COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Date: 2011-12-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU financing, EU national, EU programme, EU situation, European citizenship, European identity, social participation

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 COUNCIL establishing for the period 2014-
2020 the programme "Europe for Citizens" to promote  European citizenship 

{COM(2011) 884 final} 
{SEC(2011) 1563 final} 

 
 
 
 
  
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 4 

Development of the programme................................................................................... 4 

Delivery mechanisms ................................................................................................... 5 

1.2.1.  Eligibility...................................................................................................................... 5 

1.2.2.  Co-financing................................................................................................................. 7 

1.3. 

1.4. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

Current political context............................................................................................... 7 

Financial framework .................................................................................................... 7 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES... 7 

Organisation and timing............................................................................................... 8 

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 the consultations and 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 consultation 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 ISSUE / 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 

1 

   EN 

 
3.2.2.  Weaknesses and strengths of the current Europe for Citizens Programme ............... 18 

3.2.2.1.  Weaknesses ................................................................................................................ 18 

3.2.2.2.  Strengths..................................................................................................................... 19 

3.3. 

3.4. 

4. 

How would the problem evolve, all things being equal? ........................................... 20 

Legal basis, subsidiarity and proportionality ............................................................. 20 

OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................ 22 

4.1. 

Policy objectives ........................................................................................................ 22 

4.1.1.  Operational objectives................................................................................................ 23 

4.2. 

4.3. 

5. 

5.1. 

5.2. 

Consistency with other policies and objectives of the Union .................................... 23 

Simplification............................................................................................................. 23 

WHAT ARE THE MAIN POLICY OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO REACH THE 
OBJECTIVES? .......................................................................................................... 24 

Option 1: Continue the Programme in its current form ............................................. 24 

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: Communication approach only ........................................................... 26 

5.3.3.  Sub-option 3: Sectoral approach ................................................................................ 26 

5.3.4.  Sub-option 4: Merger with other programme ............................................................ 26 

6. 

6.1. 

6.2. 

6.3. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

ANALYSIS OF POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF THE THREE 
OPTIONS................................................................................................................... 26 

Option 1: Continue the Programme in its current form ............................................. 26 

Option 2: Adopt a re-vamped Programme ................................................................. 28 

Option 3: Decentralisation of the Programme ........................................................... 30 

COMPARING THE OPTIONS ................................................................................. 31 

RISK AND ASSUMPTIONS .................................................................................... 31 

COST-EFFECTIVENESS ......................................................................................... 32 

EN 

2 

   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 expenditure not included in the reference amount
.................................................................................................................................... 33 

9.2. 

9.3. 

Could the same results be achieved at lower costs?................................................... 34 

Could the same or better results be achieved 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 

3 

   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  European  Citizenship  (civic  participation)  2004-2006.  This 
programme was established by the Council in January 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 previously been supporting active European Citizenship for a 
number  of  years  under  various  budget  lines,  there  was  no  legal  base  for  awarding  grants  in 
this field. 

The 2004-2006 programme had a budget of €72 million (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 active European Citizenship (organisations promoting 
European  ideas  and  debate  and  organisations  and  "think  tanks"  promoting  European  values 
(actions  by 
and  objectives)  and  actions 
nongovernmental  organisations,  associations  and  federations  of  European  interest  or  cross-
industry trade unions and town twinning projects). In total over 30 organisations received an 
operating  grant,  whereas  around  250  NGOs,  associations  and  federations  and  trade  union 
projects  received  funding  between  2004  and  2005.  Over  2,800  town  twinning  projects 
received funding during the same period. 

initiated  by  civil  society  organisations 

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 municipalities gained speed. Since 1989, the EU has 
supported  town-twinning  projects  to  strengthen  existing  links  and  encourage  new  ones, 
especially where a European added-value can be shown.  

Drawing on the experience gained from both town-twinning and the 2004-2006 Programme 
and  justified  by  the  lasting  need  for  structured  support  for  civic  participation,  the  current 
Europe for Citizens Programme (2007-2013) was established. Its main objectives are 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.  In  order  to  achieve  this,  four  distinct  "actions"  were  conceived:  1) 
"Active citizens for Europe", 2) "Active civil society in Europe", 3) "Together for Europe", 
and 4) "Active European Remembrance". 

Action 1 involves citizens directly by means of town-twinning activities and citizens' projects 
to  debate  European  issues.  Action  2  provides  support  for  "think  tanks",  civil  society 
organisations at European level, and projects initiated by civil society organisations at local, 
regional and national levels. Action 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  remembrance  (commemorating  the  victims  of  the 
crimes committed during Nazism and Stalinism regimes). 

EN 

4 

   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 these activities (full list 
available  at  http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/citizenship/results_compendia/results_en.php).  A  rough 
breakdown  per  year 
that  Action  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  exclusively  through  service  contracts,  about  5 
projects/year, and Action 4 roughly 50 projects per year. See Annex 1 “Europe for Citizens 
programme outputs (2007-2010)". 

indicates 

1.2. 

