of EU policies in their daily lives. They can influence and experience the benefits of Europe and connect with the mission of the EU. 
The programme coherence and the extent to wh ich it is complementary to other Community 
programmes has been addressed in the interi m evaluation led by ECOR YS, which found no 
evidence of any contradiction with other progr ammes and even indicated that the apparent 
duplication could be benefi cial in terms of achievi ng synergies (pp. 30-31). 
 
EN 18   EN The "Fundamental Rights and Citizenship" programme, managed by DG JUST with a budget 
of 97.25 million euro (2007-2013), addresses citizenship issues  from the perspective of 
developing a European society based on the respect of fundamental rights  recognised in 
Article 6(2) TEU and on the ri ghts deriving from Union citizens hip in Articles 20 - 25 TFEU.  
The Youth in Action and volunteering programme s managed by DG EAC also contribute to 
citizenship and the development of mutual trust and solidarity with others, but their main emphasis is on young people. The Europe for C itizens programme is complementary in the 
way that it provides support for organisa tions and networks of all age groups. 
Under the PROGRESS programme, the Commissi on supports EU-wide NGOs  that work on 
raising awareness and defending citizens' rights in specific areas, such as e.g. non-
discrimination or the fight against poverty. 
In 2010, DG COMM carried out a "Mapping of Civil Society Dialogue in the European 
Commission". It was designed to give an overview on the means and methods used by 
Directorates-General from the Eu ropean Commission to relate a nd dialogue with civil society 
organisations in their field of interest. The rationale for this internal exercise was to ensure visibility to practices already in place, but also to identify possible weaknesses, in order to 
enhance dialogue and consultation with civil so ciety organisations in a coherent way, up to 
the level expected by the Lisbon Treaty, while keeping a flexible a pproach. This initial 
mapping was done through online research in October - November 2010, thus giving an 
overview of what information could be found by an ordinary citizen. Results were shared 
within the inter-service gr oup on relations with the stakeholders managed by the SG. 
From the above-mentioned evaluation and mapping exercise it stands clear, that the Europe 
for Citizens programme is specific in the sense that it pursues a horizontal  approach. It seeks 
to engage people and to give rise to broader participation on EU matte rs – a programme that, 
potentially, could be a "door ope ner" for a more profound interest  and identifica tion with the 
EU. 
While the main objectives of the current Europe  for Citizens Programme - to give citizens the 
opportunity to participate in the construction of an ever closer Europe, to develop a European 
identity, to foster a sense of  ownership of the EU, and to enhance tolerance and mutual 
understanding - have been found globally valid, th ey have – due to their wide scope and the 
lack of more precise operati onal objectives – made it difficu lt to establish evidence of 
progress and impact.  
3.2.2.  Weaknesses and strengths of the current Europe for Citizens Programme 
3.2.2.1.  Weaknesses 
The current programme has been thoroughly ev aluated. The following weaknesses have been 
identified, which should be a ddressed in the new programme :  
Programme design: The current Programme has been hampered by the 4-action structure. 
Actors have been "locked up" in their compartm ents, with little cross-fertilisation between the 
different actors and actions – although this has actively been encouraged. 
Targeting : The current programme has a wide scope for participation and is delivering well in 
terms of ensuring a balanced representati on of women and men, and all age groups. 
Moreover, it attracts some 30% of first-time applicants every year. This notwithstanding, 
 
EN 19   EN more must be done when it comes to attractin g "hard-to-reach" groups, such as e.g. ethnic 
minorities and underrepresented social groups. 
Visibility : The current programme can virtually reach out to all citizens, in any context. It 
reaches around 1 million citizens/per year. Desp ite this, it is not particularly well-known 
outside the circle of  the "converted". The new Programme  needs to make better use of 
multipliers for further reach-out and effectiveness.  
Geographical distribution : The current Programme has had a limited attractiveness on 
organisations and individuals from some count ries in northern Europe (UK, Netherlands, 
Denmark and Sweden) as well as in southern Europe (Spain, Portugal, Greece) and in the 
Balkans (Romania, Bulgaria and Slovenia). From a content side, the new Programme needs a better thematic focus to reach new members th at would probably be more interested by 
projects dealing with specific issues that are c onsidered as problems in their daily life. From a 
financial management side, the new programme w ill also seek to develop a formula in dealing 
with flat-rates and unit-pricing taking into account costs for travels from more "far away" 
countries. This has already star ted under the current Programme. 
Lack of systemic impact analysis
: The interim evaluation listed a number of weaknesses in 
the Commission’s capacity to measure the impact  of the programme (page 23): The shortage 
of objective, aggregate data on the outputs, resu lts and impacts associated with the supported 
activities; there is no longitudinal (before and af ter) approach that would be the best way of 
measuring the impact of participation; and no way of objectively assessing the programme’s 
influence on wider society because many other factors influence trends in terms of civic 
participation. 
Valorisation and dissemination : The current Programme lacks a good strategy for identifying 
and disseminating best practices; the results ar e not enough "capitalised" on. They need to be 
further exploited, "ploughed" back into the pr ogramme and, even better, mainstreamed into 
the EU policy fields that they are dea ling with. The emergence of new forms of 
communication and community-building in the in ternet could provide new opportunities to 
overcome the gap between the EU and its citizen s. Citizens' panels, electronic town-hall 
meetings, discussions and opinion-making vi a social media and the organisation of 
meaningful feedback channels are some of th e possible innovative forms which need stronger 
support under the next generation of the programme. 
3.2.2.2.  Strengths 
Elements of the current Programme that have added most "EU value": Globally
:  
– responses from the survey conducted as a part  of the interim evaluation showed, that 
citizens and civil society organizations wh ich took part in the "Europe for Citizens 
programme" relate especially to the obj ective of enhancing tolerance, mutual 
understanding as well as bringing citizen s together and that there is a further 
potential role for "Europe for Citizens" pr ogramme in getting citizens interested in 
the shaping of new policies and strategi es such as Europe 2020. The interim 
evaluation also underlined the added value of "Europe  for Citizens" programme 
manifested mainly in terms of the scale and scope of activities and in helping beneficiaries to develop i nnovation, knowledge sharing a nd dissemination activities. 
 
