Table of contents:

PART 1

I. BACKGROUND …………………………………………………………3

II. PROGRESS MADE SO FAR …………………………………………..4

III. DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONCEPT………………………………..7

IV. SPECIFIC FUNCTIONS ………………………………………………8

V. CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS…………………………………14

ANNEX……………………………………………………………………………17

MEETINGS PAST AND FUTURE ……………………………………..............19

PART 2

SURVEY RESULTS………………………………………………………20

2
 May 2010
EXTENDED BRIEFING NOTE:

CREATING A EUROPEAN CIVIL SOCIETY HOUSE

Part 1

I. BACKGROUND

1. ECAS is setting out to create a European Civil Society House. The house should be
close to the EU Institutions in Brussels, but also exist as a virtual web platform easily
accessible from anywhere in the Union and beyond. Modelled on the “Maison des
Associations” or NGO house, this scheme is based on a modern definition of civil society
because it includes a citizen dimension. Among all the prestigious institutional buildings,
agencies, and interest groups round the EU, citizens should have their own space.

The house will be built on 3Cs:

(i) Civil society. The aim is to bring together European associations

working in the areas of fundamental rights and democracy to share know-
how, skills and resources. There should be space for national or local
associations visiting Brussels and virtual and/or face-to-face help desks.

(ii) Citizens’ rights. The help desk for associations should also serve to
strengthen the application of European rights through advice, problem
solving and help to citizens submitting formal complaints, petitions or
requests to the European ombudsman and following them up.

(iii) Citizen participation. Apart from better enforcement of existing

rights, the house should lend support to those using the new right under
the Lisbon Treaty to present a legislative demand to the Commission with
over 1 million signatures from a significant number of countries. It should
also play a role in the use of participatory deliberations such as citizens’
summits, or juries.

2. Creating the European Civil Society House should be in the interest of both citizens
and the EU Institutions:

- Civil society is largely missing out on the opportunities Europe can offer.
Despite the growth in European associations, the EU still seems a speciality for
“insiders”. Commercial and producer interests still make up 85% of the estimated
2,600 associations and 17,000 lobbyists round the EU1. Citizens still find the EU

1
Estimates provided by the Association of Accredited Lobbyists to the European Parliament (AALEP).
Please visit http://www.eulobby.net/ for further information.

3
 complex and remote and that efforts in the direction of coming closer to them are
not proving to be bearing expected results2.

- In the wake of the rejection in the referenda of the Constitutional Treaty,

there was a period of experimentation with new participatory ways to reach
citizens under Plan D for “democracy, dialogue and debate”. The Europe for
citizens’ programme3 was launched. The European Parliament created the Agora,
a forum where citizens and representatives of civil society are invited to discuss
EU policies with the Parliament4. The protagonists of Plan D were aware of the
need to go beyond experimentation. Hence their call for a European public sphere.
A European Civil Society House is part of such a sphere.

ECAS was formally created as an international non-profit organisation under Belgian law
in 1991. At that time, the emphasis was on the creation of new European associations and
networks. ECAS itself housed several European associations in its early days and has
helped to create new ones in areas such as public health and culture when these activities
were added to the EU Treaties. Now practically every civil society activity is reflected in
one or more European association or network. The need is less to create new ones as it is
to bring existing organisations together to increase capacity. This is being done through
the emergence of broad sectoral groupings such as the social platforms. Although there
is nothing new in the suggestion of existing organisations coming together, what is more
recent is the idea of sharing facilities under one roof, even though there are EU-related
examples. The more innovative aspect of this proposal is the citizen dimension.

II. PROGRESS MADE SO FAR

This project has reached a stage where it is not so much a question of whether the house
will be established so much as how long it will take and, what will be its functions and
how it will be financed. Here we describe progress on the basis of:
- a public meeting which took place in December 2009
- the results so far of the survey described in Part II
- several bilateral meetings (see annex to Part I) and advice from the steering group

There are three reasons for cautious optimism:

1. An opportunity to learn from what others have done

First, ECAS can learn from others. In Brussels there are many instances of
organisations or regions from the same country sharing premises. There are important
2
As pointed out in the Green Paper on the European Transparency Initiative COM(2006) 194 final,
available online at http://europa.eu/documents/comm/green_papers/pdf/com2006_194_en.pdf
3
For more information, please visit http://ec.europa.eu/citizenship/index_en.htm
4
For more information, please visit
http://forum.agora.europarl.europa.eu/jiveforums/category.jspa?categoryID=9

4
 cross-border sectoral initiatives for example to promote culture. Advice and
inspiration has been taken from two initiatives in particular:

• Mundo B, the Sustainable House at 26 Rue Edinbourg, Brussels in the

surroundings of the European Parliament, is a good example of how the
environmental movement is generally ahead5. This venture of Ethical
Properties Ltd which has launched similar initiatives in Oxford, London, and
Namur brings together a European social enterprise and a group of tenants
who are no only “encouraged to take advantage of well-resourced facilities”
but also create synergy among themselves by meeting together and sharing
information about campaigns and advocacy. According to one respondent to
our survey, there is a waiting list of over a year for Mundo B, so demand for
this type of facility is high. Moreover, Mundo B includes the Hive, which
consists of several workstations available for personalized periods to be used
by organisations visiting Brussels. Another facility with similar features is
“the Hub”6, located in 12 international cities across 4 continents; it offers
space to social entrepreneurs to share ideas and launch projects in an
international environment of interconnected open-plan offices. Its nearby
Brussels location can be found on Rue du Prince Royal.

• European Foundation House is a plan launched by a group of foundations at

the European Foundation Centre (EFC) general Assembly which took place in
Rome in May of 20097. The Realdania Foundation from Copenhagen8 is
exploring the possibilities of creating such a House in Brussels with EFC as a
tenant and possibly ECAS, which in January 2010 moved next door to the
EFC to develop synergies. The interest of the foundations to invest in property
following the collapse of stock markets in autumn of 2008, as well as to share
premises to reduce costs, was evident at the Rome event.