Delivery mechanisms 

A. PROJECT GRANTS - projects are actions with a limited lifetime during which proposed 
specific activities are implemented. (Approximately 1 100 per year)  

B.  OPERATING  GRANTS  -  operating  grants  are  different  from  project  grants  in  that  they 
provide financial support for costs required for the proper conduct of the usual and permanent 
activities  of  an  organisation,  namely  staff  costs,  the  cost  of  internal  meetings,  publications, 
information  and  dissemination,  travel  costs  arising  from  the  implementation  of  the  work 
programme, rental payments, depreciation and other 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 criteria are detailed in the table below: 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
EN 

6 

EN 

 
  
 
1.2.2.  Co-financing 

The  EU  grant  cannot  finance  the  entire  costs  of  the  project  or  operating  costs  of  an 
organisation.  Promoters  must  show  their  commitment  to  the  project  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  requesting  grants  from  other  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 whole history. It is a financial, 
economic  and  social  crisis,  but  also  a  crisis  of  confidence.  National  plans  or  even 
intergovernmental  co-operations  are  not  sufficient  to  tackle  such  large  scale  economic  and 
social problems. In this situation, it is even more important to make known to the citizens the 
Union’s  role  and  achievements.  The  Commission  thus  needs  to  find  ways  of  increasing 
citizens' awareness and understanding about the EU project. 

Despite  the  fact  that  European  citizenship  gives  additional  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 elections: from almost 62% in 1979 to 45.47% in 2004 and 43% in 
2009). 

The Commission thus needs to take action to promote civic participation, transform citizens 
from  spectators  into  actors  willing  to  contribute  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 representative 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 presented 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 account future correction by indexation. 

2. 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

Lead Directorate-General: 

Directorate-General for Communication 

EN 

7 

   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: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

1 

2 

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  current  programme,  Final  Report  (external 
contractor)1 

27 October 2010 – 5 January 2011: Open public online consultation 

1  March  2011:  Communication  on  the  mid-term  evaluation  of  the  current 
programme2 

21 June 2011: Second consultation meeting with stakeholders 

5  July  2011:  Second  Impact  Assessment  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 improvements in the report, in particular to 
provide a more complete and focused problem analysis, to be more specific about the 

Interim Evaluation of the European for Citizens Programme 2007-13, Final Report, ECORYS, October 
2010 (http://ec.europa.eu/citizenship/news/news1293_en.htm) 
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 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
objectives, to design and assess substantive policy options, and to clarify evaluation 
arrangements and define more robust progress 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  and  Related  Services  (EAC/03/06)  to  carry  out 
an interim evaluation of the EU's Europe for Citizens programme (2007-2013). 

Besides  providing  an  overview  of  the  results  obtained  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 interim 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 Commission in the final analysis 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 been sought on the following occasions: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

On  20  June  2010,  a  consultation  meeting  was  held  in  Brussels  with  the  major 
stakeholders:  the  group  members  of  the  regular  NGO  consultation  (for  details,  see 
below), the national contact points for European Citizenship (PECs), the Council for 
European  Municipalities  and  Regions 
the  Town-Twinning 
Coordinators,  and  members  of  the  Programme  Committee.  The  proceedings  were 
based on an open agenda with a highly participatory approach. 

(CEMR)  and 

On 27 October 2010, an open public online consultation was launched (see below) 

On  21  June  2011,  a  second  stakeholder  meeting  took  place  in  Brussels  with  100 
participants. 

May-June  2011,  three  focus  group  surveys  held  in  Paris,  Warsaw  and  Vienna  on 
different aspects of the Programme (town-twinning, the impact on the development 
of civil society, remembrance) bringing stakeholders together with researchers, local 
and national governments, and journalists (see 2.3.4.).  

Regular NGO consultation: Comprises of regular meetings between the Commission 
and  approximately  70  key  European  organisations  actively  involved  in  the  Europe 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
for Citizens Programme. Participation in this group follows an expression of interest 
to do so by the different organisations. Many 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  efficiency  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 stakeholders 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  the  Commission’s  IPM  (Interactive  Policy 
Making) tool. The consultation was open until 5 January 2011 and invited contributions from 
all  interested  parties:  individual  citizens,  civil  society  organisations,  public  authorities  and 
administrations,  research  institutions,  European  and  international  organisations  and  others. 
412 respondents participated, with 5 additional submissions received separately. 

Wide  publicity  was  given  to  this  public  consultation  by  placing  it  on  the  “Your  Voice  in 
Europe” website and by sending information 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 Programme stakeholders and 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 the Commission with the help of an external 
consultant (see section 2.2.2.). The results and a detailed analysis 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  studies  (conducted  in  2008  and  2009)  and  the  interim  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 ineligible and unsuccessful bids, which was able to 
explore some views from outside the circle of supported organisations. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
As far as the relevance of the programme is concerned the evidence provided by the interim 
evaluation suggests that the objectives of the programme are valid to the overarching aim of 
"giving  citizens  the  opportunity  to  interact  and  participate  in  constructing  an  ever-closer 
Europe, thus developing citizenship of the European Union"3. 

On  efficiency,  the  interim  evaluation  argues  that  "there  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 scale 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 participation rates) are being met5". 

2.3.1.1.  Impact on organisations 

82% of the respondents (and 84% of those representing civil society) 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  the  programme  had  a  positive  impact  on  the  town 
twinning  movement,  which  is  one  of  the  most  significant  beneficiaries  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  activities  are  also  important  multipliers  at  the 
local level, spreading a feeling of solidarity and mutual understanding 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 attitudes of those who participated in the activities financed by the 
programme either once or repeatedly. Results show that 83% of respondents in the 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 claim 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 promote more coherent policy development in the 

3 

4 
5 

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" 
idem 
idem 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
area of citizenship. There are no clear 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 influence 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: individual citizens, civil society organisations, public 
authorities and administrations, research institutions, European and international organisations 
and others. The largest single group of respondents is individual 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 differ from the rest of the respondents, in 
that one third were provided by euro sceptics whose negative responses were directed towards 
the European Union and EU institutions in general rather than towards the Europe for Citizens 
programme  itself,  as  explicated  in  their  comments.  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 benefitted from earlier rounds of the Europe for Citizens 
programme,  suggesting  the  consultation  contains  large  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 report on the online consultation) 

The main observations resulting from this online consultation were the following: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

6 

The majority of respondents (81%) agree that there is a need for an EU programme 
promoting  and  supporting  civic  participation,  with  civil  society  respondents  more 
likely to agree than individual citizens. 