EN 20   EN On the actions : 
– The midterm evaluation (p. 52) highlights that project promoters under Action 4 – 
Remembrance have made strong contributi ons in developing a sense of European 
identity based on common values, history and culture; action 2 – Civil society is 
making most contribution against the obj ective of fostering action, debate and 
reflection; and action 1 – town-twinning - is strongly linked to the objective of 
bringing people together from local communities. 
Within each action , the following elements have been deemed more effective: 
– the networking of twin-towns has been deemed efficient and given longer-term 
effects, while bilateral 'ad hoc' exchanges - normally based on project grants - have 
not at all achieved the same.  
– the longer duration of projects and higher EU  grants for civil society projects have 
led to more structured work programmes and more meaningful results.  
– The network on remembrance established in  2011 has linked loca l projects with the 
academic debates on Nazism and Stalinism. 
3.3. How would the problem evolve, all things being equal? 
A "Citizens for Europe" programme which would be  continued in its present form, with the 
same or similar focus, objectives, structur e and framework, would not fully exploit the 
potential scope for citizens' participation a nd engagement. The new de mocratic principles, 
and opportunities, and the Commission's commitme nt to put citizens at the centre of the 
European process reinforce the need to enco urage citizens to have  their voices heard, 
including by means of their political and commu nity participation.  
3.4. Legal basis, subsidiarity and proportionality 
Article 11 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU ) stipulates the EU institutions' tasks of 
giving citizens and representa tive organisations the opportunity  to make known and publicly 
exchange their views in all areas  of Union action. The same article refers to the institutions' 
duty to have an open, transparent and regular dialogue with civil society, the Commission's 
obligation of carrying out broad consultations with st akeholders, and introduces the Citizen's 
Initiative. Moreover, Article 20 of the Treat y on the Functioning of the European Union 
(TFEU) describes the rights deriving from Unio n citizenship. In order to empower citizens to 
fully enjoy these rights a better understandi ng of the EU is an important precondition. 
Appropriate means to ensure the achievement of these Treaty provis ions require to be 
provided. The "Europe for Citizens" programme represents one of these means, just as, 
Regulation 211/2011 of the European Parliament a nd of the Council on the citizens’ initiative, 
represents another. 
The Treaties call upon the EU "to give citizens and repr esentative associati ons the opportunity 
to make known their views in all areas of Uni on action" and to "maintain an open, transparent 
and regular dialogue with repres entative associations and civil society". While a broad range 
of programmes and EU practice ensure dialogue s in sectoral policy areas, the Europe for 
Citizens programme provides this  opportunity at a horizontal le vel. By this, the Programme 
 
EN 21   EN respects the subsidiarity principle. These ta sks can only be met by the EU, and not at the 
Member State level. 
The EU added value of the individual actions of  the new Programme is foreseen as follows: 
– In the case of " Remembrance and  European citizenship ", the programme seeks to 
support organisations to prom ote debate and activities on European integration and 
history. Similar logics apply – although in the case of certa in actions under "history", 
a European dimension suffices. Historical ar chives, sites of remembrance are, per se, 
bound by their location but not with out any EU-wide significance. 
– In the case of " Democratic engagement and civic participation ", the programme 
seeks to develop citizens' understanding and capacity to participat e in the EU policy 
making process and to develop opportunities for solidarity, societal engagement & 
volunteering at EU level. Such a wide sc ope and ambition could only be addressed at 
a Union level. 
– In the case of " valorisation ", this is a horizontal dime nsion of the programme as a 
whole. It will focus on the analysis, dissemination and valorisation of the project results from the above-mentioned strands . National and regional platforms would 
help collecting best practices  and ideas about how to st rengthen civic participation 
but pan-European platforms and common t ools are also needed to broaden the 
perspective and facilitate the transnational exchange. 
It should be highlighted that the activities carried out under the programme are not meant to 
replace the consultations and di alogues which most Commission se rvices have with citizens, 
stakeholders and interest groups. Ideally, the Europe for Citizens programme would prepare 
the ground for citizens and their asso ciations to be able to partic ipate in an informed way, in a 
broad range of "sectoral" dialogues maintained by the majority of Commission services and 
by the other EU institutions. 
The Programme also respects th e proportionality principle. A programme (as opposed to a 
recommendation) provides a flexible instrument, is open to all actors on equal terms, delivers 
on capacity building and addresses a changing political situation. 
There is no single solution with a view to bridge  the gap between the EU and its citizens, to 
the lack of participation a nd to the limited development of  a sense of belonging and of 
European identity. They require a variety of  actions and co-ordinated efforts through 
transnational and European level activities. 
Europe societal engagement can only be st rengthened by enabling individual citizens and 
citizens' associations to interact, build capacity  and exchange experiences at a transnational 
level. Action at national and local levels alone  would thus be insufficient and ineffective. 
As the Treaty on the Functioning of the Europ ean Union does not provide an article which 
can serve as legal base for the Programme, the Commission will use Article 352 TFEU and 
the special legislative procedure for this pur pose. The involvement of  national parliaments 
and the European Parliament would enhan ce the democratic nature of the proposal. 
 
