Romanian Report - European Civil Society House - The Romanian Perspective

8/14/2019 Romanian Report - European Civil Society House - The Romanian Perspective

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/romanian-report-european-civil-society-house-the-romanian-perspective 1/43

European Civil Society House.

The Romanian perspective

Bucharest, 2012





,

E*ECT'3E S""/R

/bout the pro4ect

1he Carrosel proect is implemented b' the (ropean Citizens Actions +ervice 3(CA+4 in partnership

with the #pen +ociet' nstitte 5 +ofia 3Blgaria4& !#6 3ngar'4& the 8olish Robert +chman

9ondation 38oland4 and 1ote l’(rope 39rance4. t received financial spport from (AC(A& :easre 2.$

3;Citizens< proects=4 of the (rope for Citizens 8rogramme. t is also spported b' the >oseph Rowntree

Charitable 1rst.

1he proect’s name comes from an innovative techni?e for citizen deliberations that was sed

throghot the proect. t involves strctred discssions with citizens in a ;rond table= format with

sbse?ent rotation& which contribtes to a better e@change of views and cross-pollination of ideas.

n the framework of the proect for national panels and one (ropean level panel were organized&

together with a series of stdies condcted in several () member states. 1he main goal of the

deliberations and research was to help better conceptalize the strctre and fnctions of the ftre

(ropean Civil +ociet' ose& both ph'sical and virtal& and its national contact points in the :ember

+tates. 1he feedback& ideas& and recommendations received from the participants in the discssions will

be sed to improve the design of the virtal (+C and& at a later stage& of the ph'sical offices of the

ose& as well. 1he reslts from the proect will be the basis for formlating polic' recommendations to

the (ropean instittions abot how to facilitate () citizens’ access to their rights and improve their

commnication with citizens.

/bout the stu#y an# its content

1he crrent std' was contracted to the Civil +ociet' *evelopment 9ondation 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' ose.

Content



• Review of the Romanian conte@t. 1his part of the std' 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 strctres and initiatives relevant for the facilitation of access of

Romanian citizens or civil societ' organisations to (ropean information and reviews the

cooperation between pblic athorities and the !"#s

• 8resentation of the ?alitative and ?antitative anal'sis of the research. 1his part of the std'

renders the views of the people involved in the research& with regard to the virtal and ph'sical

(ropean Civil +ociet' ose& at Brssels and in Romania& its role and the mechanisms the'

sggest for its fnctioning

• :ain sggestions& recommendations and conclsions that came ot of the std' ke' isses that

shold be taken into accont& profile of the (ropean Civil +ociet' ose in Brssels& profile of

the national (ropean Civil +ociet' ose.

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

1he Civil +ociet' *evelopment 9ondation 3C+*94 is an independent& non-governmental organisation&

based in Bcharest 3Romania4 and established in $& 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 commnities and citizens.

C+*9 provides services related to consltanc' and training& advocac'& information& research& coalition

and platform bilding& alwa's tailored to the needs of civil societ' organisations& in order to increase the

impact of their activities in the commnit'. C+*9 also represents the non-governmental sector’s

interests towards other sectors of the societ' and works towards increasing the visibilit' of the non-

governmental sector’s work and vales. Reaching ot to other categories of stakeholders and target

grops& C+*9 is crrentl' providing services not onl' to !"#s& bt also to pblic administration& the

bsiness sector& ornalists& academia.



0

"ETH(-((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' ose. 1he research methodolog' incldes a combination of

?alitative and ?antitative methods& in order to gain a better nderstanding of the opportnit' for the

(C+ establishment in Romania. 1he research has been condcted arond the three main pillars of the

proposed (C+& the , Cs

• Citizens Rights

• Civil +ociet' *evelopment

• Citizen 8articipation.

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

!ational and (ropean polic' docments& 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+ 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 proect $% personalised interviews were done with representatives of organisations

or instittions having a particlar e@perience in (ropean Affairs 3informing and promoting of (ropean

topics& () policies& facilitation of interaction between the citizens or civil societ' and the (ropean

instittions etc4. 1he organisations and instittions interviewed were chosen in order to provide a

relevant view of a wide range of 3$4 domains in (ropean affairs 3citizen rights& environment& 'oth&

development cooperation& polic'-making& strctral instrments4& or 324 t'pes of entities 3resorce



D

centres either for citizens or for the civil societ'& information centres& federations& organisations having

local branches throghot the contr'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

fnctions of a (ropean Civil +ociet' ose. 20 participants ot of 2, organisations or instittions

attended the workshop. 1he grop gathered labor nions and entrepreners’ associations& !"#s

active in hman rights and democrac'& social inclsion& cltre and environment& operating individall'

or in larger networks& affiliated to religios clts or laic.

(nline survey

An online srve' on the proposal to create a (ropean Civil +ociet' ose was sent to targeted civil

societ' organisations or instittions dealing with (ropean affairs and was also promoted to a wide

range of other civil societ' organisations& citizens and instittions. $%, respondents representing !"#s

3associations& fondations& federations& networks4& edcational pblic instittions and other t'pes of

instittions& citizens filled in the online srve' containing closed and open ?estions.



7

&art '. C()TE*T

1his part of the std' provides a review of the present sitation 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 sch b' the overwhelming maorit' of the Romanian citizens. () integration has been

perceived as the best wa' towards democratization& prosperit' and secrit' for the contr'. t is not

srprising that even thogh the level of trst in the () has sharpl' fallen over the last 'ears& particlarl'

in the conte@t of the global economic crisis& it remains one of the highest in (rope. :oreover& since

trst in the national instittions 3"overnment& political parties4 are ver' low& Romanian citizens’ hopes

still cling to the () instittions as a safet' net for the ftre of the contr'. As the rh'thm of reforms

after the accession has slowed down& with even setbacks in varios areas 3stice reform&

democratisation4& () has become essential in ensring that Romania keeps the corse. (@pectations

towards the () have been high from the ver' beginning of the negotiation process. 1he official

discorse emphasising the benefits of the () integration have contribted to these e@pectations.

owever& it is less evident for most of the poplation how the' can reall' benefit from the advantages

of being (ropean citizens and this is another factor contribting to the crrent wave of

disappointment.

/. Citi7ens an# non5$overnmental or$anisations; participation in the

#ecision5ma:in$ process in Romania

n Romania 3as in most former commnist contries4& involvement of citizens in C+# activities or their

spport for C+#s remains low. 1he reasons are varied from the dire Commnist legac' of social

mistrst& disappearance of the pblic space& forced volnteerism and state dependenc'& to the more

recent economic trobles and increasing povert'& individalism and consmerism. As C+#s have been

spported since the earl' $%s’ b' foreign donors and international instittions 3sch as the () itself4



E

the' are still perceived as ver' close to the international arena. *espite all these negative elements&

srve's which have been condcted over the last $% 'ears reveal a constant increase in the pblic trst

for C+#s 3particlarl' for !"#s4 5 while at the same time trst in the "overnment and pblic instittions

has decreased.

