European Civil Society House.

The Romanian perspective

Bucharest, 2012

Table of Contents

E ecutive summary ............................................................................................................................ !

"etho#olo$y ..................................................................................................................................... %

&art '. C()TE*T ................................................................................................................................. + A. Citizens and non-governmental organisations participation in the decision-making process in Romania ............................................................................................................................................. 7 B. Review of the cooperation between p blic a thorities and the !"#s ........................................... $% C. Romanian citizens& civil societ' organisations and the () .............................................................. $2 *. +tr ct res and initiatives relevant for the facilitation of access of Romanian citizens to ( ropean information ...................................................................................................................................... $,

&art ''. ST,-. () THE CRE/T'() (0 THE ECSH ................................................................................. 22 A. + rve' res lts ............................................................................................................................... 22 B. -nterviews findings ....................................................................................................................... 2. C. /orkshop concl sions .................................................................................................................. ,0

&art '''. C()C1,S'()S /)- REC(""E)-/T'()S ........................................................................... 21

E*EC,T'3E S,""/R.
/bout the pro4ect

1he Carro sel pro2ect is implemented b' the ( ropean Citizens Actions +ervice 3(CA+4 in partnership with the #pen +ociet' -nstit te 5 +ofia 3B lgaria4& !-#6 37 ngar'4& the 8olish Robert +ch man 9o ndation 38oland4 and 1o te l( rope 39rance4. -t received financial s pport from (AC(A& :eas re 2.$ 3;Citizens< pro2ects=4 of the ( rope for Citizens 8rogramme. -t is also s pported b' the >oseph Rowntree Charitable 1r st.

1he pro2ects name comes from an innovative techni? e for citizen deliberations that was

sed

thro gho t the pro2ect. -t involves str ct red disc ssions with citizens in a ;ro nd table= format with s bse? ent rotation& which contrib tes to a better e@change of views and cross-pollination of ideas.

-n the framework of the pro2ect fo r national panels and one ( ropean level panel were organized& together with a series of st dies cond cted in several () member states. 1he main goal of the deliberations and research was to help better concept alize the str ct re and f nctions of the f t re ( ropean Civil +ociet' 7o se& both ph'sical and virt al& and its national contact points in the :ember +tates. 1he feedback& ideas& and recommendations received from the participants in the disc ssions will be sed to improve the design of the virt al (+C7 and& at a later stage& of the ph'sical offices of the 7o se& as well. 1he res lts from the pro2ect will be the basis for form lating polic' recommendations to the ( ropean instit tions abo t how to facilitate () citizens access to their rights and improve their comm nication with citizens.

/bout the stu#y an# its content

1he c rrent st d' was contracted to the Civil +ociet' *evelopment 9o ndation and aims to e@plore the Romanian conte@t and stakeholders perceptions regarding civil societ' and citizens participation to ( ropean 8olicies in Romania& as well as creating the ( ropean Civil +ociet' 7o se. ContentA

Review of the Romanian conte@t. 1his part of the st d' anal'zes the participation of !"#s and citizens in the decision-making process in Romania& the wa' the' interact with and relate to the ()& provides a map of the str ct res and initiatives relevant for the facilitation of access of Romanian citizens or civil societ' organisations to ( ropean information and reviews the cooperation between p blic a thorities and the !"#sC

8resentation of the ? alitative and ? antitative anal'sis of the research. 1his part of the st d' renders the views of the people involved in the research& with regard to the virt al and ph'sical ( ropean Civil +ociet' 7o se& at Br ssels and in Romania& its role and the mechanisms the' s ggest for its f nctioningC

:ain s ggestions& recommendations and concl sions that came o t of the st d'A ke' iss es that sho ld be taken into acco nt& profile of the ( ropean Civil +ociet' 7o se in Br ssels& profile of the national ( ropean Civil +ociet' 7o se.

/bout the coor#inator of the stu#y 5 Civil Society -evelopment 0oun#ation

1he Civil +ociet' *evelopment 9o ndation 3C+*94 is an independent& non-governmental organisation& based in B charest 3Romania4 and established in $..B& following an initiative of the ( ropean Commission. C+*9 is an ;organisation for organisations=& sharing the belief that the ver' development of non-governmental organisations is an indicator of the progress of comm nities and citizens.

C+*9 provides services related toA cons ltanc' and training& advocac'& information& research& coalition and platform b ilding& alwa's tailored to the needs of civil societ' organisations& in order to increase the impact of their activities in the comm nit'. C+*9 also represents the non-governmental sectors interests towards other sectors of the societ' and works towards increasing the visibilit' of the nongovernmental sectors work and val es. Reaching o t to other categories of stakeholders and target gro ps& C+*9 is c rrentl' providing services not onl' to !"#s& b t also to p blic administration& the b siness sector& 2o rnalists& academia.

"ETH(-(1(6.

1he present research proposes an in depth anal'sis of the Romanian conte@t and stakeholders perceptions regarding civil societ' and citizens participation to ( ropean 8olicies& as well as towards the creation of the ( ropean Civil +ociet' 7o se. 1he research methodolog' incl des a combination of ? alitative and ? antitative methods& in order to gain a better nderstanding of the opport nit' for the (C+7 establishment in Romania. 1he research has been cond cted aro nd the three main pillars of the proposed (C+7& the , CsA Citizens RightsC Civil +ociet' *evelopmentC Citizen 8articipation.

/nalysis of #ocuments an# secon#ary research #ata

!ational and ( ropean polic' doc ments& as well as researches have been closel' anal'zed to provide a general perspective of the policies in the area of citizen participation. -n this chapter the e@perts e@plored the , areas of interest for the (C+7 5 citizens& civil societ' development and citizen participation& what was alread' being done to connect civil societ' and citizens and more actions to be ndertaken& demands met and gaps to be filled.

&ersonali7e# intervie8s

/ithin the research pro2ect $% personalised interviews were done with representatives of organisations or instit tions having a partic lar e@perience in ( ropean Affairs 3informing and promoting of ( ropean topics& () policies& facilitation of interaction between the citizens or civil societ' and the ( ropean instit tions etc4. 1he organisations and instit tions interviewed were chosen in order to provide a relevant view of a wide range of 3$4 domains in ( ropean affairs 3citizen rights& environment& 'o th& development cooperation& polic'-making& str ct ral instr ments4& or 324 t'pes of entities 3reso rce

centres either for citizens or for the civil societ'& information centres& federations& organisations having local branches thro gho t the co ntr'4. 9or:shop

A workshop was organised in order to debate pon the level of activism of Romanian citizens and civil societ' in relation to the decision making process at the ( ropean level& along with the roles and f nctions of a ( ropean Civil +ociet' 7o se. 20 participants o t of 2, organisations or instit tions attended the workshop. 1he gro p gathered labo r nions and entreprene rs associations& !"#s active in h man rights and democrac'& social incl sion& c lt re and environment& operating individ all' or in larger networks& affiliated to religio s c lts or laic.

(nline survey

An online s rve' on the proposal to create a ( ropean Civil +ociet' 7o se was sent to targeted civil societ' organisations or instit tions dealing with ( ropean affairs and was also promoted to a wide range of other civil societ' organisations& citizens and instit tions. $%, respondents representing !"#s 3associations& fo ndations& federations& networks4& ed cational p blic instit tions and other t'pes of instit tions& citizens filled in the online s rve' containing . closed and open ? estions.

&art '. C()TE*T

1his part of the st d' provides a review of the present sit ation of the !"# sector and civic engagement in decision making processes in Romania. -t answers what is alread' being done to connect civil societ' and citizens to be activel' involved in decision making processes and what more needs to be done& where demand is alread' met and where there are gaps and what the scope for s'nerg' is.

() integration has been one of the main goals of Romania since the end $..%s and it has been embraced as s ch b' the overwhelming ma2orit' of the Romanian citizens. () integration has been perceived as the best wa' towards democratization& prosperit' and sec rit' for the co ntr'. -t is not s rprising that even tho gh the level of tr st in the () has sharpl' fallen over the last 'ears& partic larl' in the conte@t of the global economic crisis& it remains one of the highest in ( rope. :oreover& since tr st in the national instit tions 3"overnment& political parties4 are ver' low& Romanian citizens hopes still cling to the () instit tions as a safet' net for the f t re of the co ntr'. As the rh'thm of reforms after the accession has slowed down& with even setbacks in vario s areas 32 stice reform& democratisation4& () has become essential in ens ring that Romania keeps the co rse. (@pectations towards the () have been high from the ver' beginning of the negotiation process. 1he official disco rse emphasising the benefits of the () integration have contrib ted to these e@pectations. 7owever& it is less evident for most of the pop lation how the' can reall' benefit from the advantages of being ( ropean citizens and this is another factor contrib ting to the c rrent wave of disappointment.