EN 22   EN 4. OBJECTIVES 
Following on the problem definition, and the evaluation of the current Programme, changes to 
the current objectives will be needed. The objectives of the proposed programme are 
presented in the table below, addressing the short-comings of the current programme in terms 
of concrete targets to be achieved. 
OBJECTIVES
Europe for Citizens Programme 2014-2020
Global Aim Contribute to the understanding about the EU and promote civic participation
General 
Objective
Specific 
ObjectivesRemembrance and European citizenship
Stimulate debate, reflection and cooperation on
remembrance, EU integration and historyStrengthen remembrance and enhance capacity for civic participation at the EU level 
Democratic engagement and civic participation
Develop citizens’ understanding and capacity to 
participate in the EU policy making process and 
develop opportunities for solidarity, societal 
engagement & volunteering at EU level
Operational 
ObjectivesSupport organisations of a 
general European interest, 
transnational partnerships and 
networks to promote citizens’
interactions on 
EU mattersSupport organisations to promote 
debate and activities
on remembrance, European 
values and history
Delivery 
mechanismsOperational grants Purchase contracts Action grantsAnalysis, dissemination and valorisation of 
project results through internal and external 
activities
 
4.1. Policy objectives 
The general objective of a future programme w ill be to "strengthen remembrance and enhance 
capacity for civic participation at the EU leve l". It will answer to the need for a genuine 
debate on EU related issues at the local, regional and national levels  that can be translated into 
a pan-European context, and th e related need for supportive stru ctures to channel the results 
of such debates to policy-make rs at the relevant levels. To this, the programme would 
contribute by developing citizens' organisations' capacity to engage citizens in the democratic 
life of the EU. The specific objectives will comprise: 
(1) Stimulate debate, reflection and cooperation on remembrance, EU integration 
and history; 
(2) Develop citizens' understanding and capacity  to participate in the EU policy 
making process and develop opportunities for solidarity, societal engagement 
& volunteering at EU level. 
 
EN 23   EN 4.1.1.  Operational objectives 
Following the narrowed down specific objectives proposed for the new Programme (above), a 
new set of operational objectives will logically be applied. The latter will increase the capacity of the Commission to set more firm  indicators and subsequently be able to 
objectively, and more in detail, establish progress and impact. 
(1) Support organisations to promote deba te and activities on remembrance, 
European values and history; 
(2) Support organisations of a general European  interest, transnational partnerships 
and networks to promote citizen s' interactions on EU matters; 
(3) Horizontal dimension: Anal ysis, dissemination & valori sation of project results 
through internal and external activities.  
4.2. Consistency with other policies and objectives of the Union 
Article 20 of the Treaty of the Functioning of  the European Union (TFEU) describes the 
rights deriving from Union citizenship. In orde r to empower citizens to fully enjoy these 
rights, the understand ing of the EU is an important precondition. 
Article 11 of the Treaty on the European Union recognises the right of every citizen to 
participate in the democratic life of the Union, and that decisions have to be taken as openly 
and as closely as possible to citizens. Moreove r, it requests that citizens and representative 
associations are given the opportunity to excha nge their views in all areas of Union action, 
and that institutions maintain an open, transp arent and regular dialogue with representative 
associations and civil society. 
As a meaningful and fully e xpressive manifestation of th e Lisbon Treaty's provisions, 
President Barroso, enunciated, especially in hi s "Political Guidelines" a much stronger focus 
on citizens being at the very centr e of European policie s. As outlined below,  it is planned to 
link the activities carried out under the next generation of the "Europe for Citizens" programme much more closely with concrete  policy making. Conseque ntly, there will be a 
strong cooperation between Commission servi ces which implement respective policies and 
programmes. 
The programme is one of the instruments to lin k the democratic principles of Art 10-11 TEU 
with a broad range of sectoral EU policies. It encourages ci tizens to exchange views on all 
areas of EU action and at all stages of the form al decision making process. With regard to the 
themes of projects, their embedding in the local  and regional context, and to the composition 
of stakeholders there are important synergies wi th other EU programmes, namely in the areas 
of employment, social affairs and equal opportun ities, education, youth a nd culture, justice, 
and regional policy.  
The new programme is thus not
 to replace dialogues with citizens, stake holders and interest 
groups on specific policy areas. 
4.3. Simplification 
Simplification is already of key importance in the current programme and will be further 
developed in the new one. The use of an executive agency for the running of the full 
 