1he crrent level of trst is low in absolte vale& 'et& in the conte@t of the trst crisis in Romanian

instittions it can be interpreted as a general perception of civil societ' as stabilit' reference. Be'ond

the general perception& there are for main wa's of citizen involvement with C+#s membership&

volnteering& donations and mobilization throgh campaigns 3either street manifestations or signing of

petitions4. :embership in an organisation sall' incldes also the other t'pes of involvement.

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

Associations and fondations active in the field of hman 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 garantee of democrac' and as an advocate of civil liberties.

1he process of () accession 3$, 5 2%%4 lead to an increase of the importance of civil societ'&

particlarl' from the perspective of the capacit' to inflence pblic decision-making. After $& when

the () integration became a more clear certitde& 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 varios C+#s have been constantl' sed b' () instittions to evalate Romania’s progress

and that& in trn& had an impact on an improvement of the attitde of the political class towards civil

societ' at large.

#ne of the maor sccesses 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 focsed on the promotion of responsibilit' and integrit' in pblic positions& on fighting

corrption& 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& $2.0G of all !"#s have as the

main field of intervention civic participation and inflencing pblic policies. #f these& the maorit' 3DEG4

are focsed on democrac' and hman rights& $0G work on consmer protection& 0.0G are concerned

with discrimination and 0DG deal with good governance and changing pblic policies. !"#s have a ver'

important role in the protection of hman rights. 1he' offer direct assistance to persons whose rights

were violated& the' pt pressre for the modification of relevant national legislation and the' develop

edcational programs for the nderstanding and respecting hman rights. Awareness on hman rights&

and on the wa's to defend them are the basis to ensre their enforcement in ever'da' life. !"#s in

Romania have been activel' involved in the promotion of hman rights and the' had a strong inflence

in bringing fndamental change in the following areas children rights& gender e?alit'& fighting

discrimination and the promotion of minorit' rights 3inclding protecting ethnic and se@al minorities&

fighting racism etc.4& the freedom of e@pression& and spport for a fair electoral process. n trn& the ain

progresses contribted to increasing visibilit' and trst in civil societ'.

!"#s’ activities have contribted greatl' to the consolidation of democrac'& b' monitoring the

government& acting for increasing transparenc' in the decision making process and the responsibilit' of

pblic athorities& bt also b' enhancing the level of citizen participation& the facilitation of the direct

involvement of marginalized grops in the development and implementation of soltions the' were

facing& inflencing the cltre and attitde of both government officials and citizens.

8articipation is the main tool in the formlation& information and promotion of the changes desired b'

the citizens. As sch& !"#s which wish to inflence government decisions in order to solve critical

problems or to draw attention on these problems& ndertake activities aimed at bilding and

strengthening mechanisms which ensre citizen participation and fostering their active and direct

engagement.

1he main laws reglating pblic participation 5 Haw 02F2%%, regarding decision making transparenc' of

the pblic administration and Haw 0F2%%$ on the freedom of access to information 5 are the reslt of

the actions initiated b' nongovernmental organisations& which made it possible for the topics the' had

proposed to trn into pblic polic'.



$%

#ver the last 'ears& a larger nmber of !"#s have carried ot advocac' campaigns& particlarl' to

inflence the shape of local development plans and the wa' decision which concern citizens is made&

with ?ite a nmber of cases where either throgh pblic and pressre or in cort the' managed to

force pblic athorities to respect the e@istent legislation and to take the right measres.

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

n the evoltion of the relation between the state and the nongovernmental sector in Romania& the

most recent phases allow for nderstanding the crrent d'namics& challenges and of the potential that

!"#s have in ensring the linkages with the (ropean dimension of polic' making and hman rights.

n the period 2%%% 5 2%%0 Romanian !"#s committed to a new role promoters of good governance and

of the integration in the (). n 2%%-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 consltation instrment between "overnment and civil societ' is created.

1he College for Consltation with Associations and 9ondations is created within the chanceller' of the

prime-minister. 1he College’s main goal has been ;to facilitate commnication and to ensre the

involvement of associations and fondations in the implementation of governmental policies at all

decision-making levels of the central pblic athorities= as well as ;to develop the partnership between

pblic athorities 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 frther

deteriorated& C+#s did pt serios efforts in lobb'ing and advocac' initiatives. D%G of the respondents

in the !"# Headers’ Barometer 3BH#!"4 2%$$ state that inflencing pblic decision-making process is a

focs of their organisations. 9or 2G of the respondents that is an important dimension of their

organisation.

1he main initiators of pblic consltations are !"#s and coalitions of !"#s 3in ,EG of the cases4&

followed b' local athorities 3$EG4 and b' ministries 3$G4.



$$

According to the !"# Headers’ Barometer 3BH#!"4 2%$$& 70G of the respondents declare that within

their activities the' cooperate with pblic athorities and instittions. 1he best cooperation takes place

at local level 3with local and cont' concils4. #ne of the most negative perceptions on the ?alit' of

cooperation regards the interaction with the Romanian 8residenc'. :ost of the srve'ed C+#s 3D%-7%G4

leaders regard positivel' the general attitde of local athorities abot their organisations however the

perception drops 2%G when asked abot concrete actions taken b' these athorities to spport their

work. Althogh most of the actions aimed at inflencing pblic policies seemed to focs on the national

level 3over 0%G of the respondents4& the most sccessfl ones proved to be those targeting local

athorities where D%G of the C+#s who initiated pblic polic' recommendations saw their proposals

inclded entirel' or partiall' in the final decisions. Althogh 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' sccessfl in mobilizing

citizens and grop to oppose governmental decisions deemed nacceptable 3e.g. against the :ining

Haw& for the preservation of wild forests& against the Haw of +ocial (ntreprenership4.

C+#s mobilized both arond isses which concerned them directl' 3the (ropean +trctral 9nds&

against the draft law on +ocial (ntreprenership4& and also larger isses sch as environmental and

heritage protection& social isses 3for children with atism4 or defence of civil rights 3the draft law on

pblic assemblies4 and democrac' 3the law on electoral changes& a coalition against the referendm for

a new law on the administrative reorganisation of Bcharest& a coalition against the proposed territorial

administrative reorganisation of the contr'4.