There  is  strong  support  for  objectives  around  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  networking  between  different  types  of 
organisations, dialogue between civil society and EU institutions and citizen-focused 
methods,  such  as  citizens  panels,  helping  them  to  get  organised  and  promoting 
citizenship education. 

On  balance  there  is  strongest  support  for  collaborative,  transnational  and  thematic 
approaches, especially ‘joint projects by local 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 around the value of networking and platforms 
for  information  exchange  or  sharing  of  knowledge  and  best  practice,  including 

Online Consultation on the Future of the Europe for Citizens Programme, Final Analysis of responses, 
ECORYS, March 2011 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
specific  methods  such  as  extending  the  use  of  information  technologies,  databases 
and social media. 

• 

• 

Civil  society  organisations,  "hard-to-reach"  groups  (e.g.  ethnic  minorities, 
underrepresented  social  groups),  policymakers  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,  equality,  the  rule  of  law  and  respect  for 
human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values 
are  common  to  the  Member  States  in  a  society  in  which  pluralism,  non-
discrimination,  tolerance,  justice,  solidarity  and  equality  between  women  and  men 
prevail".  

2.3.3.  Results of the stakeholder consultation 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 consultation with stakeholders has in most cases been dealt with in a 
'consensus seeking manner' – that is, the focus has 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 stakeholder meeting on 21 June 2011.  

Setting of annual priorities 

The  exercise  focused  on  the  link  between  participation  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  needed,  how  detailed  they  should  be  and  who 
should set them (should the approach 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  views  of  NGOs  to  the  Institutions,  but  also  bring  the  local, 
regional and national level to the EU. The regular dialogues with stakeholders and with the 
Member  States  were  identified  as  the  best  fora  to  achieve  this.  There  was  consensus  that 
priorities should have a longer-term 'validity' and should not be completely abandoned after 
one year - even in the case of European Years. 

Balance between operational & projects grants 

There  was  consensus  in  the  discussion  that  both  operating  grants  and  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 perspective that allows for better forward planning. 
The group also strongly advocated flexibility with 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  caveat  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 project grants. Opinions were divided on this. Nor was there any 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
clear consensus on whether it should be possible to combine an operating grant with project 
funding. 

Capacity-building 

The  result  of  the  discussions  underlined  the  need  to  keep  capacity  building  as  a  transversal 
element  of  all  actions,  combining  it  with  the  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-peer  exchange,  training  for  trainers  and  the 
development of a database on the organisations/projects funded by the Programme. 

Dialogue with stakeholders 

There was clear support for maintaining a regular dialogue with the programme stakeholders 
and  making  this  action  an  integral  part  of  the  programme.  The  current  approach,  regular 
dialogue  with  civil  society  organisations  and  think  tanks,  should  be  enhanced,  building 
capacity to create a community of practice, which would become both a 'collective brain' for 
the programme, able to impact policy developments. Concrete suggestions included having it 
more  content-oriented  and  focused  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  meetings  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 this could be measured. The group concluded that 
there are areas where impact is difficult to measure – e.g. when it comes 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 needed - these should also include methods for self-evaluation. 

Better exploitation of results 

Optimising results has to be done both at programme 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  priorities  of  the  Programme,  identifying  concrete 
results, improving quality and sustainability and developing evaluation 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 existing projects, tools for identifying potential 
partners  and  for  capitalising  on  collective  learning  (e.g.  exchange  of  best  practices)  can 
increase impact. 

EN 

14 

   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  (other  than  those  related  to  Nazism  and  Stalinism)  should  be 
covered,  there  was  a  strong  indication  that  there  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  programme  would  thus,  on  one  hand,  continue  to 
preserve the memory of the past horrors of all totalitarian regimes but also, on the other hand, 
highlight the Union's reconciliation process – founded on the respect for, and inviolability of, 
fundamental rights and the positive dynamic 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  researchers,  local  and  national  governments,  and 
journalists  to  focus  on  areas  of  the  current  Programme.  The  participation  was  broad  and 
involved both beneficiaries 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 online consultation (October 2010-January 2011): 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

7 

The  importance  of  reaching  out  to  people  and  organisations  that  have  not  yet 
participated in activities financed through the Europe for Citizens programme itself, 
nor through other EU programmes and initiatives; 

The  need  for  greater  impact  through  capacity-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  potential  scope  of  the 
"memory" strand; 

The  importance  of  strategic  networking  and  multipliers  to  bring  target  groups 
together and to establish contacts with policy-makers; 

The need for connecting the EU/transnational and local level through involvement of 
national civil society organisations; 

The need for better dissemination of results through for instance, social media tools. 

Europe for Citizens Programme – Focus Groups and Support for Impact Assessment, Progress Report, 
ECORYS, 13 June 2011 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2.3.5.  Eurobarometer survey 

Regarding consultation and dialogue with civil society (Eurobarometer of September 2011 on 
"Local Authorities and the governance of the Single Market"), just 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 when a specific topic is being 
debated is extremely valuable in order to ensure that proposals are not only appropriate, but 
also relevant and adequate and will lessen the perceived gap between the EU and citizens".  

2.4. 

Conclusions 

From the above consultations and reports, it can be concluded that on: 

Participation & target groups: The programme scope is wide enough to cover in principle any 
citizen  or  organisation,  but  there  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 regarding culture, languages, other peoples.  