EN 24   EN programme cycle already saves considerably in terms of administration and human resources. 
In addition, the recourse to lump sums, flat ra tes and unit costs, e-applications, and efficient 
on-the-spot checks by grouping visits to organisa tions in the same region, further reduces the 
administrative burden as well as saves in real budgetary terms. The ECORYS midterm 
evaluation indicates (p. 39) that "there is so me evidence from beneficiary and stakeholder 
interviews that the Executive Agency is e fficiently administering the programme, making 
significant procedural improvements about fina nce, eligibility criteria, harmonisation of 
processes and the development of  e-forms for applications". It  also highlights the synergy 
effects with other programmes ma naged by the Executive Agency.  
5. WHAT  ARE  THE  MAIN  POLICY  OPTIONS  AVAILABLE  TO REACH  THE  
OBJECTIVES? 
Following the first stakeholder meeting of 22 June 2010 and in the pe riod leading up to the 
Impact Assessment report, a number of different responses to the problem defined in Section 
3 have been analysed. 
Three basic policy options with their respec tive sub-options have been retained and 
considered in relation to the future of th e "Europe for Citizens" programme (2014-2020): 
5.1. Option 1: Continue the Programme in its current form 
To adopt a "no policy change" approach – a ne w programme will be adopted with the same 
programme architecture of 4 "actions" as unde r the current Programme  (see 1.1.) but with a 
slightly reduced budget following the M FF indicative amount for the Programme. 
5.2. Option 2: Adopt a re-vamped Programme 
To adopt a re-vamped programme with a sl ightly reduced budget implemented through a 
more effective programme architecture and stre ngthened valorisation of results. This new 
architecture would consist of two "strands" that would provide for more flexibility for 
applicants in terms of finding a 'niche' for th eir project or initiativ e (abandoning the 4-action-
approach) and adding a third cross-cutting feat ure – the overarching concern for optimising 
results (see 6.2.). 
Several sub-options have been c onsidered under this approach.  
5.2.1.  Sub-option 1: Mixed approach 
The re-vamped programme would put  overall priority on outputs by: 
(1) reducing pure one-off town-twinning pr ojects to a minimum and transforming 
town-twinning projects into multi-partner pr ojects which have a clear thematic 
orientation, some policy impact  and a longer term validity;  
(2) mainstreaming innovative citizens' proj ects and support measures into the 
general multi-partner project part of the programme; 
(3) striking an adequate balance of the opera ting grants provided to think tanks and 
EU civil society organisations as regard s the number and le vel of subventions 
given; 
 
EN 25   EN (4) increasing the strategic focus of civil society projects by selecting bigger and 
longer-term projects which foresee a concrete contribution and ensure the 
feeding in of concrete ideas to the decision-making process; 
(5) increasing available resources for re membrance projects and broadening the 
scope of actions carried out in this area. 
(6) developing visibility/valoris ation actions as a cross-cu tting programme feature. 
5.2.2.  Sub-option 2: Support for larger grants only 
A new balance between operating grants and acti on grants would be introduced. Action grants 
would be provided only for big projects with  a financial volume of 300 000-500 000 euro and 
a maximum duration of 3 years.  
This would mean economies of scale and chance  for more structured work programmes, but 
with a considerable draw-back: there are only a limited number of organisations which have 
the necessary technical and organisationa l capacity to run big-scale projects. 
5.2.3.  Sub-option 3: Wider geographical coverage 
This would entail an extended scope of the discussion on values: the focus would be on 
“international” values rather than “European ” values. The programme would be extended to 
include also the neighbouring countries. 
This would respond well to the request from part of the stakeholde rs and probable support 
from some Member States.  
Sub-option 3 would require a substantiall y boosted programme budget. Furthermore, 
"international values" are not de fined and "universal values/hum an rights" might require such 
a wide scope that specific objec tives no longer could be defined. 
5.2.4.  Sub-option 4: Consultation tool 
Sub-option 4 would use the programme as a te sting board for main EU policies and/or 
challenges, for example by setting up and fundi ng citizens’ panels that would comment on 
given issues.  
Through such an approach, the EU institutions w ould gain a better understanding of the issues 
at stake, and how to communicate more efficiently  its intentions to citizens. It would also 
provide a concrete link between the programme and policy making. 
This option would require a substantially boos ted programme budget or pump out resources 
out of other channels of part icipation (CSO, networks).  
5.3. Option 3: Decentralisation of the Programme 
This option would mean that no EU-wide progr amme would follow the current "Europe for 
Citizens" programme when it come s to an end on 31 December 2013. 
Several alternative, decentralised approaches have been considered: 
 
EN 26   EN 5.3.1.  Sub-option 1: Member State based approach 
This approach would leave it up to the Member States to deve lop political participation and 
civic engagement around common EU values. 
This would mean total decentralisation, and simp lification in terms of EU administration. It 
would also mean an opportunity to fully tailor the EU deba te to national concerns and 
perspectives. 
Sub-option 1 would mean a serious risk of lim iting the scope to issues which are of purely 
national interest. There would be no policy i nput for the EU institutions from EU-wide 
umbrella organisations and think tanks organised at EU level. Neither would there be a 
possibility to stimulate EU-wide debates. 
5.3.2.  Sub-option 2: Communication approach only 
This option would mean to limit the general objective to communica tion only - to provide 
information on EU mission and policies, and leave the participation dimension to local levels. 
It would have limited implications on the EU budget. At the same time, this approach would risk lead ing to a “nationalisation”  of the policy issues. 
Neither would it respond to the need for a more participatory approach with bottom-up input 
to better respond to citizens' needs. 
5.3.3.  Sub-option 3: Sectoral approach 
The debate would be focused on th e sectoral issues within each policy field. In the absence of 
a horizontal instrument, this option would limit policy input for the EU institutions from EU-
wide umbrella organisations and think tanks orga nised at the EU level.  There would also be 
limited scope for supporting capacity building fo r civic participation, and no possibility to 
support EU-wide debate on referenc e points in European history. 
It should be noted that the Europe for Citizens programme is a horizontal instrument that does 
not seek to replace existing fo rms of dialogues or consultation, but to complement them. 
5.3.4.  Sub-option 4: Merger with other programme 
A merger with the future programme of DG JU ST covering justice and citizenship has been 
explored but was discarded after careful examination by the two DGs as there was no 
evidence of possible synergie s due to their different obj ectives and target groups. 
6. ANALYSIS
 OF POSITIVE  AND  NEGATIVE  IMPACTS  OF THE  THREE  
OPTIONS 
6.1. Option 1: Continue the Programme in its current form 
This option is likely to be considered insufficient in the context of the Commission's 
commitment to put citizens in the centre of the European process, the new democratic principles introduced by the Lis bon Treaty and in light of the existing criticism on the too 
limited means of the current programme. 
 