/. Citi7ens an# non5$overnmental or$anisations; participation in the #ecision5ma:in$ process in Romania

-n Romania 3as in most former comm nist co ntries4& involvement of citizens in C+# activities or their s pport for C+#s remains low. 1he reasons are variedA from the dire Comm nist legac' of social mistr st& disappearance of the p blic space& forced vol nteerism and state dependenc'& to the more recent economic tro bles and increasing povert'& individ alism and cons merism. As C+#s have been s pported since the earl' $..%s b' foreign donors and international instit tions 3s ch as the () itself4 7

the' are still perceived as ver' close to the international arena. *espite all these negative elements& s rve's which have been cond cted over the last $% 'ears reveal a constant increase in the p blic tr st for C+#s 3partic larl' for !"#s4 5 while at the same time tr st in the "overnment and p blic instit tions has decreased. 1he c rrent level of tr st is low in absol te val e& 'et& in the conte@t of the tr st crisis in Romanian instit tions it can be interpreted as a general perception of civil societ' as stabilit' reference. Be'ond the general perception& there are fo r main wa's of citizen involvement with C+#sA membership& vol nteering& donations and mobilization thro gh campaigns 3either street manifestations or signing of petitions4. :embership in an organisation s all' incl des also the other t'pes of involvement.

7owever all t'pes of involvement remain generall' nderdeveloped in Romania.

Associations and fo ndations active in the field of h man rights and good governance have been& b' far& the most visible in the mass media in the earl' stage of the democratization process in Romania. 1he changes which took place after $.E. represented at the same time the starting point of the development of civil societ' as a g arantee of democrac' and as an advocate of civil liberties.

1he process of () accession 3$.., 5 2%%B4 lead to an increase of the importance of civil societ'& partic larl' from the perspective of the capacit' to infl ence p blic decision-making. After $...& when the () integration became a more clear certit de& the nongovernmental sector managed to se

effectivel' the re? irements F conditionalities imposed b' the () in order to advance& ? icker& essential points for the societ' in their agenda.

Reports of vario s C+#s have been constantl' sed b' () instit tions to eval ate Romanias progress and that& in t rn& had an impact on an improvement of the attit de of the political class towards civil societ' at large.

#ne of the ma2or s ccesses of the 2%%%s was the adoption of the law on access to information and of transparenc' in the decision-making process. /ith the tools provided b' these laws& !"#s working in the field foc sed on the promotion of responsibilit' and integrit' in p blic positions& on fighting corr ption& on promoting participator' democrac'& access to information and transparenc' in the decision-making process.

According to the latest available data& the Civil +ociet' *irector' 32%$%4& $2.0BG of all !"#s have as the main field of intervention civic participation and infl encing p blic policies. #f these& the ma2orit' 3DEG4 are foc sed on democrac' and h man rights& $0G work on cons mer protection& B0.0G are concerned with discrimination and 0DG deal with good governance and changing p blic policies. !"#s have a ver' important role in the protection of h man rights. 1he' offer direct assistance to persons whose rights were violated& the' p t press re for the modification of relevant national legislation and the' develop ed cational programs for the nderstanding and respecting h man rights. Awareness on h man rights& and on the wa's to defend them are the basis to ens re their enforcement in ever'da' life. !"#s in Romania have been activel' involved in the promotion of h man rights and the' had a strong infl ence in bringing f ndamental change in the following areasA children rights& gender e? alit'& fighting discrimination and the promotion of minorit' rights 3incl ding protecting ethnic and se@ al minorities& fighting racism etc.4& the freedom of e@pression& and s pport for a fair electoral process. -n t rn& the ain progresses contrib ted to increasing visibilit' and tr st in civil societ'.

!"#s activities have contrib ted greatl' to the consolidation of democrac'& b' monitoring the government& acting for increasing transparenc' in the decision making process and the responsibilit' of p blic a thorities& b t also b' enhancing the level of citizen participation& the facilitation of the direct involvement of marginalized gro ps in the development and implementation of sol tions the' were facing& infl encing the c lt re and attit de of both government officials and citizens.

8articipation is the main tool in the form lation& information and promotion of the changes desired b' the citizens. As s ch& !"#s which wish to infl ence government decisions in order to solve critical problems or to draw attention on these problems& ndertake activities aimed at b ilding and

strengthening mechanisms which ens re citizen participation and fostering their active and direct engagement.

1he main laws reg lating p blic participation 5 Haw 02F2%%, regarding decision making transparenc' of the p blic administration and Haw 0BBF2%%$ on the freedom of access to information 5 are the res lt of the actions initiated b' nongovernmental organisations& which made it possible for the topics the' had proposed to t rn into p blic polic'.

#ver the last 'ears& a larger n mber of !"#s have carried o t advocac' campaigns& partic larl' to infl ence the shape of local development plans and the wa' decision which concern citizens is made& with ? ite a n mber of cases where either thro gh p blic and press re or in co rt the' managed to force p blic a thorities to respect the e@istent legislation and to take the right meas res.

B. Revie8 of the cooperation bet8een public authorities an# the )6(s

-n the evol tion of the relation between the state and the nongovernmental sector in Romania& the most recent phases allow for nderstanding the c rrent d'namics& challenges and of the potential that !"#s have in ens ring the linkages with the ( ropean dimension of polic' making and h man rights.

-n the period 2%%% 5 2%%0 Romanian !"#s committed to a new roleA promoters of good governance and of the integration in the (). -n 2%%B-2%%E the main topics of interest for C+#s were again related to the efforts made b' Romania on the path to () accession. -t is in this period that a new cons ltation instr ment between "overnment and civil societ' is created. 1he College for Cons ltation with Associations and 9o ndations is created within the chanceller' of the prime-minister. 1he Colleges main goal has been ;to facilitate comm nication and to ens re the involvement of associations and fo ndations in the implementation of governmental policies at all decision-making levels of the central p blic a thorities= as well as ;to develop the partnership between p blic a thorities and the nongovernmental sector and to consolidate participator' democrac' in Romania=.

-n 2%$$& while the overall political conte@t and the cooperation with the government f rther deteriorated& C+#s did p t serio s efforts in lobb'ing and advocac' initiatives. D%G of the respondents in the !"# Headers Barometer 3BH#!"4 2%$$ state that infl encing p blic decision-making process is a foc s of their organisations. 9or 2.G of the respondents that is an important dimension of their organisation.

1he main initiators of p blic cons ltations are !"#s and coalitions of !"#s 3in ,EG of the cases4& followed b' local a thorities 3$EG4 and b' ministries 3$BG4.

$%

According to the !"# Headers Barometer 3BH#!"4 2%$$& 70G of the respondents declare that within their activities the' cooperate with p blic a thorities and instit tions. 1he best cooperation takes place at local level 3with local and co nt' co ncils4. #ne of the most negative perceptions on the ? alit' of cooperation regards the interaction with the Romanian 8residenc'. :ost of the s rve'ed C+#s 3D%-7%G4 leaders regard positivel' the general attit de of local a thorities abo t their organisationsC however the perception drops 2%G when asked abo t concrete actions taken b' these a thorities to s pport their work. Altho gh most of the actions aimed at infl encing p blic policies seemed to foc s on the national level 3over 0%G of the respondents4& the most s ccessf l ones proved to be those targeting local a thorities where D%G of the C+#s who initiated p blic polic' recommendations saw their proposals incl ded entirel' or partiall' in the final decisions. Altho gh advocac' work of C+#s is not ideologicall' driven& the perception of the cooperation with opposition parties is slightl' better than with governmental parties.

-n 2%$$ C+#s were able again to organize large thematic coalitions& generall' s ccessf l in mobilizing citizens and gro p to oppose governmental decisions deemed nacceptable 3e.g. against the :ining Haw& for the preservation of wild forests& against the Haw of +ocial (ntreprene rship4.

C+#s mobilized both aro nd iss es which concerned them directl' 3the ( ropean +tr ct ral 9 nds& against the draft law on +ocial (ntreprene rship4& and also larger iss es s ch as environmental and heritage protection& social iss es 3for children with a tism4 or defence of civil rights 3the draft law on p blic assemblies4 and democrac' 3the law on electoral changes& a coalition against the referend m for a new law on the administrative reorganisation of B charest& a coalition against the proposed territorial administrative reorganisation of the co ntr'4.

1he controversial mining pro2ect at RoIia :ontanJ drew a lot of energ' and efforts from environmental !"#s and other activist gro ps. According to the civil societ' representatives& the pro2ect wo ld create the largest c'anide based gold e@ploitation in ( rope& destro'ing an inval able historical and c lt ral heritage and endangering the environment in a wider area in Romania and in the neighbo ring co ntries for a ver' long time in the f t re and with a negative economic benefit for the co ntr'. Civil societ' gro ps mobilized against the RoIia :ontanJ "old Corporation 3R:"C4& the compan' behind the pro2ect& staging p blic manifestations and bo'cotts& e@posing the massive p blic campaign sponsored in the media b' R:"C and the silencing of opinions opposing the pro2ect& as well as deno ncing high level $$

complicit' and lack of transparenc' b' p blic instit tions& incl ding the Romanian 8residenc'& disregarding the environmental and c lt ral impact of the gold e@ploitation& in a pre-electoral 'ear. A large mobilization to gather signat res for a petition against a new proposed :ining Haw favo ring R:"C and other potential mineral companies& against the e@isting legislation reg lating propert' rights and historical and c lt ral heritage& managed to collect $%%&%%% signat res in a record time. 1he petition was deposed at the Romanian 8arliament d ring the visit of a delegation of the Committee for 8etitions of the ( ropean 8arliament. +everal flash-mobs and small spontaneo s manifestations against the censorship in mass-media of opinions contrar' to the pro2ect were swiftl' and overweightedl' repressed b' the police forces& while environmental activists were intimidated and ab sed& increasing s spicions of obsc re links between high level decision-makers and the gold corporation. -n +eptember 2%$$ a coalition of C+#s managed to stop the adoption of a law which gravel' restricted the freedom of assembl' and of e@pression.