1he controversial mining proect at RoIia :ontanJ drew a lot of energ' and efforts from environmental

!"#s and other activist grops. According to the civil societ' representatives& the proect wold create

the largest c'anide based gold e@ploitation in (rope& destro'ing an invalable historical and cltral

heritage and endangering the environment in a wider area in Romania and in the neighboring

contries for a ver' long time in the ftre and with a negative economic benefit for the contr'. Civil

societ' grops mobilized against the RoIia :ontanJ "old Corporation 3R:"C4& the compan' behind the

proect& staging pblic manifestations and bo'cotts& e@posing the massive pblic campaign sponsored in

the media b' R:"C and the silencing of opinions opposing the proect& as well as denoncing high level



$2

complicit' and lack of transparenc' b' pblic instittions& inclding the Romanian 8residenc'&

disregarding the environmental and cltral impact of the gold e@ploitation& in a pre-electoral 'ear. A

large mobilization to gather signatres for a petition against a new proposed :ining Haw favoring

R:"C and other potential mineral companies& against the e@isting legislation reglating propert' rights

and historical and cltral heritage& managed to collect $%%&%%% signatres in a record time. 1he petition

was deposed at the Romanian 8arliament dring the visit of a delegation of the Committee for 8etitions

of the (ropean 8arliament. +everal flash-mobs and small spontaneos manifestations against the

censorship in mass-media of opinions contrar' to the proect were swiftl' and overweightedl' repressed

b' the police forces& while environmental activists were intimidated and absed& increasing sspicions of

obscre 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’ trst in the ()

dropped dramaticall' at the end of 2%$$& with $G& compared to the same period of 2%$% 3D%G4.

owever& the level of trst remains relativel' high 5 DG of citizens contine to trst the () 5 compared

to the () 27 average 3,EG4. t is worth recalling that in the pre-accession period& Romanians’ trst in the

() reached record levels 3E0G of all citizens trsted 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 ,G. 1he main reason

to vote was not related that mch to the feeling of belonging to the ()& or to rational calclations.

nstead& 7,G of the Romanians who voted stated the' did becase of civic dt'.

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 ,G. 00G of the Romanians were not

satisfied with the level of information abot the rights as a citizen of the (ropean )nion& while the

()27 average was D7G.



$,

n the 9lash (robarometer the Charter of 9ndamental Rights of the (ropean )nion 3>anar' 2%$24&

st EG of the Romanian citizens declared the' were familiar with the () Charter of 9ndamental Rights

3compared to $$G& the () average4.

#ver the past 0 'ears the Romanian C+#s came in closer contact with (ropean civil societ' federative

strctres& 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& G were affiliated to (ropean

federation and almost ,G to international federations. ,G of !"# representatives conslted in the

aforementioned srve' 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 Brea@

2. (rope *irect !etwork

,. (ropean 8arliament nformation #ffice in Romania

. (ropean nstitte of Romania

0. nformation Centre for +trctral nstrments

D. (rActiv.ro

7. Romanian Center for (ropean 8olicies

E. Romanian Association for Consmers< 8rotection

. nfoCons

$%. 8arlamentor.ro

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

1he access of all citizens to information regarding the civil rights and responsibilities is a prere?isite for

the e?alit' of opportnities in a democratic societ'. 1he Citizens Advice Brea@ ensre e?al access of





$0

services of the CABs. 1he impact of those services in the commnit' is significant& as the CAB is an

important pillar in promoting civic participation& transparenc' and accontabilit' of pblic

athorities.

CABs offer information and advice in $2 domains Child 8rotection& Civil Rights and Responsibilities&

Consmer’s 8rotection& (dcation& ealth& Habor Regime& !otar' 8rocedres& 8ropert' Regime& 8blic

+ervices& +ocial Assistance& +ocial nsrance& 1a@es.

2. Europe -irect )et8or: [email protected]

1he (rope *irect !etwork represents one of the main instrments sed b' the (ropean Commission

in order to inform and commnicate with citizens at the local level. 1he network comprises& at the ()

level& E% (rope *irect information centres& %% (ropean docmentation centres and 7%% 1eam

(rope members.

n Romania& the ,% (rope *irect information centres& $ (ropean docmentation centres and over 2%

1eam (rope e@perts in (ropean policies represent (C’s 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 sorces& raise

awareness among the pblic and promote debate on (ropean themes. 1he network is coordinated b'

the Representation of the (C in Romania.

(rope *irect provides

• "eneral information on () themes in all official langages

• Answers to ?estions related to () policies

• 8ractical information regarding varios aspects& sch as necessar' steps for recognition of

stdies or modalities of how to introdce a complaint abot nsafe prodcts

• !ames& addresses and phone nmbers of organisations to which citizens ma' appeal

• Advice for overcoming practical problems in e@ercising the rights as citizen in (rope.



$D

!. European &arliament 'nformation (ffice in Romania [email protected]

1he (ropean 8arliament nformation #ffice in Romania informs citizens abot the role and importance

of the (ropean 8arliament& organizing Civic 9orms& debates and caravans in varios locations

throghot the contr'.

:oreover& the office attend events of its partners and delivers presentations and commnications

regarding the resoltions of the (ropean 8arliament& bt also information materials and pblications

abot the (ropean 8arliament and () policies.

1o implement commnication policies of the (ropean 8arliament& the office organizes information

sessions for ornalists on priorit' themes nder debate& as well as on the instittional role pla'ed b'

this legislative form. 1he office organizes seminars having as general topic the activit' of the (ropean

8arliament and the (ropean legislative process& bt also seminars dedicated to specialised ornalists

on certain (ropean themes.

1he (ropean 8arliament nformation #ffice in Romania has as main obectives

• 1o inform the pblic on the (ropean 8arliament and its activities

• 1o spport media coverage of the debates and activities of the 8arliament

• 1o facilitate the connection between pblic athorities at the national& regional& local level and

the civil societ'.

9rthermore& complementing the (ropean 8arliament website& the Romanian website allows

• Better information on the :(8s

• 1racking news on the (ropean 8arliament

• 1racking news on the (ropean 8arliament nformation #ffice in Romania

• *ownloading of own pblications

• Misalising the activities of the (ropean 8arliament in images

• "etting familiar to the organisation and fnctioning of the (ropean 8arliament

• "etting to know the competences and political role of the (ropean 8arliament

• nformation with regard to the actions and the annal grants program

• (mplo'ment opportnities and internships in () instittions



$7

• Misits to the (ropean 8arliament.

. European 'nstitute of Romania [email protected]@4

1he (ropean nstitte of Romania 3(R4 is a pblic instittion whose mission is to provide e@pertise in

the field of (ropean Affairs to the pblic administration& the bsiness commnit'& the social partners

and the civil societ'. +tdies& training& translation and commnication are (R’s ke' areas

• Condcting stdies and policies and strateg' anal'ses to spport Romania’s development within

the (ropean )nion& and e@ercising its attribtes as a :ember +tate

• #rganizing training activities in the domain of (ropean Affairs

• Coordinating the translation and the lingistic and legal revision of the pre-accession ac?is& of

the (CR case-law& of Romanian docments of legal natre& and setting p a consistent

terminolog'

• +timlating pblic debates on (ropean isses.

