Changes from plenary report to adopted text

RemovedThe WP 2023 also mentions the Conference on the Future of Europe, a citizen-led series of debates and discussions that ran from April 2021 to May 2022 and enabled people from across Europe to share their ideas and discuss them in plenaries and working groups with the European Parliament, the Council of the EU, the European Commission, National Parliaments, EU bodies, social partners and civil society in order to adopt common conclusions thus helping shape our common future.

RemovedAll in all, the relevance of the Strand 3 in this area is clear, as it touches on the promotion of EU values through citizen engagement and participation, on the protection of human rights, and on the development of resilience to make the Union more robust and ready to face current social, economic, and political challenges.

RemovedLessons learnt from early implementation

RemovedAt the programme level, it can be preliminary deducted that the main objectives of the CERV are still relevant and address some of the main EU challenges. The implementation of EU strategies such as the ones on climate change, digitalisation, autonomy, and others, are tackled through the democratic dialogue promoted by CERV. Designed as a bottom up programme, the CERV programme has a certain level of flexibility in implementation, which is positive considering its capacity to adapt and tackle new challenges.

RemovedThe primary objective of the CERV programme strand 3 is to foster democratic engagement. Ergo, as part of project activities to reach this objective, participation across all of the challenges identified are relevant – including participation in green and digital transition topics, as it raises the awareness or level of engagement of the larger public.

RemovedThe initial analysis of the CERV Strand 3 projects also seem to confirm that a significant number of projects are relevant to the three main challenges identified, i.e., to climate change, digitalisation, and addressing consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic (see the Relevance and Coherence section for further detail).

RemovedResearch evidence show that relevant national challenges are also addressed. An example are grass roots organisations operating in EU countries, where the space for civil society is narrowed or obstructed and for which CERV support is principally important.

RemovedIn addition the European Commission has explicitly incorporated some main challenge in the programme. In the 2023/24 programming period, COVID-19 and post-pandemic effects were also incorporated as a reference for the programme. Other challenges, like the war in Ukraine are partially addressed through the protect and promote the rights of the child call and through the Daphne call (victims of sexual violence against civilians in Ukraine war). However, challenges linked to the war in Ukraine could theoretically be further incorporated through the remembrance component which addresses the issues of wars and its impacts and totalitarian regimes, as well as in the democratic participation activities both through town twinning programmes between EU and Ukrainian municipalities as well as in supporting common projects between EU and Ukrainian civil society organisations on the activities of the work programme.

RemovedThe Commission has also highlighted that there is a lag in the implementation of the programme since the CERV programmes were adopted relatively late in 2021. DG JUST is thus still at the very beginning of the implementation.

RemovedTo conclude, your rapporteur believes that although it has been confronted with a number of challenges the early implementation of the CERV programme can be cautiously deemed to be effective.

RemovedFirst, the programme was adopted in 2021, and most of the projects are still at the beginning of their implementation. The WP 2021-2022 calls were launched and concluded while the WP 2023-2024 calls for 2023 are ongoing. Even though the number of applications has suffered a decrease because of the pandemic, they are now picking back up.

RemovedThe COVID-19 pandemic not only had an impact on the applications but also on implementation. Many projects suffered from operational issues, including ICT tools problems, which were factors of delay. Stakeholders explained that the programmes had been implemented as foreseen in the programming by the European Commission and that they were able to spend all allocated resources.

RemovedThe programme is highly valued for its unique approach covering sensitive societal issues. Its top-down orientation is particularly appreciated as it seeks to work with grass-roots organisations, allowing for a good engagement between authorities and citizens. However, the programme application process requires significant review, as it was considered a limitation for small-scale organisations to participate. Specifically, the application portal is not considered user-friendly and demotivates organisations from applying.

RemovedAnother issue the programme faces is the lack of a good programme-level communication strategy. National authorities mentioned that it is very challenging to raise awareness on the programme. This is also amplified by the fact that so far not all MS have appointed national contact points (NCPs).

RemovedFurther challenges in the early implementation of the programme relate to the need for enhanced enabling institutional environment for the programme to better deliver on its objectives. For example, stakeholders have been asking for measures to counter shrinking civil spaces, but also to reinvigorate the civil dialogue promoting further the collective dimension of civic engagement.