The European Civil Society House has strong similarities but also some differences
from both these schemes, mostly due to the inclusion of a citizen dimension. This
dimension may make it more necessary to place emphasis on an attractive “shop
window” like method to promote its welcoming atmosphere, as well as more space
for meeting rooms and the inclusion of a resource centre. What is shared is relatively
more important than separate office space. In reality though, what is proposed here
could be added to either the NGO house model or the Foundation house model.

2) Support in the European Parliament

Secondly, ECAS took the idea to the European Parliament with success after the
European elections in June 2009. Jean Lambert, MEP for London, tabled an
5
For more information, please visit http://www.mundo-b.org/
6
For more information, please visit http://brussels.the-hub.net/public/
7
For more information, please visit
http://www.efc.be/AgaConference/Pages/FightingPovertyCreatingOpportunities.aspx
8
For more information on Realdania, please visit http://www.realdania.dk/English.aspx

5
 amendment on behalf of the Greens proposing an amount of 350,000 euro to carry out
a feasibility study. This addition to the budgetary procedure was considered by the
Committee on Constitutional Affairs on 31 August9. A majority of MEPs supported
the idea, but some wondered whether there was sufficient demand from NGOs,
whether it was too Brussels-centred, and what would be the attitude of the new
European Commission. These were reasonable doubts, so in the end the Committee
reached a compromise and all the main political groups voted in favour of creating a
new budget line but without the amount - a p.m. This position was supported by the
Budget Committee, the Chairman of which Alain Lamassure MEP, drafted a report
for the French Presidency in 2009 on the citizen and the application of community
law10. ECAS closely followed this process and considers that the outcome was fair,
leaving open the possibility to go back to the Parliament and convince MEPs to add
funds to the budget line.

3) Support among civil society organisations

Thirdly, in response to the request from MEPs for more evidence of the needs, ECAS
has carried out widespread consultations. An information meeting was held on 4
December 2009 at Mundo B in Brussels11. A survey is being carried out based on a
questionnaire covering the main functions proposed. These are the main sources for
this briefing note, together with conversations with citizens, associations,
foundations, and people in the Institutions as news of this initiative has spread. The
survey has received some 500 replies so far, showing the following results:
• The creation of the European Civil Society House has 92.1% support rate
from those who responded.
• General support extends also to the overall functions of this new facility.
• There are differences in the degree of priority given to the 3Cs which
we will analyse when all the responses to the questionnaire have
arrived, but we consider these differences do not change the overall
framework. What they do though is greatly change the emphasis in
different priorities.
• 93.6% of respondents have asked to be kept informed of the follow-up
and 73.4% have also offered to help in building the house, for example
by setting up a national contact point.

To improve on the 92.1% support, it is necessary to address a number of concerns about

the project which will require further clarification as it develops. Some of these concerns
are addressed below and answers given.

9
The budget line is 15 06 61 /2009. To access the document, please visit
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/afco/dv/2010_afco_budg_amends_txt_/20
10_afco_budg_amends_txt_en.pdf
10
Lamassure A, ‘Le citoyen et l’application du droit communautaire, rapport au Président de la
République,’ (2008) available at http://www.alainlamassure.eu/liens/817.pdf .
11
For more information, please visit http://www.ecas-citizens.eu/content/view/258/280/

6
III. DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONCEPT

The European Civil Society House aims to fill 3 gaps and it cannot do this by only setting
up the physical house in Brussels. Having a virtual house, accessible from anywhere in
the Union is just as important.

1. The gap between the EU and the citizen:

The starting point for this initiative is to decide which method would be best to adapt the
familiar formula of the sharing of common building to increase capacity, and at the same
time to encompass the additional requirements of working across countries, languages,
and at the European level. This has led to the realisation that the gap to be filled is not
just one between the EU and organised civil society but above all with citizens. Recent
institutional developments might help fill this gap: on one side, the European Charter of
Fundamental Rights has become legally binding with the implementation of the Lisbon
Treaty (enshrining more citizens’ rights at a European level); on the other, the new
Treaty’s article 11 increases the capacity of the European Union to relate to citizens
through the “European Citizens’ Initiative”12. This project, therefore, has a basis in the
Treaty.

2. The gap between insiders and outsiders

By definition, the more the objective of Article 11 can be achieved across language and
cultural barriers, the more there will be a shift towards virtual civil society linked to
creating networks and building trust in people outside one’s immediate circle. On-line
and face-to-face communication should ideally reinforce each other, and as the capacity
of internet technologies progress, the distinction between the two is diminishing
significantly - though it will never disappear completely13. Access must be open for all.
This means from the local level, from countries bordering on the Union, and by third
country nationals residing in the Union, not just European citizens. As one respondent
points out: “Both a physical European Civil Society House and virtual European civil

12
Art. 11: “The Institutions shall, by appropriate means, give citizens and representative associations the
opportunity to make known and publicly exchange their views in all areas of Union action.” With regards
to the regulation of future ECIs, the Commission launched a green paper and consultation exercise and held
a hearing in February 2009 before presenting its draft regulation on March 31st, 2010. The pre-legislative
debate has focused primarily on how to strike a compromise between making this new instrument for
collecting 1 million signatures to support an initiative as citizen-friendly as possible, whilst at the same
time setting minimum conditions for the number of countries, the time limit for collecting signatures, and
their verification procedure. In the discussions and over 300 submissions to the consultations, a common
theme has been how to make this a genuine instrument for citizens, not just for powerful lobbies and NGOs
well structured across the Union. Few have, though, come up with ideas for a “supporting citizens’
infrastructure,” and have concentrated instead on the basic legislative requirements. How much citizen
support will be required should emerge after the first initiatives have begun.
13
In 2008, The Economist published a comprehensive report analysing the status of e-government versus
off-line government indicating the way to go. Please visit
http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displayStory.cfm?story_id=10638002 for further information.