Dissemination:  there  is  a  strong  need  –  and  consensus  between  the  Commission  and  the 
consulted entities/individuals - for better "valorisation" and dissemination of project results. 

3. 

PROBLEM  DEFINITION  –  WHAT  ISSUE  /  PROBLEM  IS  THE  PROPOSAL 
EXPECTED TO TACKLE? 

3.1. 

Context 

Encouraging  and  facilitating citizens'  wider involvement  in  the  European  Union  and  what  it 
stands for is of great significance 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 horrific world wars. Previous 
citizens'  programmes  have  tackled  these  challenges  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 the lack of capacity of citizens' organisations 
- general interest organisations, different types of NGOs, stakeholder organisations, different 
groups of intermediaries - to launch and/or influence genuine debates on EU related issues at 
the  local,  regional  and  national  levels,  which  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  which  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 

16 

   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  large  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 horizontal approach that does not aim to replace 
specific dialogues or consultation processes at the EU level, but to mobilise citizens at local 
level to debate on concrete issues of European interest. 

The  current  Europe  for  Citizens  programme  2007-2013  is  an  important  instrument  which 
provides a framework for greater citizens' participation 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 Programme sets out to tackle is three-fold: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

develop civil society capacity to participate in the EU policy making process; 

develop supportive structures to channel the results of such debates to policy-makers 
at the relevant levels; and 

offer  additional  opportunities  for  individual  citizens  to  participate  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  Europe  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" – those who would normally not seek to influence 
or  take  part  in  EU  affairs  -  to  take  a  first  step  towards  involvement  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  dimension.  The  aim  is  not  to  replace  the  thematic 
programmes, or to duplicate their consultation process, 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 which it is complementary to other Community 
programmes has been addressed in the interim evaluation led by ECORYS, which found no 
evidence  of  any  contradiction  with  other  programmes  and  even  indicated  that  the  apparent 
duplication could be beneficial in terms of achieving synergies (pp. 30-31). 

EN 

17 

   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 rights deriving from Union citizenship in Articles 20 - 25 TFEU.  

The Youth in Action and volunteering programmes 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  Citizens  programme  is  complementary  in  the 
way that it provides support for organisations and networks of all age groups. 

Under the PROGRESS programme, the Commission 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 European Commission to relate and 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  society  organisations  in  a  coherent  way,  up  to 
the  level  expected  by  the  Lisbon  Treaty,  while  keeping  a  flexible  approach.  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 group 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 matters – a programme that, 
potentially, could be a "door opener" for a more profound interest and identification 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, they have – due to their wide scope and the 
lack  of  more  precise  operational  objectives  –  made  it  difficult  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 evaluated. The following weaknesses have been 
identified, which should be addressed in the new programme:  

Programme  design:  The  current  Programme  has  been  hampered  by  the  4-action  structure. 
Actors have been "locked up" in their compartments, 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  representation  of  women  and  men,  and  all  age  groups. 
Moreover,  it  attracts  some  30%  of  first-time  applicants  every  year.  This  notwithstanding, 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
more  must  be  done  when  it  comes  to  attracting  "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.  Despite  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  countries  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  that  would  probably  be  more  interested  by 
projects dealing with specific issues that are considered as problems in their daily life. From a 
financial management side, the new programme will 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 started 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, results and impacts associated with the supported 
activities; there is no longitudinal (before and after) 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 are not enough "capitalised" on. They need to be 
further  exploited,  "ploughed"  back  into  the  programme  and,  even  better,  mainstreamed  into 
the  EU  policy  fields  that  they  are  dealing  with.  The  emergence  of  new  forms  of 
communication  and  community-building  in  the  internet  could  provide  new  opportunities  to 
overcome  the  gap  between  the  EU  and  its  citizens.  Citizens'  panels,  electronic  town-hall 
meetings,  discussions  and  opinion-making  via  social  media  and  the  organisation  of 
meaningful feedback channels are some of the 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  which  took  part  in  the  "Europe  for  Citizens 
programme"  relate  especially  to  the  objective  of  enhancing  tolerance,  mutual 
understanding  as  well  as  bringing  citizens  together  and  that  there  is  a  further 
potential  role  for  "Europe  for  Citizens"  programme  in  getting  citizens  interested  in 
the  shaping  of  new  policies  and  strategies  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 innovation, knowledge sharing and dissemination activities. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
On the actions: 

– 

The  midterm  evaluation  (p.  52)  highlights  that  project  promoters  under  Action  4  – 
Remembrance  have  made  strong  contributions  in  developing  a  sense  of  European 
identity  based  on  common  values,  history  and  culture;  action  2  –  Civil  society  is 
making  most  contribution  against  the  objective  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 local 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,  structure  and  framework,  would  not  fully  exploit  the 
potential  scope  for  citizens'  participation  and  engagement.  The  new  democratic  principles, 
and  opportunities,  and  the  Commission's  commitment  to  put  citizens  at  the  centre  of  the 
European  process  reinforce  the  need  to  encourage  citizens  to  have  their  voices  heard, 
including by means of their political and community 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 representative 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 stakeholders, and introduces the Citizen's 
Initiative.  Moreover,  Article  20  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union 
(TFEU) describes the rights deriving from Union citizenship. In order to empower citizens to 
fully enjoy these rights a better understanding of the EU is an important precondition. 

Appropriate  means  to  ensure  the  achievement  of  these  Treaty  provisions  require  to  be 
provided.  The  "Europe  for  Citizens"  programme  represents  one  of  these  means,  just  as, 
Regulation 211/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the citizens’ initiative, 
represents another. 