C. Romanian citi7ens, civil society or$anisations an# the E,

According to the latest ( robarometer released in April 2%$2& Romanian citizens tr st in the () dropped dramaticall' at the end of 2%$$& with $BG& compared to the same period of 2%$% 3D%G4. 7owever& the level of tr st remains relativel' high 5 BDG of citizens contin e to tr st the () 5 compared to the () 27 average 3,EG4. -t is worth recalling that in the pre-accession period& Romanians tr st in the () reached record levels 3E0G of all citizens tr sted the ()4. Romania has one of the lowest rates of voters participation to the latest ( ropean elections. 27.7G of the Romanian voters e@pressed their preferences& compared to a ()27 average of B,G. 1he main reason to vote was not related that m ch to the feeling of belonging to the ()& or to rational calc lations. -nstead& 7,G of the Romanians who voted stated the' did beca se of civic d t'.

A specialized ( robarometer on () citizenship from 2%$%& revealed that the proportion of respondents claiming that the' knew the meaning of the term ;citizen of the ( ropean )nion= was among the highest in Romania 3D%G4& compared to the ()27 average 5 B,G. 00G of the Romanians were not satisfied with the level of information abo t the rights as a citizen of the ( ropean )nion& while the ()27 average was D7G.

$2

-n the 9lash ( robarometerA the Charter of 9 ndamental Rights of the ( ropean )nion 3>an ar' 2%$24& 2 st EG of the Romanian citizens declared the' were familiar with the () Charter of 9 ndamental Rights 3compared to $$G& the () average4.

#ver the past 0 'ears the Romanian C+#s came in closer contact with ( ropean civil societ' federative str ct res& and& in the conte@t of the ( ropean integration process of Romania started to adopt similar strategies to those of the ( ropean organisations. -n the !"# Headers Barometer 3BH#!"4 2%$$& $7.7G of the respondents declared that the' belonged to a national federation& BG were affiliated to ( ropean federation and almost ,G to international federations. ,BG of !"# representatives cons lted in the aforementioned s rve' declare that in 2%$% their organisation was involved in activities at () level& in partnership with !"#s from other () member states.

-. Structures an# initiatives relevant for the facilitation of access of Romanian citi7ens to European information
$. Citizens Advice B rea @ 2. ( rope *irect !etwork ,. ( ropean 8arliament -nformation #ffice in Romania B. ( ropean -nstit te of Romania 0. -nformation Centre for +tr ct ral -nstr ments D. ( rActiv.ro 7. Romanian Center for ( ropean 8olicies E. Romanian Association for Cons mers< 8rotection .. -nfoCons $%. 8arlamentor.ro

1. Citi7ens /#vice Bureau 3httpAFFwww.robcc.roFenF4

1he access of all citizens to information regarding the civil rights and responsibilities is a prere? isite for the e? alit' of opport nities in a democratic societ'. 1he Citizens Advice B rea @ ens re e? al access of

$,

citizens to information and advice services so that the' are able to acknowledge their rights and d ties. Citizens sho ld not be deprived of information abo t their rights and responsibilities.

1he !ational Association of Citizens Advice B rea @ 3!ACAB4 is a nongovernmental& non profit organisation& fo nded to s pport and to direct the activities of the Citizens Advice B rea @ 3CABs4. !ACAB is made p of ,E !"#s that fo nded CABs and CAB branches in more than D% localities in Romania& both in rban and r ral environments.

!ACAB coordinates the activities of the CABs& promotes the network of the CABs at the national level& and represents the network of the CABs in relation with p blic a thorities and aims at elaborating doc ments with potential of impact in what concerns p blic polic' making and social services sector& based on information f rnished b' the CABs.

!ACAB was fo nded in 2%%2& nder the 8hare 8rogramme 5 +trengthening Civil +ociet'. 1he Association benefited from the s pport of the Romanian "overnment 3the *epartment of Hiaison with the 8olitical and !"# (nvironment4 and of the British "overnment 3the *epartment of -nternational *evelopment4. 1he Citizens Advice B rea @ 3CABs4 represent pro2ects of !"#s active in the fields of social services& 7 man Rights& comm nit' development& child protection& cons mer protection etc.

At local level& a CAB f nctions in partnership with local a thorities 3Cit' 7all& Hocal "overnment #ffice& Hocal and Co nt' Co ncil4 and with decentralized p blic instit tions. 1he CABs cover the ma2orit' of Romanian regions& f nctioning in ,E cities and villages& diverse in size. Apart from the ,E CABs& !ACAB has also CAB s b nits covering& in total& more than D% localities of Romania& both in rban and r ral milie s.

1he CABs offer two t'pes of servicesA K 'nformation concerning legal reg lations and law provisions with regards to the problems

sheFhe facesC K /#viceA people coming in contact with a CAB are helped to take informed decisions with respect

to the problems the' face. CABs offer an overview of the possibilities the person has at herFhis disposal& along with the attached steps to be taken& following that the act al decision to be taken e@cl sivel' b' the person herselfFhimself. #ver B%&%%% citizens benefit ann all' from the direct $B

services of the CABs. 1he impact of those services in the comm nit' is significant& as the CAB is an important pillar in promoting civic participation& transparenc' and acco ntabilit' of p blic a thorities. CABs offer information and advice in $2 domainsA Child 8rotection& Civil Rights and Responsibilities& Cons mers 8rotection& (d cation& 7ealth& Habo r Regime& !otar' 8roced res& 8ropert' Regime& 8 blic +ervices& +ocial Assistance& +ocial -ns rance& 1a@es.

2. Europe -irect )et8or: 3httpAFFec.e ropa.e FromaniaFinformationFe ropeLdirectFinde@Lro.htm4

1he ( rope *irect !etwork represents one of the main instr ments sed b' the ( ropean Commission in order to inform and comm nicate with citizens at the local level. 1he network comprises& at the () level& BE% ( rope *irect information centres& B%% ( ropean doc mentation centres and 7%% 1eam ( rope members.

-n Romania& the ,% ( rope *irect information centres& $B ( ropean doc mentation centres and over 2% 1eam ( rope e@perts in ( ropean policies represent (Cs interface to the citizens at the local level and have the mission of promoting an informed and active ( ropean citizenship. 1hese networks provide general and specialized information regarding the () and refer to specialized information so rces& raise awareness among the p blic and promote debate on ( ropean themes. 1he network is coordinated b' the Representation of the (C in Romania.

( rope *irect providesA "eneral information on () themes in all official lang agesC Answers to ? estions related to () policiesC 8ractical information regarding vario s aspects& s ch as necessar' steps for recognition of st dies or modalities of how to introd ce a complaint abo t nsafe prod ctsC !ames& addresses and phone n mbers of organisations to which citizens ma' appealC Advice for overcoming practical problems in e@ercising the rights as citizen in ( rope.

$0

!. European &arliament 'nformation (ffice in Romania 3httpAFFwww.e roparl.roFviewFroFinde@.html4

1he ( ropean 8arliament -nformation #ffice in Romania informs citizens abo t the role and importance of the ( ropean 8arliament& organizing Civic 9or ms& debates and caravans in vario s locations thro gho t the co ntr'.

:oreover& the office attend events of its partners and delivers presentations and comm nications regarding the resol tions of the ( ropean 8arliament& b t also information materials and p blications abo t the ( ropean 8arliament and () policies.

1o implement comm nication policies of the ( ropean 8arliament& the office organizes information sessions for 2o rnalists on priorit' themes nder debate& as well as on the instit tional role pla'ed b' this legislative for m. 1he office organizes seminars having as general topic the activit' of the ( ropean 8arliament and the ( ropean legislative process& b t also seminars dedicated to specialised 2o rnalists on certain ( ropean themes.

1he ( ropean 8arliament -nformation #ffice in Romania has as main ob2ectivesA 1o inform the p blic on the ( ropean 8arliament and its activitiesC 1o s pport media coverage of the debates and activities of the 8arliamentC 1o facilitate the connection between p blic a thorities at the national& regional& local level and the civil societ'.

9 rthermore& complementing the ( ropean 8arliament website& the Romanian website allowsA Better information on the :(8sC 1racking news on the ( ropean 8arliamentC 1racking news on the ( ropean 8arliament -nformation #ffice in RomaniaC *ownloading of own p blicationsC Mis alising the activities of the ( ropean 8arliament in imagesC "etting familiar to the organisation and f nctioning of the ( ropean 8arliamentC "etting to know the competences and political role of the ( ropean 8arliamentC -nformation with regard to the a ctions and the ann al grants programC (mplo'ment opport nities and internships in () instit tionsC $D

Misits to the ( ropean 8arliament.