EN 27   EN Table 6.1 presents a summary of the main st rengths and weaknesses of the "Europe for 
Citizens" programme in its cu rrent form, by type of Action. 
Table 6.1: Option 1: Strengths and Weaknesses  
Main strengths Main weaknesses 
Action 1: "Active citizens for Europe" 
- well-known to the beneficiaries 
- successful introduction of "support measures" 
(under action 1.2.) which has improved the overall quality of the projects 
 - no strong incentives for innovation in terms of 
working methods and contents 
- only limited cross-fertilisation of different 
strands of the programme 
  
Action 2: "Active civil society in Europe" 
- a unique entry point for citizens organisations 
working on horizontal/"non -specific" issues (as 
opposed to sectoral policies) 
- operating grants have a llowed the development of 
strategic dialogue with key organisations  
 - the demands largely exceed available funds – 
risking frustration a nd counter-productive 
impact 
- project grants – disp ersed in content and 
lacking a thematic framework  
Action 3: "Together for Europe" 
- presidency events create strong ownership of Member States for European citizenship issues 
- studies helped to be tter understand the political 
context/area  
 - relatively narrow impact  of the high visibility 
events 
- limited resources available for studies restrict 
their scope, depth and value 
Action 4: "Active European Remembrance" 
- continuation of a releva nt and effective action; 
- continuation of existing networks and partnerships  - limited resources dedicated to this action result 
in a significant unfulfill ed demand and therefore 
loss of potential greater impacts in this field 
 
 
 
EN 28   EN Table 6.2: Option 1: Summary  of likely effectiveness 
Proposed General Objective Likely effectiveness 
Strengthen remembrance and enhance capacity for civic 
participation at the EU level 
 Moderate to high 
 
6.2. Option 2: Adopt a re-vamped Programme 
With a view to make the programme more meani ngful and to enhance its  impact, it is planned 
to link its activities better with the Commission' s priorities and the Eur opean political agenda. 
Furthermore, these activities wi ll be better structured for exploitation  of results. One of the 
key concerns is how programme results could be better "valorised" or "capitalised" and 
ploughed back into the programme. The deliver y mechanisms may entail actions grants, 
operational grants, or service cont racts following a Call for Tender. 
Based on consultation results and experien ce in running the Progr amme, the Commission 
proposes to abandon the 4-action-model in fa vour of a model base d on 2 "strands" of 
activities – "Remembrance and European citizenship" and " Democratic engagement and 
civic participation" . This would break up the "compa rtmentalisation" of the current 
programme and invite applicants  to venture for new structures  of cooperation and potentially 
new and innovative themes. 
The "Participation" dimension would regroup the citizens' meetings and the support for civil 
society organisations and thinks tanks. It w ould put a stronger focus on structuring methods 
(and thus promote more long-term sustainabi lity). The "European citizenship" dimension 
would build on the current Action 4 (preserving th e memory of the Nazi and Stalinist crimes) 
and make it broader in scope, and provide sup port for initiatives that  would pursue a self-
critical historical unders tanding of past and current European issues.  
The new model will confirm the current prac tice of offering the possibility to bid for 
multiannual operating grants, which gives applican ts longer-term sustainability and simplify 
unnecessary administrative procedures. 
Action grants will nevertheless remain an important delivery mechanism, particularly for first 
time applicants or to test new, innovative projects.  
Overall, programme governance considerations will fundamentally revolve around value-for-
money, efficiency and impact considerations. 
 
EN 29   EN Table 6.3: Option 2: Strengths and Weaknesses  
Main strengths Main weaknesses 
Strand 1: "Remembrance and European citizenship" 
- Emphasis of the importance of common values for 
participation  
- Will invite reflection on common values in the 
broadest sense, taking into account diversity 
- Development of a self-cri tical historical understanding 
of past and current EU milestones and processes. - risk of "nationalisa tion" of the issues 
addressed, if the action is widened beyond Nazism/Stalinism 
- challenge to select initiatives that are 
'defining moments' of modern European history relevant to all EU countries 
Strand 2: "Democratic engageme nt and civic participation" 
- will focus on the core elements of participatory 
citizenship  
- will better link the initiatives to the EU's political 
agenda  
- a new structure will facili tate a better feeding in of 
results of the initiatives launched into policy-making – thus leading to more conc rete and lasting outputs  
- will provide more opportuni ties for cross-fertilisation 
between different initia tives and organisations - risk of "saupoudrage" (dilution) unless more 
firm focus on political  priorities can be 
introduced 
Horizontal dimension: "Valorisation" 
- transferability of results 
- better return on investment - better learning from experience - better political legitimacy for expenditure - none 
 