7
society web platform should be developed to avoid geographically limiting access to the
global project.”

The emphasis on the virtual house is also important to reduce the gap between civil
society organisations represented in Brussels and people involved with European and
cross-border activities without interaction with EU Institutions. The notion of a resource
centre, connecting local initiatives and networking rather than sharing facilities and
lobbying in Brussels receive most emphasis in the responses to the survey.

3. The gap between bottom-up and top-down initiatives

An intermediary approach is being proposed, neither just bottom-up nor top-down. In

proposing that citizens should have their own space, more is expected than just relying on
market forces to create a European public sphere. That could work in some sectors and
for some issues whilst leaving out others. On the other hand, attempts by the Institutions
to fill the gaps by setting up agencies lacking independence often appear artificial
creations still distant from citizens. Some respondents clearly fear that this initiative
could end up as just “another European top-down initiative”.

An open facility is being created, not another umbrella body for civil society. As one
respondent stated, “The house must find an original and complementary role in the
already dense landscape in favour of civil society in Brussels.” This question was also
discussed at the information meeting in late 2009 which concluded that the house should
be a service, operating according to a principle of universal access under strict standards,
but not a representative or umbrella body.

An advice and problem solving facility is being created, not another information service.
Eurobarometer opinion polls reveal an information deficit about how the EU works and
awareness of European rights, as well as high demand for better spread of information to
end-users14. It should be the responsibility of public authorities, not of this initiative, to
meet these needs. The European Civil Society House should operate at the next stage:
associations and individuals are already informed, but have a problem to be solved, an
idea to pursue or a network to create. The basis is promoting active citizenship rather than
passively feeding civil society with information.

IV. SPECIFIC FUNCTIONS

We now consider possible functions for the physical and virtual house under the 3 C’s:

(i) Civil Society

14
For example, see the Special Eurobarometer 256 on “The Future of Europe”, published in May 2006. To
access the document, please visit http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_251_en.pdf . The
same concerns were stressed in the Flash Eurobarometer 213 on “European Citizenship” published in
February 2008, available at http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_213_en.pdf

8
 The European Civil Society House should aim to bring together a core-group of
associations which in terms of European organisations are medium-sized. 10-15
people is ideal in the sense that they are large enough to make a contribution but not
large enough to be self-sufficient. Potentially, there are several facilities that can be
shared: not just to do with the building, meeting rooms and a shared receptionist, but
also press and information work and databases. The latter could also be made
accessible to people in the Institutions launching consultations, organising events and
anxious to improve outreach beyond their immediate circles or sector.

Many organisations which have expressed interest are smaller in size and want either
to share an office or just a desk – full-time or part-time, thus, the “hive” concept is an
interesting model. The challenge is to find the like-minded organisations round the
themes of fundamental rights, active citizenship and democratic participation, which
remain relatively under-developed at the European level. Such organisations, as well
as national or regional groupings visiting Brussels need more than just office
facilities. Ideally, they should be able to consult online help-desks when they are not
present such as when they are between visits, which is where there is a strong link
between the physical and the virtual house.

For civil society organisations responding to the questionnaire, the virtual house is the
priority if only for reasons of the costs involved in travelling to Brussels. Moreover,
the demands are not necessarily focused on “Brussels”. In a wider EU of 27 countries
with a number of candidates and potential candidates, more and more policy
initiatives and funds have a distinctly regional or decentralised dimension. From the
response to the survey, it appears that civil society demands may not be focussed only
on Brussels but also on the cross-border local dimension: finding out examples of
how a given problem – i.e. an environmental, public health or particular governance
issue – is tackled in communities with similar characteristics in other countries15.

Through the survey and national consultations the services provided by the help desks
should be further defined and prioritised.

They should include:

• monitoring of EU developments from a civil society perspective (policy

initiatives, events, NGO campaigns);
• regular alerts to EU and other funding opportunities;
• advice on how to apply for EU funds and help with filling in applications for
projects;
• help with finding partners at different geographical levels;

15
Through sharing best practices, communities can be inspired to reproduce highly innovative and citizen-
friendly procedures to the benefit of the whole society. One recent example is the use of mobile phone
based applications to enhance citizens’ dialogue with the local government in Dordrecht, Netherlands. For
more information, please visit http://springwise.com/government/buitenbeter/

9
 • advice on contacts in the EU institutions and on lobbying strategy;
• contacts round the EU with European associations and think tanks;
• legal assistance to establish an international non-profit organisation;
• assistance with conference organisation, media and promotion;
• hosting and organisation of study visits.

One important question to consider is the extent to which there could be demand for
training programmes, particularly with the possibility to make use of the virtual house’s
online platform.

(ii) Citizens’ rights

In order to prepare the 6th report on Union citizenship under the Treaties, the
European Commission has recently launched a consultation process: “EU Citizens’
rights – the way forward”16. The Commission points out that “Union citizenship
marked a clear departure from the market logic that had initially characterized
European integration” and that according to the European Court of Justice, it is
“destined to be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States”. The
Commission points out that “there remains a gap between the applicable legal rules
and the practical reality citizens are faced with in their daily life, in particular in
cross-border situations”. For its part, ECAS has produced a report with the help of a
high level panel of practising and academic lawyers, chaired by Sir David Edward,
former judge of the European Court: “Mind the gap: towards a better enforcement of
European citizens’ free movement rights”17.

Furthermore, the Commission asks questions in this consultation exercise, the

answers to which will also help shape this aspect of the European Civil Society
House: “What are the main obstacles European citizens currently face in the exercise
of their rights resulting from Union citizenship? What could be done to address these
obstacles (for example, by providing citizens better and simpler access to
information, advice and problem solving assistance etc)?” At the information meeting
on the house held in December 2009, Monica Frassoni, a former rapporteur for the
European Parliament’s legal committee, placed emphasis on the need to improve
enforcement. There is often a perceived contradiction between EU schemes to
promote youth cultural, decentralised or training exchanges, cross-border civil society
projects and administrative obstacles to free movement, the first right of the European
citizen.