(R started its activit' in >anar' 2%%% as an organisation aiming at providing spport to the Romanian

decision-makers dring the accession process of Romania to the (). (R began its activit' as a 8AR(

proect& 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 $ >anar' 2%%7& (R shifted its strategic focs on the new priorities arising

from Romania<s () membership& following the contr'<s accession to the )nion. 1he new priorities

pertain mainl' to the role& positions and possible alliances to be assmed b' Romania on the (ropean

scene& emphasizing the need for a deeper e@amination at national level of the evoltions of the ()

instittional affairs and polic'-making at commnit' level.

!owada's& the (R fnctions as a pblic instittion nder the coordination of the *epartment of

(ropean Affairs& which is the office in charge with the e@ective secretariat of () Affairs within the

Romanian "overnment. 1he (R views are independent of an' pblic or private bodies and are not

aligned to an' political part'& denominational grop or ideological movement.



$E

1he proects rn b' (R are focsed both on bilding instittional capacit' and creating specific e@pertise

in the () affairs area. t crrentl' emplo's abot 00 e@perts and other staff& inclding researchers&

training and commnication 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% pblic conferences& rond tables& debates and seminars aiming at

stimlating at a national level in-depth pblic debate on (ropean isses.

%. 'nformation Centre for Structural 'nstruments 3httpFFwww.fondri-e.roF4

1he nformation Centre for +trctral nstrments has been fonded in earl' 2%$2 nder the newl'-

fonded :inistr' of (ropean Affairs. According to the !ational Commnication +trateg' for +trctral

nstrments for the programming period 2%%7-2%$,& the central element of the process of pblic

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 gidance towards specialized

organisms is provided.

1he activit' of the Centre focses on two priorities

• 8roviding information on fnding opportnities available& in real time and with relevant data

• Commnication on the obectives and achievements in the domain of strctral instrments& b'

sharing sccessfl models that contribted to the ?alit' of life and economic sitation in the

commnities in which the' were implemented.

<. Eur/ctiv.ro 3httpFFwww.eractiv.roF4

(rActiv.ro is part of the network of portals dedicated to (ropean affairs& having the head?arters at

Brssels& and present throgh independent websites at Berlin& 8aris& :adrid& /arsaw& 8rage&

Bratislava& Bdapest& +ofia and stanbl.

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 bsiness sector. 1he spport of the (ropean



$

compan' (rActiv from Brssels garantees the netralit' and obectivit' of (rActiv.ro& contribting to

correct and balanced information of the Romanian pblic opinion.

(rActiv.ro was fonded in :a' 2%%& as a trl' original concept in Romania. #n the one hand& it works

as a news agenc'& providing two streams of information the stream from Bcharest and the stream

permanentl' connected to the heart of (rope& throgh its main editorial office in Brssels& stream

which presents the main (ropean policies& initiatives and developments in Romania. (rActiv.ro is an

pdated& obective& free sorce of information that translates from Romanian into Romanian the less

accessible langage of the ().

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

1he Romanian Centre for (ropean 8olicies 3CR8(4 was established in 2%% b' a grop of e@perts bond

b' the shared obective of spporting Romania<s role in (rope.

1he mission of the CR8( is to promote Romania as an inflential leader in the development of ()

agendas and policies. Another maor obective is to advance the (ropeanization processes in Romania

and to promote the (ropean citizenship b' providing e@pertise in varios fields and b' initiating or

participating in pblic debates.

CR8(’s vision is that Romania’s () membership is a ke' milestone in the contr'<s (ropeanization

process. /hile negotiating accession& Romania did not have a sa' in the polic' making process. !ow& as

a fll member& the contr' has the instrments 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 spectrm

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. Bt as the contr' oined 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 isse-

based social movements& informal forms of civic participation and other civil societ' actors& independent



2%

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 are

• 8roposing new approaches and new policies to ensre the modernization of pblic

administration b' drawing on the e@periences of () member states and () instittions

• 8roposing well-researched and clearl' formlated position papers for the se of the Romanian

government in maor () debates sch as the () bdget reforms& CA8 health-check& common

energ' policies& or frther e@pansion

• nvolving varios private and pblic stakeholders in the polic' formlation process in order to

stimlate the debate arond the above mentioned isses.

CR8( is affiliated to the following coalitions and networks Coalition for the (ropean Continent

)ndivided b' Misa Barriers the +tockholm !etwork the Regional !etwork for 8blic Administration

Reform 5 )!*8.

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

1he Romanian Association for Consmers< 8rotection 3A8C Romania4 was fonded in $% to promote

the interests of its members& as well as those of individal consmers in a period of profond and

mltifaceted market changes& after the fall of the Berlin wall. A8C Romania’s aims are to represent

consmers and lobb' for better consmer protection and better enforcement as well as promote more

transparent markets and ensre the ?alit' of goods and services. t informs& gives advice& edcates

consmers abot their rights& advocates e?alit' for all consmers and promotes and represents b' all

legal means consmers’ rights and interests in relation to bsinesses and state instittions.

A8C is recognized and spport b' the Romanian government as organisation of pblic tilit'& which

consolidates its role as a dialoge partner coming from the civil societ'.



2$

A8C Romania eno's national recognition as being a member of varios national and international

strctres& sch as Consmers nternational& the (ropean Consmers< #rganisation& 1rans Atlantic

Consmer *ialoge and nternational Consmer Research and 1esting. n 2%%E A8C oined the (ropean

Consmer Centre network& logisticall' spporting at the moment (CC Romania.

?. 'nfoCons 3httpFFwww.infocons.roF4

nfoCons& the !ational Association for Consmer 8rotection and 8romotion of Romanian 8rogrammes

and +trategies 5 A!8C88+ Romania was fonded in 2%%, to meet consmer needs in Romania. t has

established Centres for nformation and Advice for Consmers in all conties and rns continos

activities for edcating and informing citizens.

nfoCons is fonding member of the 9ederation of Consmer 8rotection #rganisations in Romania and

has international affiliation to Consmers nternational& the (ropean Consmer Moice in

+tandardisation& nternational Consmer Research and 1esting and the (ropean Association for

(dcation of Adlts.

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

ot!ews.ro 3news portal in Romania4& in partnership with the Centre for ndependent >ornalism

initiated the proect 8arlamentor.ro in 2%$$& a $ 'ear long proect that had as goal the involvement of

the Romanian pblic in the (ropean 8arliament debates on economic isses& ths connecting the

pblic to the economic agenda of the (ropean 8arliament.