The Treaties call upon the EU "to give citizens and representative associations the opportunity 
to make known their views in all areas of Union action" and to "maintain an open, transparent 
and regular dialogue with representative associations and civil society". While a broad range 
of  programmes  and  EU  practice  ensure  dialogues  in  sectoral  policy  areas,  the  Europe  for 
Citizens programme  provides  this opportunity at  a horizontal level. By this, the Programme 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
respects  the  subsidiarity  principle.  These  tasks  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  promote  debate  and  activities  on European  integration  and 
history. Similar logics apply – although in the case of certain actions under "history", 
a European dimension suffices. Historical archives, sites of remembrance are, per se, 
bound by their location but not without any EU-wide significance. 

In  the  case  of  "Democratic  engagement  and  civic  participation",  the  programme 
seeks to develop citizens' understanding and capacity to participate in the EU policy 
making  process  and  to  develop  opportunities  for  solidarity,  societal  engagement  & 
volunteering at EU level. Such a wide scope and ambition could only be addressed at 
a Union level. 

In the case of "valorisation", this is a horizontal dimension 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  strengthen  civic  participation 
but  pan-European  platforms  and  common  tools  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 dialogues which most Commission services have with citizens, 
stakeholders and interest groups. Ideally, the Europe for Citizens programme would prepare 
the ground for citizens and their associations to be able to participate 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  the  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  and  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  strengthened  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  European  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  purpose.  The  involvement  of  national  parliaments 
and the European Parliament would enhance the democratic nature of the proposal. 

EN 

21 

   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

Strengthen remembrance and enhance capacity for civic participation at the EU level 

General 
Objective

Specific 
Objectives

Remembrance and European citizenship
Stimulate debate, reflection and cooperation on
remembrance, EU integration and history

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 
Objectives

Support organisations to promote 
debate and activities
on remembrance, European 
values and history

Analysis, dissemination and valorisation of 
project results through internal and external 
activities

Support organisations of a 
general European interest, 
transnational partnerships and 
networks to promote citizens’
interactions on 
EU matters

Delivery 
mechanisms

Operational grants

Purchase contracts

Action grants

4.1. 

Policy objectives 

The general objective of a future programme will be to "strengthen remembrance and enhance 
capacity  for  civic  participation  at  the  EU  level".  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 the related need for supportive structures to channel the results 
of  such  debates  to  policy-makers  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 

22 

   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  debate  and  activities  on  remembrance, 

European values and history; 

(2)  Support organisations of a general European interest, transnational partnerships 

and networks to promote citizens' interactions on EU matters; 

(3)  Horizontal dimension: Analysis, dissemination & valorisation 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  order  to  empower  citizens  to  fully  enjoy  these 
rights, the understanding 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.  Moreover,  it  requests  that  citizens  and  representative 
associations  are  given  the  opportunity  to  exchange  their  views  in  all  areas  of  Union  action, 
and  that  institutions  maintain  an  open,  transparent  and  regular  dialogue  with  representative 
associations and civil society. 

As  a  meaningful  and  fully  expressive  manifestation  of  the  Lisbon  Treaty's  provisions, 
President Barroso, enunciated, especially in his "Political Guidelines" a much stronger focus 
on citizens being at the very centre of European policies. 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.  Consequently,  there  will  be  a 
strong  cooperation  between  Commission  services  which  implement  respective  policies  and 
programmes. 

The programme is one of the instruments to link the democratic principles of Art 10-11 TEU 
with  a  broad  range  of  sectoral  EU  policies.  It  encourages  citizens  to  exchange  views  on  all 
areas of EU action and at all stages of the formal 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 with other EU programmes, namely in the areas 
of  employment,  social  affairs  and  equal  opportunities,  education,  youth  and  culture,  justice, 
and regional policy.  

The new programme is thus not to replace dialogues with citizens, stakeholders 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 

23 

   EN 

 
programme cycle already saves considerably in terms of administration and human resources. 
In addition, the recourse to lump sums, flat rates and unit costs, e-applications, and efficient 
on-the-spot checks by grouping visits to organisations 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  some  evidence  from  beneficiary  and  stakeholder 
interviews  that  the  Executive  Agency  is  efficiently  administering  the  programme,  making 
significant  procedural  improvements  about  finance,  eligibility  criteria,  harmonisation  of 
processes  and  the  development  of  e-forms  for  applications".  It  also  highlights  the  synergy 
effects with other programmes managed 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 period 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  respective  sub-options  have  been  retained  and 
considered in relation to the future of the "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 new programme will be adopted with the same 
programme architecture of 4 "actions" as under the current Programme (see 1.1.) but with a 
slightly reduced budget following the MFF indicative amount for the Programme. 

5.2. 

Option 2: Adopt a re-vamped Programme 

To  adopt  a  re-vamped  programme  with  a  slightly  reduced  budget  implemented  through  a 
more  effective  programme  architecture  and  strengthened  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 their project or initiative (abandoning the 4-action-
approach)  and  adding  a  third  cross-cutting  feature  –  the  overarching  concern  for  optimising 
results (see 6.2.). 

Several sub-options have been considered 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 projects to a minimum and transforming 
town-twinning projects into multi-partner projects which have a clear thematic 
orientation, some policy impact and a longer term validity;  

(2)  mainstreaming  innovative  citizens'  projects  and  support  measures  into  the 

general multi-partner project part of the programme; 

(3) 

striking an adequate balance of the operating grants provided to think tanks and 
EU civil society organisations as regards the number and level of subventions 
given; 

EN 

24 

   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  remembrance  projects  and  broadening  the 
scope of actions carried out in this area. 

(6)  developing visibility/valorisation actions as a cross-cutting programme feature. 