As already pointed out, the main emphasis should be on “problem-solving

assistance”. Although the problem of the deficit in information remains, once people
have access to Europa (the official website of the European Union) and other web

16
To access the document, please visit
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/news/consulting_public/0007/consultation_questionaire_en.pdf
17
To access the document, please visit http://www.ecas-citizens.eu/content/view/291/113/

10
 portals they become much better informed and are putting forward increasingly
difficult problems to which they expect not just a response, but also a solution. There
is a growing risk for disappointing expectations as official channels at the national
and European level are often slow, cumbersome and fail to solve practical issues.
Citizens can find themselves at an impasse, faced with little option but to go to court
or make an official complaint. ECAS is helping them by offering free legal advice
services, such as the “Citizens Signpost Service (CSS)”18.

A help desk for citizens should seek to improve access to European mechanisms:

- The right to access documents of the EU Institutions and agencies is an

effective instrument, but it is used mostly by interest groups and law firms
rather than by the individual citizens for whom it was intended. If documents
are refused, the citizens may appeal to the European Ombudsman or the
European Court of First Instance.

- Petitions to the European Parliament – some 2,000 per year – are classified by
the Committee as “campaign type”, “influence type” (usually in the form of
mass petitions or more citizen-oriented, relating to the application of EU law)
and “individual rights”. Petitioners are heard in the Petitions’ Committee
(PETI), which can put pressure, but only pressure, on the Commission and
Member States. In the 2009 budget procedure, coordinators of the Committee
approved the idea of the European Civil Society House19. Petitioners could do
with advice at the outset and throughout the procedure. Especially with the
introduction of electronic petitions, many are “insufficient in substance or
comprehension” according to the latest annual report of the PETI Committee
(2008/2301)20. Citizens also need advice about the scope and limits of the
European Ombudsman’s remit about which there is confusion21.

- As previously pointed out, the Charter of Fundamental Rights now becomes

legally binding and will generate increasing numbers of complaints about the
violation of human rights. The Lisbon Treaty also provides that the Union

18
The CSS consists of a multi-lingual team of 60 legal experts answering some 12,000 questions per year
and signposting people to services which can solve their problems. One of these is SOLVIT – a practical
problem-solving mechanism among the Commission and national governmental centres: but not all
problem-solving can be achieved through cross-border administrative cooperation.
19
To access the document, please visit
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/afco/dv/2010_afco_budg_amends_txt_/20
10_afco_budg_amends_txt_en.pdf
20
The report is available online at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-
//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL+PE-418.130+01+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN
21
The “Mind the Gap Report” makes proposals to strengthen its role in the enforcement of European
citizens’ rights. In addition to that, we believe that better formulated complaints and more pressure from
citizens are also necessary. In particular, the Commission is unlikely to act on an individual complaint, but
only on the bringing together of a significant number of complaints showing that there is a systematic
violation of European law. Therefore, through the setup of the European Civil Society House citizens will
have a chance to help each other by exchanging experience and find joint solutions.

11
 should adhere to the “European Convention on Human Rights”. There is
considerable confusion about the Luxembourg and Strasbourg courts (seats of
the ECJ and the ECHR, respectively) and how to reach them through national
courts or by exhausting national remedies. Legal assistance is needed here, too.

The emphasis in providing legal assistance to individuals and helping them solve
problems will be on the virtual house rather than face-to-face advice. There has been
a recent increase in websites offering help with form filling, accessing legal texts, or
finding a lawyer in another country22. The disadvantage is that on-line
communication tends to be impersonal23, but this can be overcome with chatting on-
line, using a Skype type system giving the option of video conferencing.

(iii) Citizen Participation

The European Civil Society House can be part of the answer to what will be the
impact of citizens’ initiatives under article 11 of the Lisbon Treaty and how other
ways of involving citizens in the work of the European Union can progress. It is a
paradox that whilst the European Union gives citizens the possibility to defend their
interests with a number of community bodies and to take their case to national courts
and through other channels of communication, consultations are weak when it comes
to citizens not just defending their rights, but wanting to have a say in European
affairs and hold their elected representatives to account. Consultation mechanisms are
open to ordinary citizens, but the perceived feeling is that they are dominated by
other, more prominent and influent stakeholders. Following a project funded by the
“Europe for citizens” programme bringing together panels of citizens to discuss these
issues, ECAS will shortly be publishing a policy research paper, “How the
participatory toolbox can make the European Union less remote from citizens.” This
will help shape the future activities of the house.

For all these reasons, the European Civil Society House should:

- Provide advice to the promoters of the “Citizens’ Initiatives” as to their

likelihood of success and the best way to frame their proposals so that they are
in the legal competence of the Union. In terms of the draft regulation, it is only
after collecting a significant number of signatures could promoters receive
some answers to their questions from the Commission.

- Assist with gathering signatures, particularly in finding appropriate

organisations and structures in other Union countries. Only multinational
NGOs and well structured European associations have such a delivery
mechanism.

22
More information on this topic is provided in the Annexes.
23
As pointed out in the Economist report quoted supra.

12
 - Provide a meeting place and dialogue facility between the promoters of the
initiative and those likely to be on the receiving end once it is presented in the
Commission, European Parliament and Council.

To do this effectively requires close cooperation with organisations relating to the

content of the initiative and those with experience in collecting signatures for
initiatives or mass petitions.

Citizen participation should not only depend on collecting over 1 million signatures.
Under plan D when Margot Wallström was in charge of communication policy,
experiments were encouraged with citizens’ summits, consultations, deliberative
polling, panels and e-participation24. The organisation of pan–European citizen events
has been shown to work and should now be placed on a more structured basis. There
is a need for an intermediary organisation to put the dialogue between the citizens and
the Institutions on firm footing, and help manage expectations on both sides. The
services of the house should advise on choice of issues, selecting the right tools,
seeking balanced and representative recruitment of citizens, the organisation of events
and access to expertise, as well as presentation of results and follow up.