*esigned e?all' to internet sers throghot the contr'& bt also to Romanian commnities from

abroad& 8arlamentor.ro aimed to become a platform for discssion of topical isses relevant to the

(ropean 8arliament& especiall' in the economic and social domains& ths giving citizens the opportnit'

to directl' interact with the elected officials who represent them in Brssels and +trasborg.



22

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

/. Survey results

$%, ?estionnaires were collected b' 9*+C throgh an online srve' carried in :a' 2%$2. 1he content

of the ?estionnaire was strctred on two levels a ?antitative approach& gathering responses related

to the importance of (C+ establishment& t'pe of service and facilities provided& possible involvements

and a ?alitative approach aiming to frther e@ploring respondents perceptions related to civil societ'

and citizens involvement in decision making at the (ropean level. A nmber of nine open and closed

?estions were inclded the ?estionnaires and the anal'sis of reslts is presented sing charts and

pies& assessment of responses and ?otes from respondents. Before the evalation of responses& the

data base was cleared b' incomplete or incorrect responses$.

1he respondents of the online srve' represent a wide range of stakeholders in the pblic debate

regarding the establishment of (C+ !"#s and federations of !"#s active on (ropean policies& social

inclsion of vlnerable grops& social services& edcation& 'oth& stdent associations& edcation

instittions - pblic local schools and inspectorates& a pblic niversit' holding an important department

for (ropean +tdies. 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 7G

involve in a certain e@tent in (ropean Affairs& with $DG of the organisations involving fll time in

(ropean Affairs 3see Anne@ $4.

1he responses regarding the importance of the sbects to be tackled b' the (C+ show a relative e?al

distribtion of responses among the , sbects proposed 3see Anne@ 24. Citizens’ rights and better

enforcement is seen b' respondents as the most important area to be tackled b' (C+& with almost ,7G

of the respondents rating it with the highest figre compared with ,, G for the Civil +ociet'

*evelopment and 27 G for Citizens 8articipation. f we look at the figres at a whole& considering all

1 By incorrect responses we understand the responses who did’t follow the methodolody as agreed.



2,

responses for the , areas proposed Citizen 8articipation is ranked the first with the lowest nmber of

responses for rank , 3less important4 and highest nmber 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+ with 0%G of the respondents ranking these services as being

the most important 3see Anne@ ,4. Creating a resorce centre on (ropean civil societ' is considered the

most important service b' 2$ G of the respondents& followed b' the service developing a (ropean

fnding advice and assistance with filling in applications with $G. 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 athorities on (ropean polic' level 32%G of

respondents ranking this service as being the less important4.

Romanian participants in the srve' confirm in the ?estion regarding the facilities of the ose& their

e@pectations towards the role that (C+ shold pla' as a resorce centre 3anne@ 4. 1he most important

facilit' seen b' respondents is the provision of a resorce civil societ' center 3G4 followed b' the

training corses with ,2 G responses. 1he meeting room and desk spport service is seen as the less

important facilities for the Romanian respondents.

Respondents in Romania see a doble role for (C+ a spport entit' to enhance the development of

civil societ' in member contries and a liaison entit' between the citizens and national and (ropean

instittions. 1his h'pothesis is spported b' the responses indicating the advantages for the ose in

relation with national and (ropean instittions& as 0%G of the responses consider that spport to

citizens shold be provided throgh the ose and the other 0%G split their responses between the role

of a resorce centre and an intermediar' spport organisation.

1he vast maorit' of respondents 5 EG spport the establishment of the (C+ in Romania& confirming

the need alread' voiced b' civil societ' for man' 'ears 3see Anne@ D4. Also the large maorit' of

respondents& EG wold like to sta' informed and involved in a ftre initiative in this area. . :ost of

the respondents stated that the' wold like to be reglarl' pdated with developments on the proect

3newsletter etc4& while part of them answered that the' wold be interested to benefit from the services

provided b' the (C+. #t of those that e@pressed their willingness to become activel' involved& some

responses stated that the' wold either like to offer their knowledge and e@perience as e@perts or

resorce persons& or their organisation’s e@perience on varios isses possibl' related to the (C+



2

bilding p regional& national and (ropean networks of organisations training awareness raising

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' inpt 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 inpt 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 following environment& hman rights& minorit' rights& consmers

rights 3mostl' with regards to online trade4& 'oth policies 3inclding 'oth emplo'abilit'4& Regional and

Cohesion 8olic' 3b' getting involved in the absorption of fnds4& development cooperation& and the

crrent strctral fnds programming for the period 2%$-2%2%.

/hat the respondents identified as being areas with a ver' low level of involvement or even ine@istent

are areas sch as civic participation& social protection& consmers rights 3generall' speaking4& cltre&

health& edcation& policies in relation to persons with disabilities or people with serios 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& inpt to (ropean polic'-making comes rather from Bcharest& the

capital cit'& and less from other areas of the contr'. owever& citizen and civil societ' inpt happens

more often in the rban areas rather than the rral areas& one of the respondents having emphasized

this gap ;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& throgh their representatives either at the national or (ropean level.



20

A fnctional s'stem of rapid consltation of citizens b' decision makers 3politicians& state instittions4 is

also necessar'& and !"#s shold monitor the correct implementation of sch consltations.

We need a strong civil society, more visible and acknowledged nationally and internationally, we

need capable public authorities open to social dialogue with citiens and civil society. Civil society

can be developed only through citiens and with citiens, and in conse!uence we need to support

the spirit development and civic and proactive attitude of citiens, in all areas, from creating

programmatic documents, specialied European assistance, new European practices, emerging

needs of information and training"#$. %ut for all of these &'(s need active members from

citiens, active partnerships with public authorities, training for public servants, and professional

development of the people working in public authorities.



2D

Annex 1: Question: What is the extent of your own and/or your organisations involvement in

European Affairs? (Numer of responses N!1"#$

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



27

Annex #: Question: Whi'h of the following servi'es would you 'onsider most important to otain 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$



2E

Annex : Question: What aspe'ts of this pro)e't2 in your opinion would e most advantageous for

national governments and the E3 &nstitutions seeing to improve a''ess for 'iti4ens to European

affairs? (N ! #5$

Annex : Question: 6ooing 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$



2

B. 'ntervie8s; fin#in$s

Respon#ents@

$. AsociaOia !aOionalJ a Birorilor de Consiliere pentr CetJOeni 3A!BCC4 www.robcc.ro

2. AsociaOia 8ro *emocraOia 3A8*4 www.apd.ro

,. Centrl de Resrse pentr 8articipare 8blicJ 3CeRe4 www.ce-re.ro

. Centrl pentr >rnalism ndependent 3C>4 www.ci.ro

0. Centrl pentr 8olitici *rabile (copolis www.ecopolis.org.ro

D. Centrl RomPn de 8olitici (ropene 3CR8(4 www.crpe.ro

7. (rope *irect C(!1RA+ eropedirect.centras.ro

E. 9ederaOia #rganizaOiilor !egvernamentale pentr *ezvoltare din RomPnia 39#!*4

www.fondromania.org

. 9ndaOia +oros RomPnia www.soros.ro

$%. "lobal Romanian +ociet' of Nong 8rofessionals 3"RA+84 www.m'grasp.org

Cs; perspective

#n each of the three domains it has been highlighted the need for spport and coordinated actions&

with prioritization determined in particlar b' the specific e@pertise of each organisationFinstittion

following their organisational strategies. #pinions were shared& even e?ilibrated some state that

spporting development of civil societ' will implicitl' determine civic participation and involvement and

conse?entl' citizen rights awareness some place the spport for civic participation as the base for

frther development of civil societ'.