2. European 'nstitute of Romania 3httpAFFwww.ier.roFinde@.phpFsiteFinde@4

1he ( ropean -nstit te of Romania 3(-R4 is a p blic instit tion whose mission is to provide e@pertise in the field of ( ropean Affairs to the p blic administration& the b siness comm nit'& the social partners and the civil societ'. +t dies& training& translation and comm nication are (-Rs ke' areasA Cond cting st dies and policies and strateg' anal'ses to s pport Romanias development within the ( ropean )nion& and e@ercising its attrib tes as a :ember +tateC #rganizing training activities in the domain of ( ropean AffairsC Coordinating the translation and the ling istic and legal revision of the pre-accession ac? is& of the (C7R case-law& of Romanian doc ments of legal nat re& and setting terminolog'C +tim lating p blic debates on ( ropean iss es. p a consistent

(-R started its activit' in >an ar' 2%%% as an organisation aiming at providing s pport to the Romanian decision-makers d ring the accession process of Romania to the (). (-R began its activit' as a 87AR( pro2ect& with an initial staff of 22 people. 1he newl'-settled organisation had also a wider goal& namel' being a forefront platform for making the Romanian societ'& especiall' the polic' makers and academia& aware of the most important developments in the rapidl' changing and increasingl' comple@ world of the ( ropean )nion. After $ >an ar' 2%%7& (-R shifted its strategic foc s on the new priorities arising from Romania<s () membership& following the co ntr'<s accession to the )nion. 1he new priorities pertain mainl' to the role& positions and possible alliances to be ass med b' Romania on the ( ropean scene& emphasizing the need for a deeper e@amination at national level of the evol tions of the () instit tional affairs and polic'-making at comm nit' level.

!owada's& the (-R f nctions as a p blic instit tion nder the coordination of the *epartment of ( ropean Affairs& which is the office in charge with the e@ec tive secretariat of () Affairs within the Romanian "overnment. 1he (-R views are independent of an' p blic or private bodies and are not aligned to an' political part'& denominational gro p or ideological movement.

$7

1he pro2ects r n b' (-R are foc sed both on b ilding instit tional capacit' and creating specific e@pertise in the () affairs area. -t c rrentl' emplo's abo t 00 e@perts and other staff& incl ding researchers& training and comm nication e@perts and translators.

Among the main achievements of the (-R it is relevant to mention& in the conte@t of this report& that (-R has organized so far more than $2% p blic conferences& ro nd tables& debates and seminars aiming at stim lating at a national level in-depth p blic debate on ( ropean iss es.

%. 'nformation Centre for Structural 'nstruments 3httpAFFwww.fond ri- e.roF4

1he -nformation Centre for +tr ct ral -nstr ments has been fo nded in earl' 2%$2 nder the newl'fo nded :inistr' of ( ropean Affairs. According to the !ational Comm nication +trateg' for +tr ct ral -nstr ments for the programming period 2%%7-2%$,& the central element of the process of p blic information is the above mentioned centre. 1he Centre is the focal point to which interested persons can direct and the place where answers to general ? estions and g idance towards specialized organisms is provided.

1he activit' of the Centre foc ses on two prioritiesA 8roviding information on f nding opport nities available& in real time and with relevant dataC Comm nication on the ob2ectives and achievements in the domain of str ct ral instr ments& b' sharing s ccessf l models that contrib ted to the ? alit' of life and economic sit ation in the comm nities in which the' were implemented.

<. Eur/ctiv.ro 3httpAFFwww.e ractiv.roF4

( rActiv.ro is part of the network of portals dedicated to ( ropean affairs& having the head? arters at Br ssels& and present thro gh independent websites at Berlin& 8aris& :adrid& /arsaw& 8rag e& Bratislava& B dapest& +ofia and -stanb l.

1he ( rActiv network is in permanent contact with the () affairs world. *esigned as a portal 5 news agenc'& free& in Romanian& ( rActiv.ro aims towards an active involvement of the Romanian actors in the ( ropean debate& with special emphasis on the b siness sector. 1he s pport of the ( ropean $E

compan' ( rActiv from Br ssels g arantees the ne tralit' and ob2ectivit' of ( rActiv.ro& contrib ting to correct and balanced information of the Romanian p blic opinion.

( rActiv.ro was fo nded in :a' 2%%B& as a tr l' original concept in Romania. #n the one hand& it works as a news agenc'& providing two streams of informationA the stream from B charest and the stream permanentl' connected to the heart of ( rope& thro gh its main editorial office in Br ssels& stream which presents the main ( ropean policies& initiatives and developments in Romania. ( rActiv.ro is an pdated& ob2ective& free so rce of information that translates from Romanian into Romanian the less accessible lang age of the ().

+. Romanian Centre for European &olicies 3httpAFFwww.crpe.roFengFinde@4

1he Romanian Centre for ( ropean 8olicies 3CR8(4 was established in 2%%. b' a gro p of e@perts bo nd b' the shared ob2ective of s pporting Romania<s role in ( rope.

1he mission of the CR8( is to promote Romania as an infl ential leader in the development of () agendas and policies. Another ma2or ob2ective is to advance the ( ropeanization processes in Romania and to promote the ( ropean citizenship b' providing e@pertise in vario s fields and b' initiating or participating in p blic debates.

CR8(s vision is that Romanias () membership is a ke' milestone in the co ntr'<s ( ropeanization process. /hile negotiating accession& Romania did not have a sa' in the polic' making process. !ow& as a f ll member& the co ntr' has the instr ments to assert itself as an active polic'-maker& able to balance and advance national and ( ropean interests. 9or this to happen& one needs to first nderstand the comple@ities of the ( ropean s'stem of governance& to help define the interests of the whole spectr m of Romanian polic' stakeholders& and then to design strategies to advocate them at ()-level.

Romanian civil societ' has to keep pace with the new realit'. /hile Romania<s democrac' was still fragile& civil societ' actors became e@perienced watchdogs. B t as the co ntr' 2oined the ( ropean )nion& civil societ' needed to be more than a critic of last resort. -t had to consolidate its capacit' to generate polic' ideas and to engage in polic' debates generated b' others. Alongside broad or iss ebased social movements& informal forms of civic participation and other civil societ' actors& independent $.

think tanks capable to foster refle@ive polic' debates on the linkages between () and Romanian polic' processes are well-placed to pla' an important role. /hile a few Romanian think-tanks developed a record on the ne@ s between ()-level policies and the domestic polic' process& none of them does so consistentl' and s'stematicall'. -t is this gap that the Romanian Centre for ( ropean 8olicies attempts to fill as an e@pertise-based member of the wider Romanian civil societ'.

1he main areas that CR8( works on areA

8roposing new approaches and new policies to ens re the modernization of p blic administration b' drawing on the e@periences of () member states and () instit tionsC

8roposing well-researched and clearl' form lated position papers for the se of the Romanian government in ma2or () debates s ch as the () b dget reforms& CA8 health-check& common energ' policies& or f rther e@pansionC

-nvolving vario s private and p blic stakeholders in the polic' form lation process in order to stim late the debate aro nd the above mentioned iss es.

CR8( is affiliated to the following coalitions and networksA Coalition for the ( ropean Continent )ndivided b' Misa BarriersC the +tockholm !etworkC the Regional !etwork for 8 blic Administration Reform 5 )!*8.

=. Romanian /ssociation for Consumers> &rotection 3httpAFFwww.apc-romania.roF4

1he Romanian Association for Cons mers< 8rotection 3A8C Romania4 was fo nded in $..% to promote the interests of its members& as well as those of individ al cons mers in a period of profo nd and m ltifaceted market changes& after the fall of the Berlin wall. A8C Romanias aims are to represent cons mers and lobb' for better cons mer protection and better enforcement as well as promote more transparent markets and ens re the ? alit' of goods and services. -t informs& gives advice& ed cates cons mers abo t their rights& advocates e? alit' for all cons mers and promotes and represents b' all legal means cons mers rights and interests in relation to b sinesses and state instit tions.

A8C is recognized and s pport b' the Romanian government as organisation of p blic tilit'& which consolidates its role as a dialog e partner coming from the civil societ'.

2%

A8C Romania en2o's national recognition as being a member of vario s national and international str ct res& s ch asA Cons mers -nternational& the ( ropean Cons mers< #rganisation& 1rans Atlantic Cons mer *ialog e and -nternational Cons mer Research and 1esting. -n 2%%E A8C 2oined the ( ropean Cons mer Centre network& logisticall' s pporting at the moment (CC Romania.

?. 'nfoCons 3httpAFFwww.infocons.roF4

-nfoCons& the !ational Association for Cons mer 8rotection and 8romotion of Romanian 8rogrammes and +trategies 5 A!8C88+ Romania was fo nded in 2%%, to meet cons mer needs in Romania. -t has established Centres for -nformation and Advice for Cons mers in all co nties and r ns contin o s activities for ed cating and informing citizens.