24
For more information, please visit http://ec.europa.eu/archives/debateeurope/index_en.htm

13
V. CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS

A sound basis exists for setting up a European Civil Society House, since the European
Parliament has created a budget line for this purpose. Thanks to grants from the Joseph
Rowntree Charitable Trust25, ECAS has been able to do exploratory activity with several
meetings and a survey in 2009-2010. The results of the survey are encouraging. 92.1% of
people that participated like the idea, and the different activities foreseen under the 3Cs –
civil society, citizens’ rights and citizen participation – score rather equally. What stands
out is the support for the virtual house accessible from anywhere in the Union and the
idea of a user friendly resource centre for civil society and the Institutions alike. The
results of the survey and some of the individual comments go in a similar direction to that
of some MEPs during the budgetary procedure in 2009 who warned against the house
being too centralised in Brussels. Originally in the amendment from the Greens, 350,000
euro was foreseen on this budget line. Because of the progress already made, this account
could now be used to undertake not only the scoping studies foreseen in the original
amendment, but also go further and create the virtual house.

With this type of venture, there is an element of unpredictability. For example, suitable
premises might be found near the EU Institutions next month or not until next year. It is
too early to present a precise business plan. It is more a question of the budget needed to
explore the process further on the basis of the activities listed below. The ECAS Board of
Directors is seeking the help of a highly qualified steering group to oversee these tasks.

Next Steps:

(i) Continuing the survey work

The survey should be continued through 2010 and a report made at the end of the
year. It is certain that some further surveying will be needed, especially if it can be
related to choosing specific examples or relating to a model for the virtual house.
Also, the establishment of national contact points should be encouraged to translate
and help disseminate the questionnaire, gather replies and organise meetings. There
are already volunteers, but in order to gather representative feedback, some costs
should be covered.

(ii) Progressing further with the virtual house

In summer 2010, ECAS is expecting to work with an advisory group and an internet
strategy company to create a prototype for the virtual house which will be shown at a
meeting with MEPs in Strasbourg on 7 September 2010. Social networks and internet
technology make virtual civil society a reality especially across a wide geographical
area, even though there are doubts about whether networking and interaction in social

25
For more information, please visit http://www.jrct.org.uk/

14
 networks really builds social capital26. While traditional forms of civic engagements
are declining, the fact that people are spending a lot of time on their computers means
that they are changing the ways they associate with one another. However, there is
still a discrepancy between the potential seen from a technical perspective and
practice where organisers of participatory democracy deliberations with citizens have
expressed disappointment with actual outcomes. The virtual house has real potential,
particularly to counteract the project being seen as too Brussels centred, but is not the
easy, cheap option.

(iii) Searching for the physical house

It is clear that a major constraint is that the house should be near the Institutions,
where rents are much higher than in the rest of Brussels. At the same time, the
European quarter is undergoing change with ambitious plans for the transformation of
the Rue de la Loi and the immediate proximity to the European Institutions. Because
of the period of transformation and the uncertain and very uneven state of the
neighbourhood, estimates suggest that 20% of office space is vacant. From time to
time, buildings come on the market from the public sector, like those in the Rue
Wiertz which will be turned into European artists’ residences27, just behind the
European Parliament. It is urgent to raise the issue of the Civil Society House with the
regional and city authorities quickly because of the Belgian Presidency of the Council
in the second semester of 2010. Although general feedback has shown a strong
support for the virtual house, others stress that there is actually no substitute to giving
civil society organisations and citizens an opportunity to see and sense the European
Institutions as they are, and to interact with each other.

(iv) Creating the Consortium

If the European Parliament decides to add funds to the budget line, these resources
can be used for further exploratory work to advance the project, but not for the
purchase of the building. There is therefore a strong element of public-private
partnership inherent in this scheme. At the same time, a consortium of users has to be
developed at different geographical levels:

- National contact points, which could form a basis for developing the services
of the virtual and physical house in their own country and in their own
language.

26
As pointed out by PHULARI (inter alii), “Understanding Formulation of Social Capital in Online Social
Network Sites (SNS)”. In: IJCSI, vol.7, issue 1, n.3, January 2010. Available online at
http://www.ijcsi.org/papers/7-1-3-92-96.pdf
27
The “Foundation Atéliers d’Artistes sans Frontières” is setting up such facility, which should be
operational in the medium term. Please visit http://www.quartier-europeen.eu/La-Fondation-Ateliers-d-
Artistes for more information.

15
 - Those frequently interacting with the EU Institutions but not permanently
based in Brussels who could use the services of the house and share a desk or
office space.

- A group of like-minded organisations in the areas of civil liberties and

democracy to help design and then occupy the house.

(v) Timescale

A project of this kind has to bring together different interests round a common
objective and therefore has an element of unpredictability which can influence the
timing. Generally, such projects take longer than foreseen. A new budget line or
pilot project can only last for 3 years after which it either has to cease or be placed on
a legal basis by a Commission proposal adopted by the European Parliament and
Council of Ministers. This is an appropriate approach and timescale for such a
project. The promoters of Mundo B have indicated that in their experience there is
generally a first year of exploration and finding the right building, a second year to
modernise and adapt the building and third to make the finishing touches and to
conclude all the agreements and lease contracts.

16
 ANNEX
Citizens’ advice online

• Europe Direct
(http://ec.europa.eu/europedirect/write_to_us/mailbox/index_en.htm). General
information about EU matters in any of the official EU languages as well as
practical information on different subjects: for example, how to get qualifications
recognised or how to complain about unsafe products.
• Citizens Advice International (http://www.citizensadvice-international.org/)
Citizens Advice International is an umbrella organisation enabling a global fast
growing network of Citizens Advice Bureaux and other information and advice
services to identify, share, apply and promote the best practices in empowering
people to exercise their rights and in shaping social policy making. They attend 7
million questions a year.