5.2.2. 

Sub-option 2: Support for larger grants only 

A new balance between operating grants and action 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 organisational 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  stakeholders  and  probable  support 
from some Member States.  

Sub-option  3  would  require  a  substantially  boosted  programme  budget.  Furthermore, 
"international values" are not defined and "universal values/human rights" might require such 
a wide scope that specific objectives no longer could be defined. 

5.2.4. 

Sub-option 4: Consultation tool 

Sub-option  4  would  use  the  programme  as  a  testing  board  for  main  EU  policies  and/or 
challenges,  for  example  by  setting  up  and  funding  citizens’  panels  that  would  comment  on 
given issues.  

Through such an approach, the EU institutions would 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 boosted programme budget or pump out resources 
out of other channels of participation (CSO, networks).  

5.3. 

Option 3: Decentralisation of the Programme 

This option would mean that no EU-wide programme would follow the current "Europe for 
Citizens" programme when it comes to an end on 31 December 2013. 

Several alternative, decentralised approaches have been considered: 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
5.3.1. 

Sub-option 1: Member State based approach 

This approach would leave it up to the Member States to develop political participation and 
civic engagement around common EU values. 

This would mean total decentralisation, and simplification in terms of  EU administration. It 
would  also  mean  an  opportunity  to  fully  tailor  the  EU  debate  to  national  concerns  and 
perspectives. 

Sub-option  1  would  mean  a  serious  risk  of  limiting  the  scope  to  issues  which  are  of  purely 
national  interest.  There  would  be  no  policy  input  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  communication  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 leading 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 the 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 organised at the EU level. There would also be 
limited  scope  for  supporting  capacity  building  for  civic  participation,  and  no  possibility  to 
support EU-wide debate on reference 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 forms 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 JUST covering justice and citizenship has been 
explored  but  was  discarded  after  careful  examination  by  the  two  DGs  as  there  was  no 
evidence of possible synergies due to their different objectives 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  Lisbon  Treaty  and  in  light  of  the  existing  criticism  on  the  too 
limited means of the current programme. 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
Table  6.1  presents  a  summary  of  the  main  strengths  and  weaknesses  of  the  "Europe  for 
Citizens" programme in its current 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) 

-  the  demands  largely  exceed  available  funds  – 
risking 
counter-productive 
and 
impact 

frustration 

-  operating  grants  have  allowed  the  development  of 
strategic dialogue with key organisations  

-  project  grants  –  dispersed  in  content  and 
lacking a thematic framework  

Action 3: "Together for Europe" 

-  presidency  events  create  strong  ownership  of 
Member States for European citizenship issues 

-  relatively  narrow  impact  of  the  high  visibility 
events 

-  studies  helped  to  better  understand  the  political 
context/area  

-  limited  resources  available  for  studies  restrict 
their scope, depth and value 

Action 4: "Active European Remembrance" 

- continuation of a relevant and effective action; 

- continuation of existing networks and partnerships 

- limited resources dedicated to this action result 
in a significant unfulfilled demand and therefore 
loss of potential greater impacts in this field 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 6.2: Option 1: Summary of likely effectiveness 

Proposed General Objective 

Likely effectiveness 

Strengthen 
participation at the EU level 

remembrance  and  enhance  capacity 

for  civic 

Moderate to high 

6.2. 

Option 2: Adopt a re-vamped Programme 

With a view to make the programme more meaningful and to enhance its impact, it is planned 
to link its activities better with the Commission's priorities and the European political agenda. 

Furthermore, these activities will 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  delivery  mechanisms  may  entail  actions  grants, 
operational grants, or service contracts following a Call for Tender. 

Based  on  consultation  results  and  experience  in  running  the  Programme,  the  Commission 
proposes  to  abandon  the  4-action-model  in  favour  of  a  model  based  on  2  "strands"  of 
activities  –  "Remembrance  and  European  citizenship"  and  "Democratic  engagement  and 
civic  participation".  This  would  break  up  the  "compartmentalisation"  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 would put a stronger focus on structuring methods 
(and  thus  promote  more  long-term  sustainability).  The  "European  citizenship"  dimension 
would build on the current Action 4 (preserving the memory of the Nazi and Stalinist crimes) 
and  make  it  broader  in  scope,  and  provide  support  for  initiatives  that  would  pursue  a  self-
critical historical understanding of past and current European issues.  

The  new  model  will  confirm  the  current  practice  of  offering  the  possibility  to  bid  for 
multiannual operating grants, which gives applicants 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 

28 

   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-critical historical understanding 
of past and current EU milestones and processes. 

-  risk  of  "nationalisation"  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 engagement and civic participation" 

- risk of "saupoudrage" (dilution) unless more 
firm  focus  on  political  priorities  can  be 
introduced 

-  will  focus  on  the  core  elements  of  participatory 
citizenship  

-  will  better  link  the  initiatives  to  the  EU's  political 
agenda  

-  a  new  structure  will  facilitate  a  better  feeding  in  of 
results of the initiatives launched into policy-making – 
thus leading to more concrete and lasting outputs  

-  will  provide  more  opportunities  for cross-fertilisation 
between different initiatives and organisations 

Horizontal dimension: "Valorisation" 

- transferability of results 

- none 

- better return on investment 

- better learning from experience 

- better political legitimacy for expenditure 

Table 6.4: Option 2: Summary of likely effectiveness 

Proposed General Objective 

Likely effectiveness 

Strengthen 
participation at the EU level 

remembrance  and  enhance  capacity 

for  civic 

High 

EN 

29 

   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  expenditure  and/or  possible 
diversion of funds to other EU objectives 

-  loss  of  the  only  instrument  for  fostering  civic 
participation at the European level 

significant 

reduction  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 
participation at the EU level 

remembrance  and  enhance  capacity 

for  civic 

Low 

Although this option is not automatically discarded, it must be underlined that discontinuing 
the  Programme  would  come  at  a  political  price  –  and  would  be  in  contradiction  to  the 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Commission  decision  on  the  MFF  2014-20209  -  facing  not  only  strong  opposition  from 
different  sectors  but  also  leaving  a  vacuum  in  the  promotion  of  civic  participation  and 
participatory  citizenship  at  a  European  level.  It  would  mean  the  loss  of  an  important 
instrument for the fostering of civic participation, 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 dialogue between the EU institutions and citizens, 
but within the limits of their respective sectoral policies. 

