aug/septrs_2011

By Peter Davy

The European Union is one of the largest donors to civil society in the world, but also accused of not truly engaging with sector organisations. Peter Davy investigates the EU/sector relationship


Current struggles over the Eurozone debt crisis have done little to endear the EU to British voters, it seems. Two polls in July had half the population saying they would vote to leave were a referendum held. In the survey by pollsters AngusReid, only a third thought EU membership had been positive for the country.

Interestingly, though, there is anecdotal evidence charities’ affection for the EU is
growing – possibly for similar reasons. While Greek bailouts are prompting the public to question whether the country can afford its ties to the EU, austerity at home means an increasing number of charities realise they can’t afford to ignore it.

“There’s a lot of interest from organisations now about whether they can
get European funding,” remarks Andy Churchill, CEO of Merseyside Network for
Europe. While domestic governments such as the UK’s are cutting spending, EU
budgets run for seven years, with the result that funding streams are fairly insulated.

That’s good news for charities that have been key recipients of EU structural funds, for example. The European Social Fund and Regional Development Fund, Churchill points out, account for about a third of the EU’s budget and have overtaken the Common Agricultural Policy as its biggest area of spending. The budget for each is about £2.5 billion over seven years. “We are talking about fairly reasonable amounts of money.”

Furthermore, that interest is reciprocated, he argues, with the the EU increasingly interested in the role the third sector can play. Look, for instance, at the European Commission’s stated desire to foster a Social Business Market, with the NCVO’s Stuart Etherington part of the Study Group on Social Entrepreneurship within the EU civil society consultative body, the European Economic & Social Committee (EESC).

In the aftermath of the financial crisis, says Churchill, there has been a “sea
change” in the attitude of the EU institutions towards civil society. “There are no guarantees but a lot of stuff is going in the right direction.”

In fact, that extends much further than just funding or even promoting growth,
according to Frank Heuberger, vice president of the European Network of
National Civil Society Associations (ENNA) and board member for European affairs in Germany’s National Network for Civil Society. He says it feeds into longer-term concerns over the democratic deficit within the EU institutions.

“In recent years there has been a fear they are losing the democratic foundation
for the decision-making process. They need to get the people involved, and that is basically done through NGOs and other organisations.”

Losing their voice?
Not everyone is convinced, though. For a start, when it comes to lobbying it
remains difficult for many to get their concerns heard, says Carlo Ruzza, professor of political sociology at the University of Leicester, whose research
focuses on the interaction between civil society organisations and decision-making, particularly at the EU level.

There have always been effectively three “filters” blocking many from effectively
engaging, he says. The first is resources, in that smaller NGOs usually don't have the means, knowledge, or recognition from EU institutions required to channel their views to Brussels. Second, “radical views” that are too far from the mainstream are routinely ignored. Finally, those that are especially sceptical would argue that civil society groups are most likely to be successful where they serve some other purpose for the EU institutions.

“Environmental NGOs, for example, have done very well because they legitimised something that was necessary to improve the common market but also because they increased the legitimacy of environmental legislation and bureaucracies in the EU,” he says.

Even if you don’t subscribe to that – and there is a strong counter argument for
engaging in Europe, says Ruzza – there is little evidence of growing civil society
influence. Interest in engaging the third sector peaked in the run up to the Lisbon
Treaty, he argues, but has waned since, partly because that’s simply the nature of trends, but also because reduced domestic funds leave groups with less capacity to engage.

Similarly, even within the EU, pressure to restrain costs might work against civil
society engagement; in January the EESC, the “bridge between Europe and organised civil society”, as it describes itself, had to rebut proposals by the European Parliament's Liberal group to scrap it.

At European Citizen Action Service (ECAS), director Tony Venables argues
that those hoping for a a renewed role for civil society in the light of failures exposed in traditional governance models over the last few years have been disappointed.

“We expected the financial crisis would see a lot more opening up to civil society,” he says. In fact the focus, first on legislation for financial institutions and now on sovereign debt, has seen things move in the opposite direction.The European Union probably needs the citizen more than ever before, but in fact the gap is getting wider, and the decision-making more remote and difficult
to penetrate for charities.”

Keep on talking
There are still good reasons to look to engage, however. First, so that charities can try to make the EU more accountable. Indeed, this is the primary purpose of the new European Civil Society House that ECAS has established with the help of NCVO, among others.

Furthermore, the influence of the EU is such that it is foolish for charities to wash
their hands of it. Sixty to 80 per cent of national legislation in EU member states is influenced or forestalled by decisions at EU level, Heuberger points out. “The direct influence of the EU on our decisions is so strong it would be stupid to
simply ignore it,” he says.

And, of course, there are plenty of fairly obvious exceptions where NGOs clearly do have a voice. Few doubt that the big development and environmental NGOs, for example, can have considerable influence.

“There are various key areas where charities have actually had bigger wins in
Brussels than domestically,” points out Oli Henman, EU & international campaigns manager at NCVO. At CONCORD, the European confederation of relief and development organisations, Andreas Vogt, part of its management team, admits that, as Ruzza suggest, this is sometimes the result of EU institutions using NGOs for their own ends.

However, if these align with the NGOs’ goals there’s little harm in that. And while
he admits there remains a democratic deficit in Europe, it is up to NGOs to fill at
least part of it. “That’s the main drive behind NGOs’ involvement in the EU, not
funding.”

But even if charities only interest was to secure funding, engagement with the EU
would still be vital. The UK based international development NGO umbrella group BOND, for instance, is already involved in lobbying the EU on the next financial budget, due to be finalised at the end of 2012 and come into force in 2014; Euclid, an international network for civil society professionals, meanwhile, has been lobbying since 2008 to improve funding rules.

“The European Union is one of the largest donors for civil society in the world,
but it is also known for having the most unfriendly rules in the world,” says executive director Filippo Addari. It’s efforts are now paying dividends, with changes to allow in kind gifts and volunteering to count towards matchfunding and rules to allow civil society groups to make a surplus both expected this year. It’s also working on establishing a small grants scheme in the EU for grants of
between €5,000 and €50,000.

Others, such as the Third Sector European Network, are lobbying to reform public sector procurement rules to take greater account of factors other than price. Furthermore, there’s a third reason charities should not ignore Europe, says Addari: engaging in Europe-wide networks is an opportunity to learn from others.

While continental charities have long looked internationally for opportunities to
share knowledge, most British charities, haven’t to the same extent, other than,
perhaps, the development charities. “It is very insular in the UK compared to
civil society on the continent,” says Addari.

“The UK has never really connected to the rest of the continent.” Addari reckons that’s probably because UK charities have been better off financially and better resourced than their European cousins. Now that advantage is looking less certain, it might be time to look abroad to see what can be learnt from others.

After all, if nothing else, misery loves company.

Peter Davy is freelance journalist