• Community legal advice (http://www.communitylegaladvice.org.uk/ ). This

website offers free, confidential and independent legal advice for residents of
England and Wales.

Virtual communities with potential for civil society empowerment

• Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/ ) Facebook is an online social platform

which can help co-workers share documents and ideas. It is used within major
companies for developing online collaboration.
• Twitter (http://twitter.com/ ) Micro-blogging site which allows constant updates
on a variety of topics. It is widely used in journalism and by civil society
platforms.

E-Democracy and Participation

• e-Practice (http://ePractice.eu/) is a portal created by the European Commission.

It is an interactive initiative that empowers its users to discuss and influence open
government, policy-making and the way in which public administrations operate
and deliver services.

• Civil Society Network web portal of UN (http://esango.un.org/irene/). A web

portal devoted to non-governmental organizations and to members of United
Nations agencies, funds and programmes in order to share and promote best
practices in the field of economic and social development, as well for the purpose
of establish collaborative development solutions and partnerships among these
groups.

17
• e-Participate (http://www.eparticipate.eu/) It enables accessible and transparent
communication between government and citizens through a cost-effective
multimedia webcasting system. The system is now being launched in 8 member
states.

• PloneGov (http://www.plonegov.org) This initiative is a collaborative software

ecosystem, where government organizations, non-profits and the private sector
work together to share the cost of enhanced capabilities. The project currently has
its centre of gravity in Europe and spans over 4 continents reaching more than 20
countries.

• Buitenbeter (http://springwise.com/government/buitenbeter/). A mobile phone

based application to enhance citizens’ dialogue with the local government in
Dordrecht, Netherlands.
• e-Response®, Dordrecht town hall (http://cms.dordrecht.nl/ ). The public
administration in the city of Dordrecht provides the citizens with a code (ticket) in
order to enable them to follow the status of their applications, inquiries,
documents and so on.
• SIMAC (http://www.gva.es). SIMAC (Integral and Multi-Channel Citizen
Service System, Valencia, Spain) is a project that includes several performance
lines in order to achieve intelligent, interconnected, integrated, efficient and high
quality administration focused on the citizen. It receives more than 10 million
information requests annually through its different channels.

• PIC (http://www.pic.si/ ). The Legal informational Centre for NGOs in Slovenia

aims to Build NGO capacity by providing legal expert support, increasing NGOs
knowledge on public participation mechanisms and raising awareness on the
importance of public participation in public affairs.

Virtual/physical houses

• Mundo-b (http://www.mundo-b.org/) Mundo-B is a key focal for environment

and development NGOs lobbying the European Parliament and Commission. The
centre provides for 25 organisations as well as shared facilities including six
meeting rooms, a conference suite with translation booths, social cafe, reception,
garden and storage as well as space for 200 workstations for NGOs and charities
in the city.

• The Hub (http://brussels.the-hub.net/public/). Award-winning incubator for

social innovation. It offers access to collaborative work and meeting spaces for
entrepreneurs and people with imaginative ideas.

18
 Meetings past and future

4 December First meeting open to the public on the European Civil Society
House
19 January Presentation of the report of the high level panel “Mind the Gap:
towards a better enforcement of European Citizens’ rights to free
movement”
27 January Presentation to a hearing of the petitions committee on citizens’
initiatives
28 January Meeting with ZN eCommunications Team
4 February Meeting with the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust
22 February Commission hearing on results of consultation on citizens’
initiatives
22 February Meeting at EFC
25 February Citizens panel Advisory panel meeting
26 February Citizens panel on participatory democracy at the EU level: final
event
4 March ECAS Board of Directors Meeting
10 March Meeting with the EPPA, Dr. Stefan Schepers
12 March Participation in NCVO meeting for the European network for
National Associations
16 March Meeting with the GEF
24 March Meeting with the Danish Board of Technology
24 March Meeting with the Realdania Foundation
26 March Visit to the British Library for background research on existing
virtual house models
29 March Meeting with Gerry Salole, CEO of the European Foundation Centre
29 March Meeting with Mathieu Bayart, Director of BAYA
31 March Meeting with Malachy Vallely Director General for the Louvain
Institute
6 April Meeting with Larua Dagg “Toute l’Europe”
28 April Meeting with Anna-Marie Sigmund member of the European
Economic and Social Committee
8 May Stand for the European Civil Society House at Europe Day
17 May Meeting with Marie-Laure Roggemans from the King Baudouin
Foundation
27 May Meeting with Commune de Saint-Gilles, Carlo Luyckx
27 May First meeting of the steering group
2 June Meeting hosted by Jean Lambert, MEP, in the European Parliament
8 June Meeting of the finance sub-committee of steering group
31-3 June European Foundation Week
1 July ECAS General Assembly and open discussion on the European Civil
Society House
7 September Meeting in the European Parliament and Help Desk for MEPs
(Strasbourg)

19
 May 2010
EXTENDED BRIEFING NOTE:

CREATING A EUROPEAN CIVIL SOCIETY HOUSE

Part 2

On 26 May 2010, a total of 496 respondents had completed the survey in either the
English or French version. 58 different nationalities have been registered, with almost the
totality of the European Union covered (with the exception of Malta). Combined statistics
of the two versions of the questionnaire are here displayed, based on answered questions;
unanswered questions are not taken into consideration.
The average respondent profile was of an EU national (82%) frequently (40%) or full-
time (30%) involved in European affairs.