If  the  Europe  for  Citizens  Programme  would  run  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 

Strengthen  remembrance and  enhance 
capacity  for  civic  participation  at  the 
EU level  

8. 

RISK AND ASSUMPTIONS 

Option 1: 
No change 

Option 2: 
Modify 

Option 3: 
Decentralised 
programme 

Moderate 

High 

None 

The risks inherent in the current situation if nothing is done (“no-policy” option) are outlined 
in the assessment of option 3 under section 6.3 above. 

The proposed expenditure programme is based on the following assumptions: 

9 

10 

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 Social 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. 
Contextual  Analysis  Report,  "Active  Citizenship  in  Europe  Project  2011",  Institute  of  Education,  
8 August 2011 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
                                                 
– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

The needs analysis and problem description as outlined in section 3 will remain valid 
over the next seven years. 

There  exists  a  distinct  added  value  to  tackling  the  underlying  problems  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 funds to achieve its aims. 

The  continuation  of  sound  management  structures  in  place  at  European  level 
(EACEA) to manage the programme according to high standards. 

All  relevant  programme  data  will  be  collected  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 presented 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 future 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 
million

Output 
(no.) 

EUR 
million

Output 
(no.) 

EUR 
million 

Output 
(no.) 

EUR 
million

Project grants 

551 

Operational grants 

86 

Service contracts 

5 

Administrative 
costs (EACEA) 

15 

10 

1 

3 

551 

86 

5 

15 

10 

1 

3 

561 

87 

5 

15 

10 

1 

3 

565 

92 

5 

15 

10 

1 

3 

637 

29 

637 

29 

648 

29 

657 

29 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Main expenditure-
related outputs 

2018 

2019 

2020 

Output 
(no.) 

EUR 
million

Output 
(no.) 

EUR 
million

Output 
(no.) 

EUR 
million 

Project grants 

565 

Operational grants 

92 

Service contracts 

5 

Administrative 
costs (EACEA) 

15 

10 

1 

3 

577 

92 

5 

15 

10 

1 

3 

584 

125 

5 

15 

10 

1 

3 

657 

29 

669 

29 

709 

29 

9.1.3. 

Impact on staff and administrative expenditure not included in the reference amount 

Type of post 

Staff to be assigned to the management of the 
action using existing and/or additional resources 

Description of 
tasks deriving 
from the action 

Total 

Number of permanent 
posts 

Number of temporary 
posts 

Officials or 
temporary staff 

4 Administrators 

5 Assistants 

9  Programme 

implementation 

Other human 
resources 

Total  human 
resources 

1 Seconded National 
Expert 

1  Programme 

implementation 

9 permanent posts 

1 temporary post 

10 

EN 

33 

   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 

1,143 (1,143) 

€ 127,000 * 9 (9) officials 

Temporary staff 

N/A 

N/A 

Other human resources 

0,073 (0,073) 

€ 73,000 * 1 (1) SNE 

Total 

1,216 (1,216) 

Other administrative expenditure deriving from the action – 2011 prices 

The amounts are total expenditure for twelve months 

Budget line 

Amount (€ million) 

Method of calculation 

(number and heading) 

16.01.02.11.01 – Missions 

0,042 

16.01.02.11.02  –  Meetings 
and conferences 

0,174 

16.01.02.11.03 – Compulsory 
Committees 

0,057 

Total 

0,273 

5 persons * 10 missions * 825 € 
(average) 

3 meetings * 50 persons * (860 € 
travel + (2*150 € per diem)) 

2 meetings * 33 persons * 860 € 

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 reduction 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 foreseen by MFF, will aggravate the situation 
of unmet demand – unless there is structural change to the programme  leading to  increased 
efficiency,  effectiveness  and  sustainability.  This  narrows  down  the  options  outlined  under 
section 6. 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
9.3. 

Could the same or better results be achieved 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  different  objectives  of  the  programmes.  Other, 
existing instruments supporting civil society participation are limited to sectoral policies. 

10. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

10.1.  Direct and indirect impact indicators 

GENERAL OBJECTIVE 

Enhance capacity for civic participation 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. 

Increase of projects by 80% 

The  new  programme  will 
establish  a  baseline  for  this 
indicator. 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Percentage  of 
beneficiaries 

first 

time 

Average  figure  approx.  33% 
(depending  on  action  and 
year) 

Minimum  15%  across 
board. 

the 

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 

Develop citizens' understanding and 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) 

Minimum  600  000  persons 
per year. 

The  new  programme  will 
establish  a  baseline  for  this 
indicator. 

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. 

term 
Medium 
5 million persons. 

target: 

of 
Number 
organisations 

participating 

The indicators  currently used 
do not provide this data. 

2000 organisations per year. 