-nfoCons is fo nding member of the 9ederation of Cons mer 8rotection #rganisations in Romania and has international affiliation toA Cons mers -nternational& the ( ropean Cons mer Moice in +tandardisation& -nternational Cons mer Research and 1esting and the ( ropean Association for (d cation of Ad lts.

10. &arlamentor.ro 3httpAFFwww.parlamentor.roF4

7ot!ews.ro 3news portal in Romania4& in partnership with the Centre for -ndependent >o rnalism initiated the pro2ect 8arlamentor.ro in 2%$$& a $ 'ear long pro2ect that had as goal the involvement of the Romanian p blic in the ( ropean 8arliament debates on economic iss es& th s connecting the p blic to the economic agenda of the ( ropean 8arliament.

*esigned e? all' to internet sers thro gho t the co ntr'& b t also to Romanian comm nities from abroad& 8arlamentor.ro aimed to become a platform for disc ssion of topical iss es relevant to the ( ropean 8arliament& especiall' in the economic and social domains& th s giving citizens the opport nit' to directl' interact with the elected officials who represent them in Br ssels and +trasbo rg.

2$

&art ''. ST,-. () THE CRE/T'() (0 THE ECSH

/. Survey results

$%, ? estionnaires were collected b' 9*+C thro gh an online s rve' carried in :a' 2%$2. 1he content of the ? estionnaire was str ct red on two levelsA a ? antitative approach& gathering responses related to the importance of (C+7 establishment& t'pe of service and facilities provided& possible involvements and a ? alitative approach aiming to f rther e@ploring respondents perceptions related to civil societ' and citizens involvement in decision making at the ( ropean level. A n mber of nine open and closed ? estions were incl ded the ? estionnaires and the anal'sis of res lts is presented sing charts and pies& assessment of responses and ? otes from respondents. Before the eval ation of responses& the data base was cleared b' incomplete or incorrect responses$.

1he respondents of the online s rve' represent a wide range of stakeholders in the p blic debate regarding the establishment of (C+7A !"#s and federations of !"#s active on ( ropean policies& social incl sion of v lnerable gro ps& social services& ed cation& 'o th& st dent associations& ed cation instit tions - p blic local schools and inspectorates& a p blic niversit' holding an important department for ( ropean +t dies. At least 0%G of the respondents are local organisations& scattered in all regions across Romania. 1he ( ropean dimension is seen as an important part of the respondents work& as 7.G involve in a certain e@tent in ( ropean Affairs& with $DG of the organisations involving f ll time in ( ropean Affairs 3see Anne@ $4.

1he responses regarding the importance of the s b2ects to be tackled b' the (C+7 show a relative e? al distrib tion of responses among the , s b2ects proposed 3see Anne@ 24. Citizens rights and better enforcement is seen b' respondents as the most important area to be tackled b' (C+7& with almost ,7G of the respondents rating it with the highest fig re compared with ,, G for the Civil +ociet' *evelopment and 27 G for Citizens 8articipation. -f we look at the fig res at a whole& considering all

By incorrect responses we understand the responses who didt follow the methodolody as agreed.

22

responses for the , areas proposed Citizen 8articipation is ranked the first with the lowest n mber of responses for rank , 3less important4 and highest n mber of responses for rank 2 and $. 8roviding civil societ' development services is considered b' the respondents the most important service to be provided in Romania b' (C+7 with 0%G of the respondents ranking these services as being the most important 3see Anne@ ,4. Creating a reso rce centre on ( ropean civil societ' is considered the most important service b' 2$ G of the respondents& followed b' the service developing a ( ropean f nding advice and assistance with filling in applications with $BG. 1he less significant services are seen those addressing Citizen participation as the less important service is considered the one providing a meeting place between civil societ' and national a thorities on ( ropean polic' level 32%G of respondents ranking this service as being the less important4.

Romanian participants in the s rve' confirm in the ? estion regarding the facilities of the 7o se& their e@pectations towards the role that (C+7 sho ld pla' as a reso rce centre 3anne@ B4. 1he most important facilit' seen b' respondents is the provision of a reso rce civil societ' center 3BBG4 followed b' the training co rses with ,2 G responses. 1he meeting room and desk s pport service is seen as the less important facilities for the Romanian respondents.

Respondents in Romania see a do ble role for (C+7A a s pport entit' to enhance the development of civil societ' in member co ntries and a liaison entit' between the citizens and national and ( ropean instit tions. 1his h'pothesis is s pported b' the responses indicating the advantages for the 7o se in relation with national and ( ropean instit tions& as 0%G of the responses consider that s pport to citizens sho ld be provided thro gh the 7o se and the other 0%G split their responses between the role of a reso rce centre and an intermediar' s pport organisation.

1he vast ma2orit' of respondents 5 .EG s pport the establishment of the (C+7 in Romania& confirming the need alread' voiced b' civil societ' for man' 'ears 3see Anne@ D4. Also the large ma2orit' of respondents& .EG wo ld like to sta' informed and involved in a f t re initiative in this area. . :ost of the respondents stated that the' wo ld like to be reg larl' pdated with developments on the pro2ect 3newsletter etc4& while part of them answered that the' wo ld be interested to benefit from the services provided b' the (C+7. # t of those that e@pressed their willingness to become activel' involved& some responses stated that the' wo ld either like to offer their knowledge and e@perience as e@perts or reso rce persons& or their organisations e@perience on vario s iss es possibl' related to the (C+7A 2,

b ilding p regional& national and ( ropean networks of organisationsC trainingC awareness raisingC making the link to small organisations etc.

According to most of respondents to the open ? estion reflecting the involvement in the polic' making& Romanian citizens and civil societ' inp t to ( ropean polic'-making is the rather limited in Romania. Citizens are fre? entl' not active in decision making processes even at the national level in Romania& therefore their inp t to ( ropean polic'-making is even less.

The low participation level at public consultations launched by the European Commission shows that we still only have a marginal interest to participate in the elaboration of European policies.

Net& there are areas which reveal a better level of involvement from the civil societ'& these being mentioned b' the respondents as the followingA environment& h man rights& minorit' rights& cons mers rights 3mostl' with regards to online trade4& 'o th policies 3incl ding 'o th emplo'abilit'4& Regional and Cohesion 8olic' 3b' getting involved in the absorption of f nds4& development cooperation& and the c rrent str ct ral f nds programming for the period 2%$B-2%2%.

/hat the respondents identified as being areas with a ver' low level of involvement or even ine@istent are areas s ch asA civic participation& social protection& cons mers rights 3generall' speaking4& c lt re& health& ed cation& policies in relation to persons with disabilities or people with serio s chronic diseases.

Most disfavoured area is culture. There is a minimum involvement in the elaboration of cultural policies, most of the ones we know, are formal.

-n terms of geographical areas& inp t to ( ropean polic'-making comes rather from B charest& the capital cit'& and less from other areas of the co ntr'. 7owever& citizen and civil societ' inp t happens more often in the rban areas rather than the r ral areas& one of the respondents having emphasized this gapA ;Rural areas are the most underrepresented when we speak about European policies and civic involvement=. Civil societ' organisations that are members of networks& mbrella organisations&

federations& coalitions or other kinds of association are often more involved in defining ( ropean policies than other organisations& thro gh their representatives either at the national or ( ropean level.

2B

A f nctional s'stem of rapid cons ltation of citizens b' decision makers 3politicians& state instit tions4 is also necessar'& and !"#s sho ld monitor the correct implementation of s ch cons ltations.

We need a strong civil society, more visible and acknowledged nationally and internationally, we need capable public authorities open to social dialogue with citi ens and civil society. Civil society can be developed only through citi ens and with citi ens, and in conse!uence we need to support the spirit development and civic and proactive attitude of citi ens, in all areas, from creating programmatic documents, speciali ed European assistance, new European practices, emerging needs of information and training"#$. %ut for all of these &'(s need active members from citi ens, active partnerships with public authorities, training for public servants, and professional development of the people working in public authorities.