Results show that there are minor differences in the order granted to the importance of
Civil Society Development (most important for the 46.5% of the respondents), Citizens’
rights and better enforcement (48.2%) and Citizen Participation (49.5%).
A convergence of answers about the key features of the Physical (PH) and Virtual (VH)
Houses is to be noticed. In both sections, respondents underlined that in the ECSH, the
essential aspects should be:

• European Coalition building for projects and advocacy (47.9% VH, 47.4% PH)
for the development of Civil Society;

• Advice about European citizens’ rights (52.6%VH, 45.8 % PH) for the
enforcement of Citizens’ Rights.
Furthermore, results point out that the most important facilities the PH should offer
would be a resource centre on Civil Society in Europe (44.5%) and that it should bring
together a group of European association to share premises and facilities (29%).

Finally, the ECSH receives an overall 92.1% approval rate. 93.6% of the respondents
asked to be kept informed about the future developments of the house, and 73.4% have
shown active interest in collaborating for its setup.

20
 Q1. Respondents by group

14%
4%

UE-27
EU Candidates
Rest of the world

82%

Q1. EU-27 by country

Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic

Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany
Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia
Lithuania Luxembourg Netherlands Poland Portugal
Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden
UK
21
 Q2. What is the extent of your involvement in European Affairs?

7%
30%
23%
Full tim e
Frequent
In-Frequent
Never

40%

Q3. In what order of importance do you rank the following 3

subjects?

49.5
49
48.5 Civil Society Development
48 and the EU
Citizens’ rights and better
47.5 enforcement
47 Citizen Participation and
initiatives
46.5
46
45.5
45

22
 Q4. Which services would you consider most important to
have in the Virtual House?

50
45
European funding advice and
40 as s is tance with filling in
35 applications

30 Lobbying the EU Ins titutions

and prom otion of your
25 organization
20 European Coalition building
for projects and advocacy
15
10
5
0

Q5. C2 Citizens' Rights

60 Advice about European

citizen’s rights and civil
liberties for NGO’s and
50 Individuals

40 Helping form ulate com plaints

and following them up with the
European Com m is s ion,
30 Parliam ent and European
Om buds m an
20 Res earching and
cam paigning on generic
is s ues s uch as application of
10 the Charter of Fundam ental
Rights

23
 Q6. Citizen Participation

60
Providing advice and a
50 clearing hous e on citizens
deliberations and citizens
initiatives
40
A m eeting place between
citizens and the EU ins titutions
30 to reinforce dialogue and
res ults
Support for the prom oters of
20 citizens initiatives under article
11 of the Lis bon Treaty
10

Q7. Which services would you consider most important in the

Physical House?
C1. Civil Society Development

50
45
European funding advice and
40 as s is tance with filling in
35 applications
Lobbying the EU Ins titutions
30
and prom otion of your
25 organization
20 European Coalition building
15 for projects and advocacy

10
5
0

24
 Q8. Citize ns' Rights

50 Advice about European

citizens ’ rights and civil
45
liberties for NGO’s and
40 Individuals

35
Helping form ulate com plaints
30 and following them up with the
European Com m is s ion,
25 Parliam ent and European
Om buds m an
20
Res earching and
15 cam paigning on generic
is s ues s uch as application of
10
the Charter of Fundam ental
5 Rights

Q9. Citize n Participation

35

30 Providing advice and a

clearing hous e on citizens
deliberations and citizens
25
initiatives
A m eeting place between
20 citizens and the EU
ins titutions to reinforce
15 dialogue and res ults
Support for the prom oters of
10 citizens initiatives under article
11 of the Lis bon Treaty
5

0
1

25
 Q10. In what order would you rank following facilities offered
in the Physical House?

Res ource centre on Civil

Society in Europe
45

40 Bringing together a group of

European as s ociations to
35 s hare prem is es and facilities

30 Providing a des k and a fully

equipped office for vis iting
25 organizations
Meeting room facilities for
20 NGOs and citizens
15
Training cours es
10

5
Other
0

For “other”, please see infra (point 1.1).

Q11. What aspe ct of the project would be most adv antageous

for the EU Institutions to improve access for citize ns?

Res ource centre on civil

45 s ociety with a databas e of
40 organizations which can be
cons ulted or invited to events
35 Support to citizens s o that their
reques ts and com plaints are
30 better directed and eas ier to
25 handle
An interm ediary organization to
20 s upport citizens initiatives (the
1 m illion s ignatures ) and
15
citizens deliberations
10 Other (pleas e s pecify)

Comments are available at point 1.2, infra.

26
 Q12. Do you think it's a good idea to create a ECSH?

N/A
No
Yes

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q13. Would you like to be kept informed?