Table 6.4: Option 2: Summary  of likely effectiveness 
Proposed General Objective Likely effectiveness 
Strengthen remembrance and enhance capacity for civic 
participation at the EU level High 
 
 
EN 30   EN  
6.3. Option 3: Decentralisation of the Programme 
The option of discontinuing the programme after 31 December 2013 in favour of 
decentralisation (see 5.3), would be likely to have the main strengths and weaknesses 
presented in Table 6.5. 
Table 6.5: Option 3: Strengths and Weaknesses 
Main strengths Main weaknesses 
- Saving in public expend iture and/or possible 
diversion of funds to other EU objectives - loss of the only instrume nt for fostering civic 
participation at the European level 
- significant reductio n of the number of 
transnational projects on the promotion of civic 
participation with an European dimension 
- citizens would feel less ownership for the 
decisions made by the EU institutions 
- the gap between the EU and its citizens would 
potentially widen 
- strong political opposition from the European 
Parliament and virtually all stakeholders – in particular civil society organisations – and potential beneficiaries 
- risk of putting an end to  the operations of many 
stakeholder organisations that provide a valuable 
input to EU debates 
- indirect costs for the EU budget, if intellectual 
input from think tanks has to be bought as service 
 
Table 6.6: Option 3: Summary  of likely effectiveness 
Proposed General Objective Likely effectiveness 
Strengthen remembrance and enhance capacity for civic 
participation at the EU level Low 
 
Although this option is not automa tically discarded, it must be underlined that discontinuing 
the Programme would come at a political pri ce – and would be in contradiction to the 
 
EN 31   EN Commission decision on the MFF 2014-20209 - facing not only strong opposition from 
different sectors but also leav ing a vacuum in the promoti on of civic participation and 
participatory citizenship at a European leve l. It would mean the loss of an important 
instrument for the fostering of civic participa tion, where no similar, existing instrument can 
cater for these needs. 
Preliminary results of the study on "Active Citizenship in Europe"10 show that the concept of 
a European dimension in citizenship policies and activities is almost exclusively related to EU 
funded projects/activities. This means that if the Programme would be discontinued the 
promotion of this European dimension would also wither away. 
Several other instruments aim at enabling dialog ue between the EU inst itutions and citizens, 
but within the limits of their respective sectoral  policies. 
If the Europe for Citizens Programme would r un out without a successor in line, the main 
problems outlined under chapter 3 would persist and possibly become bigger. 
In conclusion, the preferred option is the re -vamped programme (Option 2) with a "mixed 
approach" (sub-option 1).  
7. COMPARING  THE  OPTIONS 
Equal weight has been allocated to each of the positive and negative impacts identified. The 
results of the analysis of the different options in terms of their likely effectiveness in relation 
to the Objectives suggested for the programme are summarised in Table 7.1. 
Table 7.1: Likely effectiveness of the different options in relation to the suggested programme objectives 
Proposed General Objective Option 1: 
No change Option 2: 
Modify Option 3: 
Decentralised 
programme 
Strengthen remembrance and enhance 
capacity for civic participation at the EU level  Moderate High None 
8. RISK  AND  ASSUMPTIONS 
The risks inherent in the current situation if  nothing is done (“no-polic y” option) are outlined 
in the assessment of opt ion 3 under section 6.3 above. 
The proposed expenditure programme is based on the following assumptions: 
                                                 
9 COM(2011)500 I A Budget For Europe 2020 - Part I - Communication from the Commission to the 
European Parliament, the Council,  the European Economic and Soci al Committee and the Committee of 
the Regions; COM(2011)500 II A Budget For Europe 2020 - Part II - Policy Fiches - Communication 
from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. 
10 Contextual Analysis Report, "Active Citizenship in  Europe Project 2011", Institute of Education,  
8 August 2011 
 
EN 32   EN – The needs analysis and problem description as  outlined in section 3 will remain valid 
over the next seven years. 
– There exists a distin ct added value to tackling th e underlying proble ms from the 
European angle. 
– The design of the programme corresponds to the identified needs, is logic, clear, 
user-friendly and foresees the necessary actions and f unds to achieve its aims. 
– The continuation of sound management st ructures in place at European level 
(EACEA) to manage the programme  according to high standards. 
– All relevant programme data will be coll ected in order to allow for an in-depth 
evaluation of the programme. 
9. COST-EFFECTIVENESS 
9.1. Cost implications of the programme: €203 million 
On 29 June 2011, the European Commission presen ted its multi-annual financial framework 
(MFF) for the period 2014-2020. The indicative  budget adopted for the future Europe for 
Citizens programme was €203 million with an estimated €29 million per year. These amounts 
do not take into account futu re correction by indexation. 
9.1.1.  Total financial impact (including subsidy to the executive agency and expenditure on 
administrative management) 
Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total 
Mio € 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 203 
 
9.1.2.  Expenditure-related outputs  
Main expenditure-
related outputs 2014 2015 2016 2017 
 Output 
(no.) EUR 
millionOutput 
(no.) EUR 
millionOutput 
(no.) EUR 
million Output 
(no.) EUR 
million
Project grants 551 15 551 15 561 15 565 15 
Operational grants 86 10 86 10 87 10 92 10 
Service contracts 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 
Administrative costs (EACEA)  3  3  3  3 
 637 29 637 29 648 29 657 29 
 