20

Annex 1: Question: What is the extent of your own and/or your organisations involvement in European Affairs? (Num er of responses N!1"#$

Annex %: Question: &n what order of importan'e would you ran( the following # su )e'ts? (N ! *+$

2D

Annex #: Question: Whi'h of the following servi'es would you 'onsider most important to o tain or least wanted in your 'ountry? (N ! *"$

Annex ,: Question: &n what order of importan'e would you ran( offering the following fa'ilities at a European -ivil .o'iety /ouse in 0russels? (N ! *1$

27

Annex 1: Question: What aspe'ts of this pro)e't2 in your opinion would e most advantageous for national governments and the E3 &nstitutions see(ing to improve a''ess for 'iti4ens to European affairs? (N ! #5$

Annex 1: Question: 6oo(ing a'( over your answers2 do you thin( it is a good idea to 'reate the European -ivil .o'iety /ouse in your 'ountry? (N ! 1"1$

2E

B. 'ntervie8s; fin#in$s
Respon#ents@

$. AsociaOia !aOionalJ a Biro rilor de Consiliere pentr CetJOeni 3A!BCC4A www.robcc.ro 2. AsociaOia 8ro *emocraOia 3A8*4A www.apd.ro ,. Centr l de Res rse pentr 8articipare 8 blicJ 3CeRe4A www.ce-re.ro B. Centr l pentr > rnalism -ndependent 3C>-4A www.c2i.ro 0. Centr l pentr 8olitici * rabile (copolisA www.ecopolis.org.ro D. Centr l RomPn de 8olitici ( ropene 3CR8(4A www.crpe.ro 7. ( rope *irect C(!1RA+A e ropedirect.centras.ro E. 9ederaOia #rganizaOiilor !eg vernamentale pentr *ezvoltare din RomPnia 39#!*4A www.fondromania.org .. 9 ndaOia +oros RomPniaA www.soros.ro $%. "lobal Romanian +ociet' of No ng 8rofessionals 3"RA+84A www.m'grasp.org

Cs; perspective

#n each of the three domains it has been highlighted the need for s pport and coordinated actions& with prioritization determined in partic lar b' the specific e@pertise of each organisationFinstit tion following their organisational strategies. #pinions were shared& even e? ilibratedA some state that s pporting development of civil societ' will implicitl' determine civic participation and involvement and conse? entl' citizen rights awarenessC some place the s pport for civic participation as the base for f rther development of civil societ'.

8roposals for actions or services to be provided b' the (C+7 in a partic lar area were determined b' how m ch knowledgeFe@perience the' had on each of the pillars addressed. 1he more active an organisation is on a partic lar pillar& the more critical it becomes with respect to what needs to be improved& changed& developed& etc.

2.

(ven the three pillars are interconnected 3and acknowledged as s ch4& disc ssions have revealed an appreciation towards the initiative in which relevant stakeholders for each area are bro ght together& are val ed in a coordinated manner& with a foc s on avoiding d plication of actionsFefforts determined b' lack of information.

!"#s present and involved in ( ropean pro2ects often claim this e@perience as a good practice on ( ropean iss es and emphasize their role in channelling information from ( ropean to nationalFlocal level. 1he' appreciate the need to s pport civil societ' development& b t this cannot be done witho t s pporting civic involvement and participation.

)articular appreciations supported in discussions*

Civil societ' in Romania is s ffering& there is limited e@pertise available at national level on ( ropean iss es& there are ver' few organisations capable to read a ( ropean directiveC other do it rarel'& and even less have a constant monitoring& most of it depending on available financing. Expertise is very limited within 'ivil so'iety as real parti'ipation is impossi le without expertise7 8arti'ipation should e en'ouraged from the 'ivil so'iety perspe'tive2 'ivil so'iety should e first en'ouraged to get a'tive on European issues& there are indicators that need to be monitored& citizens cannot do it as the' do not nderstandC

( ropean s b2ects are still of limited interest for Romanian citizens 5 onl' appro@. B%%-B0% re? ests registered at ( rope *irect Centre are foc sed on ( ropean iss es 3ranging close to the ( ropean averageA according to the -nterim (val ation of the (C in 2%$$& the weekl' average is of $% answers within the network of the BEB active centres4. :ost often re? ests address iss es related toA () mobilit'& citizen rights 3co nselling for petitions s bmitted to ( ropean Co rt of Citizens Rights& the ( ropean #mb dsman4& info on () f nding opport nities. 9ew 'iti4ens really (now their national rights and even less (now their supranational rights2 esta lished through the 9undamental :ights -harter of the European 3nion. 9rom the ( rope *irect e@perience& citizens facing h man rights ab se are not aware of actions that the' sho ld take in order to complain to national or ( ropean a thorities. 9or a 'onsolidated 'ivil so'iety2 'iti4ens need to a'tively parti'ipate and these 'iti4ens will e a le to express themselves in the 'ivi' sphere when they (now their rights and are 'apa le to 'riti'ally )udge them. After information and training 3as possible action methods4& citizens will be capable to form a ,%

representative civil societ' to interact with national instit tions& to promote citizen initiatives& to take advocac' actions. (ven tho gh& since the model cannot solel' come from the interior& a resour'e 'entre at European level is needed to stimulate a 'ivil so'iety (through models2 methodologies2 strategies$ that finds it diffi'ult to identify models and whi'h is in a pro'ess of professionali4ation.

0acilities at a European Civil Society House in Brussels

8h'sical presence of (C+7 in Br ssels has been s pported& being appreciated as the most important of all facilities enlisted& with partic lar emphasis on the need for the 7o seA 1o avoid acting solel' 2 st as a reso rce point& b t having a concrete role in selecting and proper channelling of information relevant for different stakeholders and domainsC !ot t rn 2 st into a depositar' of info& b t be foc sed on actionsC 7ave a partic lar foc s on facilitating networking& s pporting advocac' and lobb' actions& b t making it so that it s pports the transposition of the ( ropean lang age 3instit tional mechanism& proced res& etc.4 in a more friendl' manner& accessible to more !"#s or citizens and th s raise involvement on both sidesC 1o avoid t rning into 2 st a cons ltative bod' for the (C& b t capitalise on its pro@imit' and foc s on the opport nit' to have impact on polic' changes.

+everal concrete recommendations were form lated as to the t'pe of facilitiesFservices the (C+7 sho ld provideA assistance and s pport for advocac' on polic' iss esC relevant and pdated databases not onl' on administrative aspects& b t also in terms of e@pertise available in different fieldsFco ntries 3contacts& ? alitative appreciations& reso rces for advocac' work etc.4C training partic larl' on

nderstandingFadapting to the (C instit tional lang age& strategic F programmatic planning from (C perspective& cons ltation and participation mechanisms at ()Fnational levelsC facilitate e@changes among old and new member states e@periences on different polic' iss es relevant to national and ( ropean conte@t.

)articular appreciations supported in discussions*

,$

-ts important for the (C+7 to act as Reso rce centre on civil societ' in ( rope. No cannot speak tho gh abo t representation& each organisation is active at individ al level. A -ivil /ouse should e a pla'e for representation2 a meeting pla'e sin'e we wor( with a time instrument that is the expertiseC

(C+7 sho ld be a ridge among national 'ivil so'iety and European institutions2 with lo

and advo'a'y o )e'tives& as well as for promoting national civil societ'. -t sho ld favo r the good practice& methods and strategies e@change. 1ake advantage of the fact that c rrentl'& the civil societ' is 2 st represented& having cons ltative role& within the ( ropean (conomic and +ocial Committee& even the ((+C activities are not s fficientl' promotedC Expertise is very important and it sho ld be considered among facilitiesFservices available at (C+7. 1'pe of service which is normall' provided b' think tanks in () co ntries.

/#vanta$es from the perspective of E, institutions

(C+7 co ld certainl' be a Reso rce centre on civil societ' with a database of organisations which can be cons lted or invited to events and ma' facilitate citizens initiatives 3with foc s on promoting initiatives and in general the proactivit' approaches4& b t sho ld caref ll' consider the d plication of efforts and services with e@istent or prospective networks and F or services available at different instit tionalForganisational levels.

! mero s networks& general or specialised on different fields& are active at the level of (C and the' s pport citizens in different areas 3i.e. finding a 2ob - ()R(+& general information - ( rope*irect& cons mers rights - (CC!et& etc.4. (ven tho gh& the m ltit de of network ma' create conf sion for citizens and therefore& even in the case of (C+7 setting p& it should e 'onsidered the intentions existent at E- level to set;up a <one;stop shop=. 8ro and cons e@ist& in partic lar given the fact that too m ch centralisation ma' not alwa's be efficient.

Settin$5up the ECSH in Romania

(C+7 being present in Romania has been almost nanimo sl' s pported as a good idea& b t with a limited ph'sical presence& mainl' with f nctions of contact point. At least not ntil it convinces on its

,2

effectiveness& not ntil services& facilities& tilities are piloted thro gh the onlineFvirt al platform. (ven tho gh& the local contact point is relevant. 1here wo ld be too man' administrative iss es related to a ph'sical presence and consistent reso rces needed. (ven tho gh& there can be organisationsFnetworks capable to administer s ch an initiative 3from the e@pertise point of view4& b t it is important not to become an instit tionalised str ct re. !ACAB is one of the organisations who e@pressed their interest and willingness to s pport the initiative as a partner.

)articular appreciations supported in discussions* (C+7 setting- p in Romania cannot be appreciated as being opport ne. -f it foc ses on citizens initiative& there is no need for it since there is the ( rope *irect network which alread' does it. -f it is f nctional in Br ssels& it can be a contactFinformation pointC it can be s pportive on practical iss es. *epending on services& it can be considered also the pa'ment of a feeC (ven if not ph'sical& b t still with a contact point& it is important that (C+7 has a partic lar action plan for Romania to make it active& visible and relevantC Complementarit' of services and f nctions compared to e@istent str ct re m st be a condition for (C+7 f nctionalit'.