No
Yes

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

27
 Q14. Would you like to become actively involved in the
ECSH?
0 20 40
Further comments are to be read in 1.3, infra.
1.1 Supplement to question 10. “In what order do you rank the following facilities offered
in the Physical House”? Free responses:
• Centre of advice for certain association areas,
such as Fundraising, PR etc.
• An office for NGO's representing the country of
the rotating Presidency of the EU
• Helping small organizations to their capacity
buildings
• Study tour for exchanging experiences
• "Lecturing - Meeting point" where academics and
citizens dialogue with each other ex Political
scientists, Sociologists, Anthropologists;
Philosophers, Environmental scientist etc.
providing citizens and organizations with first
hand information of academic research and ideas.
This could be done in collaboration with various
European Universities and academic
organisations. The spirit should be it is never to
late to learn something. Being well informed
before one voices his or her opinion.
• Sharing best practices and lesson learned
• It should give priority to legitimate NGOs who do
not have yet offices in Brussels!
No
Yes
60 80
• Place for CSO-EU events
• connection between civil society forum and the
International Fund for cooperation and partnership
"Black Sea - Caspian Sea", being the official rep
of the Fund accredited to EU Institutions
• Meeting rooms we can find anywhere, the house
in Brussels should be a very strong representative
house of the citizens, not an info point!!!
• Help organizations in small towns. (Education and
equipment)
• European Civil Society Library, Consultancy
Centre for The European Funding
• Fund (Emergency) for financial support to small
organizations that have no means to prepare
proposals for applying for grants. Not engaged in
trade and fail to provide its own financial
resources, except revenues from project
implementation. It is a pity, but there are such
organizations - without any state or municipal
(local government) care.
28
• Clear lines of third sector representation linked
back to local groups. I do not necessarily see
national third sector representation as the best
vehicle for this when so much of the
implementation is routed through regional
agencies. Regional Voices is a national (England)
1.2 Supplement to question 12. “Do you think it is a good idea to create a ECSH?”
Free Comments:
• It will further strengthen civil society sector, will
increase their knowledge about EU activities, will
support to improve citizen rights and citizen
participation
• It is a good idea because it is easier to give our
opinion to the European Commission.
• European Civil Society still needs much support,
e.g. there is no European association law, but a
company has the possibility to create a company
being legally a European one.
• Not necessarily, it would be important that this
Civil Society House is not a monolithic institution
that crowds out other civil society initiatives.
Careful attention would have to be paid to its
representativity, transparency and independence,
especially the latter if it is to be funded through
the EU budget.
• I think it is important that the civil society house
builds links with the EU representations in each
member state and in third countries. Several
member states are turning their EC
representations into 'Europe Houses' with the idea
of welcoming civil society and citizens more into
their space, and moreover the representations
often do not know where to direct citizens and
civil society which come to them with questions
about funding, about campaigning, about creating
partnerships with other organisations.
• This is a great idea and will go some way towards
making measures such as the CI practicable
• only if it is a support centre for citizens who are
interested in engaging with the EU and not
another Brussels-based umbrella body for civil
society/NGOs
• The fact that a physical place exists can help
enormously to focus the attention on the issue
• Individuals and smaller associations especially
need help to defend their rights in a Europe
perceived to be so distant and un-democratic yet
which has such a far-reaching effect over their
everyday lives.
body constituted of nine regional third sector
networks such as VSNW.
• Establishing communications and network of
NGOs from all over Europe to synchronize efforts
and measures to advance and further develop civic
rights, liberties, participation etc.
• Voluntary activities should be stressed more as a
means and an expression of European active
citizenship in the concept of the House.
• We see that the European Parliament/Commission
as besieged by private interests groups. This is not
creating the proper Europe... It needs better
communications with citizens and an on-going
awareness of public interest issues, especially
about environment, energy, and climate.
• both physical European Civil Society House and
virtual European Civil Society Web Platform
should be developed as to avoid geographically
limiting access to the global project
• Yes, as long as it is open to organisations based
outside Brussels and especially on the periphery
of the EU
• It should be a real added value and coordination
between all existing civil society voicing
expertise, similar initiatives
• This is definitely a well founded initiative. There
is a great need for such a House. Most importantly
however, the EU needs to be shown why they
need to take this project seriously and give its
official support. This could be as beneficial for the
EU as for the citizens of Europe.
• Such a house could considerably contribute to
strengthening of common European identity,
citizenship, values and spirit. It could launch even
operative projects and programmes in this field,
undertake joint campaigns; it could be co-funded
by not only EU but by all European countries,
even symbolically.
• My personal interests are in relation to Corporate
Social Responsibility and hence the way
organisations can engage with their immediate
communities of interest. There is a need to
escalate and network this aspect and would like to
see it as a strand of ECSH.
29
 1.3 Overall remarks about the European Civil Society House:
• There is a real need for such a project!
Congratulations for the initiative.
• If it will works well for all NGO's is a really good
project
• I wonder if the parliament in Strasbourg could
provide some logistics for citizen deliberation and
conference projects this to trim costs for the
European Civil Society House (ECSH) project.
• The survey seems a bit biased, since it parts from
the view that this would be a positive initiative. It
would have been useful with more detailed
information on who is behind the European civil
society house project.
• Artificial organizations have little or no
perspective, except misusing public money
• Most important is a participatory approach -thus
not a top down filling in by the EC.
• Join-forces and active collaboration on common
programs proposed by European initiatives
• I am rather negative about the notion 'citizens' as
this excludes immigrants, hence legitimate
residents in the EU. Thus, 20-30 million residents
of the EU and their NGOs would not be covered
by this project which thus becomes rather
exclusive. Therefore, it should include citizens
AND residents of the EU.
• Surely the project is too conceptual. It does not
seem practical
• It was difficult to prioritise because all the
initiatives proposed are important. Good luck
with the plan!
• I wish a Good Luck to the project and hope to see
the positive results for the Citizen soon!
• Yes - this initiative to serve really the broad civil
society and not to be turned into one more office
with EU clerks serving a small group of mighty
organizations.
• It is core time for a project of this type. They are
many cases showing its importance and necessity.
Authorities often keep civil society apart of
different process or there is a lack of information
in advance for important process. The House can
help in this context.
• It would be great if small organisations with very
few staff could have a way of harnessing the
information and advice needed to protect
homeless citizens
• The key to this project is the EU Parliament. If
they are on board, then this project will be a
success and will be greatly beneficial to the EU
and its Citizens.
• I think it would be better to build on the NGO
platforms that are already there rather than to
create something new.
• The European citizens should realise the
advantage that this entire continent has above the
other continents. This is the moment to start
working together because if we still keep our
proud feeling of coming from a specific country
and not realising that all of us are European
citizens we will have the same slow development
as of today happened. We need to be "united", we
need to be "proud of being Europeans" and we
need to fight together to make EUROPE THE
HOME FOR EUROPEANS".
• The idea is good. Should put emphasis on small
organizations that operate in small and rural
communities, and provide them with assistance in
education, and office equipment.
• I totally agree with this important initiative and I
fully support it
• How this initiative will support decentralization
(especially in Eastern Europe), which is at the
core of democracy. In Bulgaria, many missing.
• I think this is the germ of a brilliant idea, but to
achieve the scale of change envisaged will require
a stronger ambition to engage with active social
partnering organisations such as, in my case,
universities, but realistically also commercial
organisations as well since they too have
responsibilities to facilitate the citizenship of their
employees.
30