Percentage  of 
beneficiaries 

first 

time 

Number  of  transnational  and 
partnerships 
multi-partner 
and networks 

Number and quality of policy 
initiatives  following-up  on 
activities  supported  by  the 
programme  at  the  local  or 
European level  

The  new  programme  will 
establish  a  baseline  for  this 
indicator. 

Average  figure  approx.  33% 
(depending  on  action  and 
year) 

from 

(data 

656 
2009. 
Excludes  operating  grants 
and remembrance). 

The  new  programme  will 
establish  a  baseline  for  this 
indicator. 

The indicators  currently used 
do not provide this data. 

The  new  programme  will 
establish  a  baseline  for  this 
indicator. 

Minimum  15%  across 
board. 

the 

Increase by 5% (transnational 
partnerships and networks) 

Increase  by  50% 
partner 
networks) 

partnerships 

(multi-
and 

Aggregation  of  information 
and  results  provided  in  the 
final reports. 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
 
 
Geographical coverage of the 
activities – 

The indicators  currently used 
do not provide this data. 

least  one  project  per 

At 
country. 

participants 

Correlation  between  number 
the 
of 
Programme 
total 
population per country. 

and 

in 

The  new  programme  will 
establish  a  baseline  for  this 
indicator. 

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 these measures are standard expenditure under a 
Community  programme  and  will  be  covered  out  of  the  administrative  budget  of  the  future 
programme. 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
 
ANNEX I  
MONITORING DATA OF THE CURRENT PROGRAMME 

Europe for Citizens programme budget (2007-2010) in Mio of European Commission 

Action 1 

Action 2 

Action 3 

Action 4 

Total 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

11.66 

13.94

16.17

7.38 

1.30 

1.00 

9.05

2.03

1.40

9.91

2.58

1.80

16.24 

11.79 

2.29 

1.94 

21.34 

26.42

30.46

32.26 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
 
 
Europe for Citizens programme outputs (2007-2010) 

Action 1 

Town twinning 
citizens meetings 
(1.1) 

N° of projects 

Funding allocated (in 
Millions of Euros) 

2007 

904 

2008 

2009 

2010 

1.111 

820 

648 

€ 7.98 

€ 10.24 

€ 8.37 

€ 7.30 

N° of participants  

668.387 

984.567 

799.500 

751.002 

Networks of 
twinned towns 
(1.2) 

N° of projects  

52 

68 

96 

69 

Funding allocated (in 
Millions of Euros) 

€ 0.96 

€ 2.13 

€ 3.90 

€ 6.40 

N° of participants  

6.042 

53.910 

145.000 

151.941 

Mobility measures 
(1.6 - from 2009)* 

* - one-off pilot 
action 

N° of projects  

Funding allocated  

N° of participants  

Citizens projects 
(2.1 – from 2008) 

Support measures 
(2.2 – from 2008) 

Action 1 

Designated 
Organisations 

N° of projects  

Funding allocated (in 
Millions of Euros) 

N° of participants  

N° of projects 

Funding allocated (in 
Millions of Euros) 

N° of participants  

N° of Operating 
Grants 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

18 

9 

€ 
1,156,595

6.300 

11  
(1 project 
cancelled) 

- 

- 

- 

12 

€ 2,10 

€ 1,86 

€ 1,65 

9.500 

13.300 

33.628 

16 

14 

20 

€ 0,70 

€ 1.56 

€ 1.54 

41.291 

39.732 

37.249 

1 

1 

1 

Funding allocated 

€ 0,21 

€ 0,23 

€ 0,23 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Action 2 

Structural support 
for policy research 
and civil society 
organisations  

Projects initiated 
by civil society 
organisations 

Action 2 

Designated 
Organisations 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

N° of operating grants 
- policy research  

N° of operating grants 
- civil society  
Funding allocated (in 
Millions of Euros) 

13 

14 

11 

28 

17 

28 

18 

38 

€ 2,55 

€ 3,89 

€ 4,40 

€ 8,26 

N° of projects  

108 

131 

127 

108 

Funding allocated (in 
Millions of Euros) 

N° of participants  

N° of Operating 
Grants 

€ 3,36 

€ 4,08 

€ 4,20 

€ 3,79 

n/a 

4 

n/a 

27,305 

92.250 

4 

4 

Funding allocated 

€ 1,519 

€ 1,175 

€ 1,175 

Action 3 

High-visibility 
events  

Studies  

Information and 
dissemination 
tools/ 
packages 

Support to Europe 
for Citizens Points 

Action 3 

Designated 
Organisations 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

Number of events 

Funding allocated  

Number of studies 

2 

n/a 

1 

3 

3 

3 

€ 851,512  € 776,880

€ 750.000

1 

0 

1 

Funding allocated  

€ 300.000 

€ 167.756 

n/a 

€160.245 

Number of tools/ 
packages 

5 

3 

3 

Funding allocated  

n/a 

€ 24,935 

€ 66,514 

N° of Europe for 
Citizens Points 
supported 

Funding allocated 

N° of Operating 
Grants 

17 

17 

17 

€ 
417.467,64 

€ 
417.467,6
4 

€ 
417.467,6
4 

3 

3 

3 

Funding allocated 

€ 0,455 

€ 0,495 

€ 0,495 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

Action 4 

No. of projects  

36 

49 

56 

64 

Active European 
Remembrance 

Funding allocated (in 
Millions of Euros) 

€ 1,10 

€ 1,71 

€ 2,10 

€ 2,29 

No. of participants  

n/a 

n/a 

12,040 

80.473 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX II  
SECOND CONSULTATION MEETING WITH STAKEHOLDERS (SEE LINK) 

http://ec.europa.eu/citizenship/pdf/doc1301_en.pdf 

EN 

42 

   EN