8roposals for actions or services to be provided b' the (C+ in a particlar area were determined b'

how mch knowledgeFe@perience the' had on each of the pillars addressed. 1he more active an

organisation is on a particlar pillar& the more critical it becomes with respect to what needs to be

improved& changed& developed& etc.



,%

(ven the three pillars are interconnected 3and acknowledged as sch4& discssions have revealed an

appreciation towards the initiative in which relevant stakeholders for each area are broght together&

are valed in a coordinated manner& with a focs on avoiding dplication of actionsFefforts determined

b' lack of information.

!"#s present and involved in (ropean proects often claim this e@perience as a good practice on

(ropean isses and emphasize their role in channelling information from (ropean to nationalFlocal

level. 1he' appreciate the need to spport civil societ' development& bt this cannot be done withot

spporting civic involvement and participation.

)articular appreciations supported in discussions*

• Civil societ' in Romania is sffering& there is limited e@pertise available at national level on

(ropean isses& there are ver' few organisations capable to read a (ropean directive 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 impossile

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 nderstand

• (ropean sbects are still of limited interest for Romanian citizens 5 onl' appro@. %%-0%

re?ests registered at (rope *irect Centre are focsed on (ropean isses 3ranging close to

the (ropean average according to the nterim (valation of the (C in 2%$$& the weekl' average

is of $% answers within the network of the E active centres4. :ost often re?ests address

isses related to () mobilit'& citizen rights 3conselling for petitions sbmitted to (ropean

Cort of Citizens Rights& the (ropean #mbdsman4& info on () fnding opportnities. 9ew

'iti4ens really now their national rights and even less now their supranational rights2

estalished through the 9undamental ights -harter of the European 3nion. 9rom the (rope

*irect e@perience& citizens facing hman rights abse are not aware of actions that the' shold

take in order to complain to national or (ropean athorities. 9or a 'onsolidated 'ivil so'iety2

'iti4ens need to a'tively parti'ipate and these 'iti4ens will e ale to express themselves in the

'ivi' sphere when they now their rights and are 'apale 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 instittions& to promote citizen initiatives& to

take advocac' actions. (ven thogh& 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.

acilities at a European Civil Society House in Brussels

8h'sical presence of (C+ in Brssels has been spported& being appreciated as the most important of

all facilities enlisted& with particlar emphasis on the need for the ose

• 1o avoid acting solel' st as a resorce point& bt having a concrete role in selecting and proper

channelling of information relevant for different stakeholders and domains

• !ot trn st into a depositar' of info& bt be focsed on actions

• ave a particlar focs on facilitating networking& spporting advocac' and lobb' actions& bt

making it so that it spports the transposition of the (ropean langage 3instittional

mechanism& procedres& etc.4 in a more friendl' manner& accessible to more !"#s or citizens

and ths raise involvement on both sides

• 1o avoid trning into st a consltative bod' for the (C& bt capitalise on its pro@imit' and focs

on the opportnit' to have impact on polic' changes.

+everal concrete recommendations were formlated as to the t'pe of facilitiesFservices the (C+ shold

provide assistance and spport for advocac' on polic' isses relevant and pdated databases not onl'

on administrative aspects& bt also in terms of e@pertise available in different fieldsFcontries 3contacts&

?alitative appreciations& resorces for advocac' work etc.4 training particlarl' on

nderstandingFadapting to the (C instittional langage& strategic F programmatic planning from (C

perspective& consltation and participation mechanisms at ()Fnational levels facilitate e@changes

among old and new member states e@periences on different polic' isses relevant to national and

(ropean conte@t.

)articular appreciations supported in discussions*



,2

• t’s important for the (C+ to act as Resorce centre on civil societ' in (rope. No cannot speak

thogh abot representation& each organisation is active at individal 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 expertise

• (C+ shold be a ridge among national 'ivil so'iety and European institutions2 with loy

and advo'a'y o)e'tives& as well as for promoting national civil societ'. t shold favor the

good practice& methods and strategies e@change. 1ake advantage of the fact that crrentl'& the

civil societ' is st represented& having consltative role& within the (ropean (conomic and

+ocial Committee& even the ((+C activities are not sfficientl' promoted

• Expertise is very important and it shold be considered among facilitiesFservices available at

(C+. 1'pe of service which is normall' provided b' think tanks in () contries.

/#vanta$es from the perspective of E institutions

(C+ cold certainl' be a Resorce centre on civil societ' with a database of organisations which can be

conslted or invited to events and ma' facilitate citizens initiatives 3with focs on promoting initiatives

and in general the proactivit' approaches4& bt shold carefll' consider the dplication of efforts and

services with e@istent or prospective networks and F or services available at different

instittionalForganisational levels.

!meros networks& general or specialised on different fields& are active at the level of (C and the'

spport citizens in different areas 3i.e. finding a ob - ()R(+& general information - (rope*irect&

consmers rights - (CC!et& etc.4. (ven thogh& the mltitde of network ma' create confsion for

citizens and therefore& even in the case of (C+ 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 particlar given the fact that too

mch centralisation ma' not alwa's be efficient.

Settin$5up the ECSH in Romania

(C+ being present in Romania has been almost nanimosl' spported as a good idea& bt with a

limited ph'sical presence& mainl' with fnctions of contact point. At least not ntil it convinces on its





,

• At national level& there are significant difficlties in identif'ing positive e@amples of real

consltation processes& involvement of !"#s in developing pblic polic' docments& despite the

?ite relevant legislation reglating the field

• 1he involvement of civil societ' has inflenced the positive evoltion with respect to Romania-

:oldova cooperation& spporting the dialoge among !"#s from the respective contries

• Child protection 5 laws have been changed as a reslt of !"# involvement

• 1he allocation and se of strctral fnds - low effectiveness both in terms of civil societ'

actions and citizens

• Noth emplo'abilit' and internship 5 positive and constrctive contribtion to the (ropean

Charter and follow p to the (ropean consltation on strctred dialoge with 'oth

• 9ree movement of citizens& labor rights are of most interest

• 8ropert' rights 5 restittion of properties has been a brning isses since the beginning a %’s

Romania has fond itself recentl' in the sitation to be warned b' C(*# to solve at legislative

and administrative level all inade?acies leading to nmeros processes in cort

• (lectoral rights 5 it is nder debate from the last elections the opportnit' to change the voting

s'stem in Romania recentl'& a law has been passed throgh the 8arliament in spite of the pblic

opposition of some of the most prominent !"#s& re?iring a large consltation on the sbect

before its change& and not in the pro@imit' of the coming general elections.