EN 33   EN  
Main expenditure-
related outputs 2018 2019 2020 
 Output 
(no.) EUR 
millionOutput 
(no.) EUR 
millionOutput 
(no.) EUR 
million 
Project grants 565 15 577 15 584 15 
Operational grants 92 10 92 10 125 10 
Service contracts 5 1 5 1 5 1 
Administrative costs (EACEA)  3  3  3 
 657 29 669 29 709 29 
 
9.1.3.  Impact on staff and administra tive expenditure not include d in the reference amount 
Staff to be assigned to the management of the 
action using existing and/or additional resources  
Type of post 
Number of permanent 
posts Number of temporary 
posts  
Total Description of 
tasks deriving from the action 
Officials or temporary staff 4 Administrators 
5 Assistants  9 Programme 
implementation 
Other human resources  1 Seconded National 
Expert 1 Programme 
implementation 
Total human resources 9 permanent posts 1 temporary post 10  
 
 
EN 34   EN Overall financial impact on human resources – 2011 prices 
The amounts are total expenditure for twelve months 
Type of human resources Amount (€ million) Method of calculation 
Officials 
Temporary staff 1,143 (1,143) 
N/A 
 € 127,000 * 9 (9) officials 
N/A 
Other human resources  0,073 (0,073) € 73,000 * 1 (1) SNE 
Total 1,216 (1,216)  
 
 
Other administrative expenditure deri ving from the action – 2011 prices 
The amounts are total expenditure for twelve months 
Budget line 
(number and heading) Amount (€ million) Method of calculation 
16.01.02.11.01 – Missions 0,042 5 persons * 10 missions * 825 € 
(average) 
16.01.02.11.02 – Meetings and conferences 0,174 3 meetings * 50 persons * (860 € 
travel + (2*150 € per diem)) 
16.01.02.11.03 – Compulsory Committees 0,057 2 meetings * 33 persons * 860 € 
Total 0,273  
 
9.2. Could the same results be achieved at lower costs? 
The adoption of the indicative budget for the new Programme at €203 million (MFF 2014-
2020) already represents a reducti on compared to the current instrument (total amount €215 
million). As studies show (see section 2), the current programme envelope cannot fully match the demand. Any reduction, including the one fore seen by MFF, will aggravate the situation 
of unmet demand – unless there is structural change to the programme leading to increased 
efficiency, effectiveness and sustainabilit y. This narrows down the options outlined under 
section 6. 
 
EN 35   EN 9.3. Could the same or better results be achiev ed with the same cost by using other 
instruments? 
No. There is no similar, existing instrument that  could cater for the needs of fostering civic 
participation at the European or  transnational level. A possible merger with the "Fundamental 
Rights and Citizenship" programme run by DG JUST has been duly considered but was 
discarded after careful analysis due to the di fferent objectives of the programmes. Other, 
existing instruments supporting ci vil society participation are limited to sectoral policies. 
10. MONITORING  AND  EVALUATION 
10.1. Direct and indirect impact indicators 
GENERAL OBJECTIVE Enhance capacity for civic part icipation at the EU level  
Impact indicator Current situation Long term target and 
milestone 
Number and quality of initiatives promoted by citizens' organisations with a view to: 
- have an impact on the EU 
policy making process 
- strengthen cohesion in 
society 
- enhance the understanding 
of the role of the EU. A baseline should be 
established as it is a new objective. 
       Enhanced capacity of civil 
society to influence the European project 
Contributions to the 
European Years in the form of intellectual input or activities to link the Years with the local and regional realities 
Contributions to political 
platforms in the run-up to European elections 2014-2019. 
 
SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE Stimulate debate, reflection and cooperation on remembrance, 
EU integration and history  
Result indicators Latest known result Medium term target 
(result) 
Number of projects and quality of results 
 The indicators currently used 
do not provide this data. 
The new programme will 
establish a baseline for this indicator.  Increase of projects by 80% 
 
 
EN 36   EN Percentage of first time 
beneficiaries Average figure approx. 33% 
(depending on action and year) Minimum 15% across the 
board. 
 
SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE Develop citizens' understanding a nd capacity to participate in 
the EU policy making process and develop opportunities for 
solidarity, societal engagement and volunteering at EU level 
Result indicators Latest known result Medium term target 
(result) 
Number of directly involved participants 1.100.000 citizens (2010) 
The new programme will 
establish a baseline for this indicator.  Minimum 600 000 persons 
per year. 
Number of persons indirectly reached by the Programme The indicators currently used 
do not provide this data. 
The new programme will 
establish a baseline for this indicator. Aggregation of information 
and results provided in the final reports. 
Medium term target: 
5 million persons. 
Number of participating organisations The indicators currently used 
do not provide this data. 
The new programme will 
establish a baseline for this indicator. 2000 organisations per year. 
Percentage of first time 
beneficiaries Average figure approx. 33% 
(depending on action and year) Minimum 15% across the 
board. 
Number of transnational and multi-partner partnerships and networks 656 (data from 2009. 
Excludes operating grants and remembrance). 
The new programme will 
establish a baseline for this indicator. Increase by 5% (transnational 
partnerships and networks) 
Increase by 50% (multi-
partner partnerships and networks) 
Number and quality of policy initiatives following-up on activities supported by the programme at the local or European level  The indicators currently used 
do not provide this data. 
The new programme will 
establish a baseline for this indicator. Aggregation of information 
and results provided in the final reports. 
 