/reas 8here citi7en an# civil society input to European policy5ma:in$ in Romania is a#eAuate or 8here it is missin$

1he Coordination and Merification :echanism 32 stice4 is one of the areas where the civil societ' infl ence is ver' strong 5 there are several activities with e@pertise in the field and which elaborate reports which are cons lted and considered at ( ropean level. No need e@pertise for this and the e@pertise has to be paid 5 citizens cannot pa' for it& !"#s f ndraise in order to be capable for it& the' do it in a str ct red framework& the' foc s on evidence based polic' and the impact is more e@tensive and more efficientC

Cons mers rights& in partic lar the reg lation of the online trade& and environment policies seem to be areas in which citizens have had the most relevant contrib tion in terms of infl encing ( ropean policiesC

How participation to p blic cons ltations la nched b' (C show a marginal interest to participate in the elaboration of ( ropean policiesC ,,

At national level& there are significant diffic lties in identif'ing positive e@amples of real cons ltation processes& involvement of !"#s in developing p blic polic' doc ments& despite the ? ite relevant legislation reg lating the fieldC

1he involvement of civil societ' has infl enced the positive evol tion with respect to Romania:oldova cooperation& s pporting the dialog e among !"#s from the respective co ntriesC

Child protection 5 laws have been changed as a res lt of !"# involvementC 1he allocation and se of str ct ral f nds - low effectiveness both in terms of civil societ' actions and citizensC

No th emplo'abilit' and internship 5 positive and constr ctive contrib tion to the ( ropean Charter and follow p to the ( ropean cons ltation on str ct red dialog e with 'o thC

9ree movement of citizens& labo r rights are of most interestC 8ropert' rights 5 restit tion of properties has been a b rning iss es since the beginning a .%sC Romania has fo nd itself recentl' in the sit ation to be warned b' C(*# to solve at legislative and administrative level all inade? acies leading to n mero s processes in co rtC

(lectoral rights 5 it is nder debate from the last elections the opport nit' to change the voting s'stem in RomaniaC recentl'& a law has been passed thro gh the 8arliament in spite of the p blic opposition of some of the most prominent !"#s& re? iring a large cons ltation on the s b2ect before its change& and not in the pro@imit' of the coming general elections.

,B

C. 9or:shop conclusions
A gro p debate pon the level of activism of Romanian citizens and civil societ' vis-a-vis the decision making process at ( ropean level& along with the roles and f nctions of a ( ropean Civil +ociet' 7o se revealed primaril' that the c rrent lack of confidence of Romanian citizens in politics and politicians& whether national or ( ropean can be fo ght with actions gen inel' deriving from civil societ' at large.

1he gro p str ct re - labo r nions and entreprene rs associations& !"#s active in h man rights and democrac'& social incl sion& c lt re and environment fields& operating individ all' or in larger networks& affiliated to religio s c lts or laic2 5 offered the possibilit' to collect diverse e@periences which led& at the end to s rprisingl' common views and concl sions.

Current status of Romanian citi7ensB civil society activism

1he information on how to reach the ( ropean level is diverse and availableC however& the level of nderstanding and interest of average citizen is lowC at the same time& the average citizen is not informed and ed cated with the proper skills and knowledge to appreciate the ? alit' of information offered& and th s nable to make proper decision for f rther actingC

/hen 2oining ()& the level of e@pectations and tr st of Romanian citizens was reall' high& while d ring the last 'ears& partic larl' d ring the financial crisis& and d e to the nf lfilled promises of Romanian politicians& the scepticism, in the benefits of () membership has installedC combined with the lack of civic involvement generated b' the comm nist regime& the participation to p blic decision is reall' lowC

!either Romanian representatives in ( ropean str ct res& mostl' politicians& nor citizens have the conscience of their rights and d tiesA comm nication is fractioned from both parts& persons in p blic f nctions do not enco rage participation and e@pression of opinions& while citizens still feel ncomfortable when affirming their rights in front of p blic decision makersC

Altho gh Romania has registered a significant increase in ho seholds -nternet conne@ions in 2%$$& the penetration rate especiall' in r ral areas remains nsatisfactor'C since the ma2orit' of

2 ,

1he gro p benefitted from the presence of 20 persons. ( robarometer 2%%7 5 Romanian confidence in () was at D7G& while in 2%$ decreased to BDG.

,0

information is accessible online& large gro ps of citizens lack the possibilit' to access itC nevertheless& simple access to -nternet sho ld be accompanied with proper searching skills and e@pertise for selecting and nderstanding the available informationC -t was mentioned that ever' ( ropean instit tion has its own mechanisms of comm nication 3websites& newsletters etc4C still& the variet' of comm nications methods& the large n mber of p blic releases of information and the comple@ terminolog' determine a drawback and rel ctance to act all' se the available contact or petitioning mechanismsC +pecialised assistance is needed when one act all' decides to advance from information to action phase 3e.g. filing a complaint to ( ropean Co rt of > stice or ( ropean Co rt of 7 man Rights re? ired highl' specialised assistance for both reg lar citizens or !"#s4C At the same register& it was welcome the ( ropean Citizens -nitiative& onl' the process is long and still need f rther dissemination in RomaniaC ( ropean #mb dsman prerogatives sho ld be better acknowledged at the level of individ alsC Romanian citizens activism is red ced 2 st to write letters to local media& Romanian p blic instit tions and members of 8arliamentC citizens did not prove the capacit' to get organised or to take advantage of the instit tional mechanisms offered b' ( ropean instit tions& being sporadicall' in contact with Romanias representatives in ( ropean str ct res& and onl' b' letters 3e.g. to :(8s or political gro ps in ( ropean 8arliament4C Civil societ' organisations at large are connected onl' to national realities and the liaison to ( ropean perspective is given onl' b' the means of local media which is dominated b' the speeches of politicians driven mainl' b' political fight& th s misleading and generated mistr stC At the same time& generall'& well e@perienced !"#s are part of ( ropean platforms and slightl' learn to integrate ( ropean instit tions as reg lar stakeholdersC it is their role to f rther promote their knowledge to smaller Romanian !"#s and directl' to citizens& onl' the n mber of the e@perienced ones is still b' far ins fficient& and even the' need f rther assistance and attentionC At national level& programmes r n b' international donors& especiall' ( ropean )nion opened a tomaticall' the channels of comm nication to ( ropean policies and re? irements& and t rned to be opport nities for domestic organised actors s ch as !"#s to connect to initiatives at ( ropean level& act and react to decision e@ceeding the national borders& b t affecting directl' the Romanian environmentC

,D

-t wo ld be efficient to consider !"#s as vehicles of information and intermediaries between citizens and instit tions& whether national or ( ropeanC th s& !"#s sho ld be strengthened& with partic lar attention to those organised in networksC

"rassroots organisations& as str ct res closest to citizens and comm nities sho ld be enco raged to connect to ( ropean movements and mechanisms either directl'& onl' it is nlikel' to have the capacit' to act individ all'& or b' 2oining platforms and networksC

*ialog e with Romanian representatives in str ct res s ch as C(+( or C#R(8(R sho ld be intensified.

-dentification of possible str ct re& roles and f nction of a ( ropean Civil +ociet' 7o se considered the shortcomings above mentioned. -ts mission wo ld be to increase the tr st into the ( ropean instit tions capacit' to act in favo r of citizens able to legitimatel' affirm their rights. -ts main f nctions sho ld be of channel of comm nication to ( ropean instit tions& having the proper a thorit' to address them on behalf of !"#s and citizens from national level& and benefitting of independence from the political actors.

"ain conclusions of the #iscussions

(C+7 in Br ssels sho ld be instit tionalisedA citizens and !"#s need formal mechanisms for reaching ( ropean instit tionsC this wo ld not s bstit te the right to appeal directl'& b t ens re the assistance in nderstanding the b rea crac'C (C+7 sho ld contrib te to ;val e citizenship at instit tional level=BC in an environment dominated b' political driven decision& (C+7 might act as co nterbalance in favo r of the constit ents and bring the decision closer to themC #fficiall' connected to ( ropean instit tions& b' clear and firm partnership agreement& 'et fle@ible eno gh and independent to avoid b rea crac' and creation of a new inefficient instit tion& (C+7 sho ld not be assimilated to the formal p blic () instit tionsC -t is highl' important that independence is an attrib te for (C+7& both at national and ( ropean level& and partic lar attention sho ld be given its legitimac' at national levelC no "overnmental intervention sho ld be allowedC

#pinion of one !"# representative.