,0

C. 9or:shop conclusions

A grop 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 fnctions of a (ropean Civil +ociet' ose

revealed primaril' that the crrent lack of confidence of Romanian citizens in politics and politicians&

whether national or (ropean can be foght with actions geninel' deriving from civil societ' at large.

1he grop strctre - labor nions and entrepreners’ associations& !"#s active in hman rights and

democrac'& social inclsion& cltre and environment fields& operating individall' or in larger networks&

affiliated to religios clts or laic2 5 offered the possibilit' to collect diverse e@periences which led& at

the end to srprisingl' common views and conclsions.

Current status of Romanian citi7ens civil society activism

• 1he information on how to reach the (ropean level is diverse and available however& the level

of nderstanding and interest of average citizen is low at the same time& the average citizen is

not informed and edcated with the proper skills and knowledge to appreciate the ?alit' of

information offered& and ths nable to make proper decision for frther acting

• /hen oining ()& the level of e@pectations and trst of Romanian citizens was reall' high& while

dring the last 'ears& particlarl' dring the financial crisis& and de to the nflfilled promises

of Romanian politicians& the scepticism, in the benefits of () membership has installed

combined with the lack of civic involvement generated b' the commnist regime& the

participation to pblic decision is reall' low

• !either Romanian representatives in (ropean strctres& mostl' politicians& nor citizens havethe conscience of their rights and dties commnication is fractioned from both parts& persons

in pblic fnctions do not encorage participation and e@pression of opinions& while citizens still

feel ncomfortable when affirming their rights in front of pblic decision makers

• Althogh Romania has registered a significant increase in hoseholds nternet conne@ions in

2%$$& the penetration rate especiall' in rral areas remains nsatisfactor' since the maorit' of

2 1he grop benefitted from the presence of 20 persons.

, (robarometer 2%%7 5 Romanian confidence in () was at D7G& while in 2%$ decreased to DG.



,D

information is accessible online& large grops of citizens lack the possibilit' to access it

nevertheless& simple access to nternet shold be accompanied with proper searching skills and

e@pertise for selecting and nderstanding the available information

• t was mentioned that ever' (ropean instittion has its own mechanisms of commnication

3websites& newsletters etc4 still& the variet' of commnications methods& the large nmber of

pblic releases of information and the comple@ terminolog' determine a drawback and

relctance to actall' se the available contact or petitioning mechanisms

• +pecialised assistance is needed when one actall' decides to advance from information to

action phase 3e.g. filing a complaint to (ropean Cort of >stice or (ropean Cort of man

Rights re?ired highl' specialised assistance for both reglar citizens or !"#s4

• At the same register& it was welcome the (ropean Citizens nitiative& onl' the process is long

and still need frther dissemination in Romania (ropean #mbdsman prerogatives shold be

better acknowledged at the level of individals

• Romanian citizens activism is redced st to write letters to local media& Romanian pblic

instittions and members of 8arliament citizens did not prove the capacit' to get organised or

to take advantage of the instittional mechanisms offered b' (ropean instittions& being

sporadicall' in contact with Romania’s representatives in (ropean strctres& and onl' b'

letters 3e.g. to :(8s or political grops in (ropean 8arliament4

• 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& ths misleading and generated mistrst

• At the same time& generall'& well e@perienced !"#s are part of (ropean platforms and slightl'

learn to integrate (ropean instittions as reglar stakeholders it is their role to frther

promote their knowledge to smaller Romanian !"#s and directl' to citizens& onl' the nmber of

the e@perienced ones is still b' far insfficient& and even the' need frther assistance and

attention

• At national level& programmes rn b' international donors& especiall' (ropean )nion opened

atomaticall' the channels of commnication to (ropean policies and re?irements& and

trned to be opportnities for domestic organised actors sch as !"#s to connect to initiatives

at (ropean level& act and react to decision e@ceeding the national borders& bt affecting

directl' the Romanian environment



,7

• t wold be efficient to consider !"#s as vehicles of information and intermediaries between

citizens and instittions& whether national or (ropean ths& !"#s shold be strengthened&

with particlar attention to those organised in networks

• "rassroots organisations& as strctres closest to citizens and commnities shold be

encoraged to connect to (ropean movements and mechanisms either directl'& onl' it is

nlikel' to have the capacit' to act individall'& or b' oining platforms and networks

• *ialoge with Romanian representatives in strctres sch as C(+( or C#R(8(R shold be

intensified.

dentification of possible strctre& roles and fnction of a (ropean Civil +ociet' ose considered the

shortcomings above mentioned. ts mission wold be to increase the trst into the (ropean instittions

capacit' to act in favor of citizens able to legitimatel' affirm their rights.

ts main fnctions shold be of channel of commnication to (ropean instittions& having the proper

athorit' 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+ in Brssels shold be instittionalised citizens and !"#s need formal mechanisms for

reaching (ropean instittions this wold not sbstitte the right to appeal directl'& bt

ensre the assistance in nderstanding the breacrac'

• (C+ shold contribte to ;vale citizenship at instittional level= in an environment

dominated b' political driven decision& (C+ might act as conterbalance in favor of the

constitents and bring the decision closer to them

• #fficiall' connected to (ropean instittions& b' clear and firm partnership agreement& 'et

fle@ible enogh and independent to avoid breacrac' and creation of a new inefficient

instittion& (C+ shold not be assimilated to the formal pblic () instittions

• t is highl' important that independence is an attribte for (C+& both at national and (ropean

level& and particlar attention shold be given its legitimac' at national level no "overnmental

intervention shold be allowed

#pinion of one !"# representative.