 
EN 37   EN Geographical coverage of the 
activities – 
Correlation between number 
of participants in the Programme and total population per country. The indicators currently used 
do not provide this data. 
The new programme will 
establish a baseline for this indicator. At least one project per 
country. 
 
10.2. Evaluation procedures 
10.2.1.  Mid-term report 
The first report will be drawn up three years after the start of he programme (31 December 
2016 at the latest). The objective of  this report will be to provide  an initial assessment of the 
results obtained at the half-way stage so that any changes or adjustments that are deemed necessary may be made for the second half of the programme (31 December 2017 at the latest).  
10.2.2.  Ex-post evaluation 
The ex-post report on the impact of the action in question will be drawn up at the end of the 7-
year-programme (1st July 2023). The objective of this report will  be to assess the comparative 
results of the support mechanisms in light of the programme objectives.  
Evaluation measures will be carried out by means of  external and internal studies and surveys, 
missions and meetings. The costs relating to th ese measures are standard expenditure under a 
Community programme and will be covered out of the administrative budget of the future 
programme. 
 
EN 38   EN  
ANNEX I  
MONITORING DATA OF THE CURRENT PROGRAMME 
Europe for Citizens programme budget (2007- 2010) in Mio of European Commission 
 2007 2008 2009 2010 
Action 1 11.66 13.94 16.17 16.24 
Action 2 7.38 9.05 9.91 11.79 
Action 3 1.30 2.03 2.58 2.29 
Action 4 1.00 1.40 1.80 1.94 
Total 21.34 26.42 30.46 32.26 
 
EN 39   EN Europe for Citizens programme outputs (2007-2010) 
   2007 2008 2009 2010 
N° of projects  904 1.111  820 648 
Funding allocated (in 
Millions of Euros) € 7.98 € 10.24  € 8.37  € 7.30 Town twinning 
citizens meetings (1.1)  N° of participants  668.387 984.567  799.500  751.002 
N° of projects  52  68 96 69 
Funding allocated (in 
Millions of Euros) € 0.96  € 2.13  € 3.90  € 6.40  Networks of 
twinned towns (1.2)  N° of participants  6.042  53.910  145.000  151.941 
N° of projects  - - 9 - 
Funding allocated  - - € 
1,156,595- Mobility measures 
(1.6 - from 2009)*  * - one-off pilot action N° of participants  
 - - 6.300  - 
N° of projects  
 - 18 11  
(1 project 
cancelled)  12 
Funding allocated (in 
Millions of Euros) - € 2,10  € 1,86  € 1,65 Citizens projects 
(2.1 – from 2008)  
N° of participants  - 9.500  13.300  33.628 
N° of projects -  16 14 20 
Funding allocated (in 
Millions of Euros) - € 0,70  € 1.56  € 1.54 Action 1 
Support measures 
(2.2 – from 2008) 
 
N° of participants  -  41.291  39.732  37.249 
N° of Operating 
Grants 1 1 1  Action 1 
Designated 
Organisations 
Funding allocated  € 0,21 € 0,23 € 0,23  
 
EN 40   EN  
   2007  2008  2009  2010  
N° of operating grants 
- policy research  13 11 17 18 
N° of operating grants 
- civil society  14 28 28 38 Structural support 
for policy research and civil society organisations  
 Funding allocated (in 
Millions of Euros) € 2,55  € 3,89  € 4,40  € 8,26  
N° of projects  108  131 127 108 
Funding allocated (in 
Millions of Euros) € 3,36  € 4,08  € 4,20  € 3,79 Action 2 
Projects initiated 
by civil society organisations 
 N° of participants  n/a  n/a 27,305  92.250 
N° of Operating 
Grants 4 4 4  Action 2 
Designated 
Organisations 
Funding allocated € 1,519 € 1,175 € 1,175  
 
   2007  2008  2009  2010 
Number of events  2 3 3 3 High-visibility 
events  
 Funding allocated  n/a  € 851,512  € 776,880 € 750.000
Number of studies  1 1 0 1 Studies  
 Funding allocated  € 300.000  € 167.756  n/a €160.245 
Number of tools/ 
packages 5 3  3  Information and 
dissemination tools/ packages  Funding allocated  n/a  € 24,935  € 66,514   
N° of Europe for 
Citizens Points supported  17 17 17 Action 3 
Support to Europe 
for Citizens Points 
Funding allocated  € 
417.467,64 € 
417.467,6
4 € 
417.467,6
4 
N° of Operating Grants 3 3 3   
Action 3 Designated 
Organisations Funding allocated € 0,455 € 0,495 € 0,495  
 
 
EN 41   EN    2007  2008  2009  2010 
No. of projects  36 49 56 64 
Funding allocated (in 
Millions of Euros) € 1,10 € 1,71 € 2,10 € 2,29 Action 4 
Active European 
Remembrance 
No. of participants  n/a n/a 12,040 80.473 
 
 
EN 42   EN ANNEX II  
SECOND CONSULTATION MEET ING WITH STAKEHOLDERS (SEE LINK ) 
http://ec.europa.eu/citize nship/pdf/doc1301_en.pdf