,7

 (C+7 sho ld not be limited to a reso rce centre& b t to be a coordination point for str ct red dialog e between citizens via !"#s and ( ropean instit tions& and even more& have a followp f nction for actions in progress in front of ( ropean instit tionsC (C+7 sho ld be a reference for the so-called ( ropean information& b' filtering all spread online information& organise it in an easil' and friendl' manner& as well as b' offering the degree of centralisation so m ch needed in an e@treme vast online spaceC Be'ond its information role& (C+7 sho ld facilitate the nderstanding of !"#s and citizensA it is not s fficient to offer information& b t also to ens re that the skills and capacit' of the recipients are ade? ate for f rther se itC (@change of good practices and harmonisation of approaches in different areas sho ld be facilitated b' (C+7C (C+7 at national levels sho ld be in close connection to ens re the transfer of information from one members state to another 3e.g. ( ropean citizens initiative4C At national level& (C+7 f nctions sho ld be f lfilled as a pilot phase b' an e@istent platform s ch as 9#!*0& a consorti m formed b' organisations active in democrac'& civic participation and citizens rights iss es& or an organisation well represented thro gho t the co ntr'& with e@perience in assisting citizens or intermediating the relations between citizens and p blic instit tions& s ch as A!BCCDC after one to two 'ears& and following an eval ation& it sho ld be decided whether a separate entit' is neededC 9or both national and ( ropean level& the online facilities sho ld be predominant as working method 5 the' ens re proper coverage and rapid massive reactions& b t mandatoril' accompanied b' a ph'sical dimension 5 an office facilit' where an' citizens can step in& partic larl' for those less ed cated and with no -nternet accessC !"#s sho ld be primar' partners of (C+7& since the' have the possibilit' to act as direct dialog e partners with citizensC the working mechanism sho ld follow a rolling s'stem& b t not hierarchical 3the e@istence of the (C+7 wo ld not restrain the right to address directl' the ( ropean instit tions4C

0 D

9ederatia #rganisatiilor !eg vernamentale pentr *ezvoltare din Romania Asociatia !ationala a Biro rilor de Consiliere pentr Cetateni

,E

 At the same time& national !"#s sho ld be assisted themselves b' (C+7 in their efforts of reaching acc rate and clear ( ropean information& as well as in nderstanding better the mechanism of participation for their own stakeholders to ( ropean decision making processC (C+7 sho ld reach the whole range of !"#s& from large& e@perienced organisations to grassroots ones& th s ens ring a closer connection to local comm nities and citizensC (C+7 sho ld p blicl' act and state that citizens themselves or via !"#s have to be part of codecision process at ( ropean level& and from this perspective& all co-decision mechanisms sho ld be investigated and made available to the general p blic in a manner able to prod ce effects .

1ist of participants@

$. ConfederaOia !aOionalJ +indicalJ ;Cartel Alfa= 2. AsociaOia pentr Antreprenoriat 9eminin ,. AsociaOia 8ro( ro C lt B. AsociaOia (coConcept 0. 8rimJria oraI l i :ioveni& +ervici l 8 blic AsistenOJ +ocialJ

,.

D. AsociaOia pentr +ervicii -ntegrative 7. AB1

E. AsociaOia :ame pentr :ame .. AsociaOia Agent "reen $%. AsocitaOia de arte Ii spirit alitate QA! AR1 $$. 9 ndaOia pentr promovarea sancOi nilor com nitare $2. AsociaOia #menilor de Afaceri ArgeI $,. AsociaOia ( ropeana pentr ApJrarea *rept rilor #m l i $B. AlianOa CivicJ $0. AsociaOia Centr l pentr *ezvoltare *emocraticJ $D. AsociaOia #:!-:-!* $7. AsociaOia Activi pentr Miitor $E. AsociaOia (c menicJ a Bisericilor din RomPnia A-*Rom $.. ConfederaOia Caritas RomPnia 2%. 9 ndaOia R hama 2$. AsociaOia > stiOie pentr RomPnia 22. +ocietatea RomPnJ de Radio Ii 1elevizi ne +R1M 2,. 9 ndaOia pentr *ezvoltarea +ocietJOii Civile

B%

&art '''. C()C1,S'()S /)- REC(""E)-/T'()S

1he ma2orit' of Romanian citizens are neither aware of their rights and d ties in their capacit' of nationals of a member state of the ( ropean )nion& nor activel' involved in p blic polic' shaping and decision-making processes.

+ rve's which have been cond cted over the last $% 'ears reveal a constant increase in the p blic tr st for C+#s 3partic larl' for !"#s4 5 while at the same time tr st in the "overnment and p blic instit tions has decreased.

A specialized ( robarometer on () citizenship from 2%$%& revealed that 00G of the Romanians were not satisfied with the level of information abo t the rights as a citizen of the ( ropean )nion& while the ()27 average was D7G.

-n the 9lash ( robarometerA the Charter of 9 ndamental Rights of the ( ropean )nion 3>an ar' 2%$24& 2 st EG of the Romanian citizens declared the' were familiar with the () Charter of 9 ndamental Rights 3compared to $$G& the () average4.

8articipation is the main tool in the form lation& information and promotion of the changes desired b' the citizens. 8 blic participation is ens red via !"#s& which are increasingl' preocc pied of b ilding and strengthening mechanisms which ens re citizen participation and fostering their active and direct engagement.

D%G of the respondents in the !"# Headers Barometer 3BH#!"4 2%$$ state that infl encing p blic decision-making process is a foc s of their organizations. 9or 2.G of the respondents that is an important dimension of their organization.

1he main initiators of p blic cons ltations are !"#s and coalitions of !"#s 3in ,EG of the cases4& followed b' local a thorities 3$EG4 and b' ministries 3$BG4 .
7

!"# Headers Barometer 3BH#!"4 2%$$ B$

C+#s mobilized both aro nd iss es which concerned them directl' 3the ( ropean +tr ct ral 9 nds& against the draft law on +ocial (ntreprene rship4& and also larger iss es s ch as environmental and heritage protection& social iss es 3for children with a tism4 or defence of civil rights 3the draft law on p blic assemblies4 and democrac' 3the law on electoral changes& a coalition against the referend m for a new law on the administrative reorganization of B charest& a coalition against the proposed territorial administrative reorganization of the co ntr'4.

-n the !"# Headers Barometer 3BH#!"4 2%$$& onl' BG were affiliated to ( ropean federation and almost ,G to international federations& while these are the onl' methods for ens ring the representation in Br ssels.

9 rther development are critical in all areas the (C+7 intends to act& and the establishment of a ( ropean Civil +ociet' 7o se is needed and opport ne& as long as it serves increasing the Romanians confidence into the ( ropean instit tions capacit' to act in favo r of citizens& able to legitimatel' affirm their rights.

European Civil Society House in Brussels

8h'sical presence of (C+7 in Br ssels is welcomeC it sho ld be officiall' connected to ( ropean instit tions& b' clear and firm partnership agreement& 'et fle@ible eno gh and independent to avoid b rea crac' and creation of a new inefficient instit tionC (C+7 sho ld not be assimilated to the formal p blic () instit tionsC

-t is highl' important that independence is an attrib te for (C+7& both at national and ( ropean level& and partic lar attention sho ld be given its legitimac' at national levelC no "overnmental intervention sho ld be allowedC

(C+7 sho ld not be limited to a reso rce centre& b t to be a coordination point for str ct red dialog e between citizens via !"#s and ( ropean instit tions& and even more& have a follow- p f nction to actions in progress in front of ( ropean instit tionsC

8h'sical presence of (C+7 in Br ssels is welcome& with the recommendations for the 7o seA

B2

to avoid acting solel' 2 st as a reso rce point& b t having a concrete role in selecting and proper channelling of information relevant for different stakeholders and domainsC

o o

not t rn 2 st into a depositar' of info& b t be foc sed on actionsC have a partic lar foc s on facilitating networking& s pporting advocac' and lobb' actions& b t making it so that it s pports the transposition of the ( ropean lang age 3instit tional mechanism& proced res& etc.4 in a more friendl' manner& accessible to more !"#s or citizens and th s raise involvement on both sidesC

to avoid t rning in 2 st a cons ltative bod' for the (C& b t capitalise on its pro@imit' to th s and foc s on the opport nit' to have impact on polic' changesC

#ther facilitiesFservices the (C+7 sho ld provideA assistance and s pport for advocac' on polic' iss esC relevant and pdated databases not onl' on administrative aspects& b t also in terms of e@pertise available in different fieldsFco ntries 3contacts& ? alitative appreciations& reso rces for advocac' work etc.4C training partic larl' on nderstandingFadapting to the (C instit tional lang age& strategic F programmatic planning from (C perspective& cons ltation and participation mechanisms at ()Fnational levelsC facilitate e@changes among old and new member states e@periences on different polic' iss es relevant to national and ( ropean conte@t.

European Civil Society House at national level

At national level& (C+7 f nctions sho ld be f lfilled as a pilot phase b' an e@istent platform& a consorti m formed b' organisations active in democrac'& civic participation and citizens rights iss es& or an organisation well represented thro gho t the co ntr'& with e@perience in assisting citizens or intermediating the relations between citizens and p blic instit tionsC after one to two 'ears& and following an eval ation& it sho ld be decided whether a separate entit' is neededC

-t is likel' that the ho se in Romania operates mostl' virt all'& with minim m reso rces allocated to a ph'sic premise. 1he ph'sic premises sho ld serve onl' as contact pointC

-t sho ld concentrate on working with !"#s since ( rope *irect facilities alread' aims at serving individ al citizens& or at least intervene onl' in areas ncovered b' the e@isting str ct res.

B,