,

• At the same time& national !"#s shold be assisted themselves b' (C+ in their efforts of

reaching accrate and clear (ropean information& as well as in nderstanding better the

mechanism of participation for their own stakeholders to (ropean decision making process

• (C+ shold reach the whole range of !"#s& from large& e@perienced organisations to

grassroots ones& ths ensring a closer connection to local commnities and citizens

• (C+ shold pblicl' act and state that citizens themselves or via !"#s have to be part of co-

decision process at (ropean level& and from this perspective& all co-decision mechanisms

shold be investigated and made available to the general pblic in a manner able to prodce

effects .

ist of participants@

$. ConfederaOia !aOionalJ +indicalJ ;Cartel Alfa=

2. AsociaOia pentr Antreprenoriat 9eminin

,. AsociaOia 8ro(ro Clt

. AsociaOia (coConcept

0. 8rimJria oraIli :ioveni& +ervicil 8blic AsistenOJ +ocialJ



%

D. AsociaOia pentr +ervicii ntegrative

7. AB1

E. AsociaOia :ame pentr :ame

. AsociaOia Agent "reen

$%. AsocitaOia de arte Ii spiritalitate QA! AR1

$$. 9ndaOia pentr promovarea sancOinilor comnitare

$2. AsociaOia #menilor de Afaceri ArgeI

$,. AsociaOia (ropeana pentr ApJrarea *reptrilor #mli

$. AlianOa CivicJ

$0. AsociaOia Centrl pentr *ezvoltare *emocraticJ

$D. AsociaOia #:!:!*

$7. AsociaOia Activi pentr Miitor

$E. AsociaOia (cmenicJ a Bisericilor din RomPnia A*Rom

$. ConfederaOia Caritas RomPnia

2%. 9ndaOia Rhama

2$. AsociaOia >stiOie pentr RomPnia

22. +ocietatea RomPnJ de Radio Ii 1elevizine +R1M

2,. 9ndaOia pentr *ezvoltarea +ocietJOii Civile



$

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

• 1he maorit' of Romanian citizens are neither aware of their rights and dties in their capacit'

of nationals of a member state of the (ropean )nion& nor activel' involved in pblic polic'

shaping and decision-making processes.

• +rve's which have been condcted over the last $% 'ears reveal a constant increase in the

pblic trst for C+#s 3particlarl' for !"#s4 5 while at the same time trst in the "overnment

and pblic instittions has decreased.

• A specialized (robarometer on () citizenship from 2%$%& revealed that 00G of the Romanians

were not satisfied with the level of information abot the rights as a citizen of the (ropean

)nion& while the ()27 average was D7G.

• n the 9lash (robarometer the Charter of 9ndamental Rights of the (ropean )nion 3>anar'

2%$24& st EG of the Romanian citizens declared the' were familiar with the () Charter of

9ndamental Rights 3compared to $$G& the () average4.

• 8articipation is the main tool in the formlation& information and promotion of the changes

desired b' the citizens. 8blic participation is ensred via !"#s& which are increasingl'

preoccpied of bilding and strengthening mechanisms which ensre citizen participation and

fostering their active and direct engagement.

• D%G of the respondents in the !"# Headers’ Barometer 3BH#!"4 2%$$ state that inflencing

pblic decision-making process is a focs of their organizations. 9or 2G of the respondents that

is an important dimension of their organization.

• 1he main initiators of pblic consltations are !"#s and coalitions of !"#s 3in ,EG of the

cases4& followed b' local athorities 3$EG4 and b' ministries 3$G47.

7 !"# Headers’ Barometer 3BH#!"4 2%$$



2

• C+#s mobilized both arond isses which concerned them directl' 3the (ropean +trctral

9nds& against the draft law on +ocial (ntreprenership4& and also larger isses sch as

environmental and heritage protection& social isses 3for children with atism4 or defence of civil

rights 3the draft law on pblic assemblies4 and democrac' 3the law on electoral changes& a

coalition against the referendm for a new law on the administrative reorganization of

Bcharest& a coalition against the proposed territorial administrative reorganization of the

contr'4.

• n the !"# Headers’ Barometer 3BH#!"4 2%$$& onl' G were affiliated to (ropean federation

and almost ,G to international federations& while these are the onl' methods for ensring the

representation in Brssels.

• 9rther development are critical in all areas the (C+ intends to act& and the establishment of a

(ropean Civil +ociet' ose is needed and opportne& as long as it serves increasing the

Romanians confidence into the (ropean instittions capacit' to act in favor of citizens& able to

legitimatel' affirm their rights.

European Civil Society House in Brussels

• 8h'sical presence of (C+ in Brssels is welcome it shold be officiall' connected to (ropean

instittions& b' clear and firm partnership agreement& 'et fle@ible enogh and independent to

avoid breacrac' and creation of a new inefficient instittion (C+ shold not be assimilated

to the formal pblic () instittions

• t is highl' important that independence is an attribte for (C+& both at national and (ropean

level& and particlar attention shold be given its legitimac' at national level no "overnmental

intervention shold be allowed

• (C+ shold not be limited to a resorce centre& bt to be a coordination point for strctred

dialoge between citizens via !"#s and (ropean instittions& and even more& have a follow-p

fnction to actions in progress in front of (ropean instittions

• 8h'sical presence of (C+ in Brssels is welcome& with the recommendations for the ose



o to avoid acting solel' st as a resorce point& bt having a concrete role in selecting and

proper channelling of information relevant for different stakeholders and domains

o not trn st into a depositar' of info& bt be focsed on actions

o have a particlar focs on facilitating networking& spporting advocac' and lobb' actions&

bt making it so that it spports the transposition of the (ropean langage 3instittional

mechanism& procedres& etc.4 in a more friendl' manner& accessible to more !"#s or

citizens and ths raise involvement on both sides

o to avoid trning in st a consltative bod' for the (C& bt capitalise on its pro@imit' to ths

and focs on the opportnit' to have impact on polic' changes

• #ther facilitiesFservices the (C+ shold provide assistance and spport for advocac' on polic'

isses relevant and pdated databases not onl' on administrative aspects& bt also in terms of

e@pertise available in different fieldsFcontries 3contacts& ?alitative appreciations& resorces

for advocac' work etc.4 training particlarl' on nderstandingFadapting to the (C instittional

langage& strategic F programmatic planning from (C perspective& consltation and participation

mechanisms at ()Fnational levels facilitate e@changes among old and new member states

e@periences on different polic' isses relevant to national and (ropean conte@t.

European Civil Society House at national level

• At national level& (C+ fnctions shold be flfilled as a pilot phase b' an e@istent platform& a

consortim formed b' organisations active in democrac'& civic participation and citizens’ rights

isses& or an organisation well represented throghot the contr'& with e@perience in assisting

citizens or intermediating the relations between citizens and pblic instittions after one to two

'ears& and following an evalation& it shold be decided whether a separate entit' is needed

• t is likel' that the hose in Romania operates mostl' virtall'& with minimm resorces

allocated to a ph'sic premise. 1he ph'sic premises shold serve onl' as contact point

• t shold concentrate on working with !"#s since (rope *irect facilities alread' aims at serving

individal citizens& or at least intervene onl' in areas ncovered b' the e@isting strctres.

Documents

Romanian Report - European Civil Society House - The Romanian Perspective