The European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) “Water is a human right” recently announced that it had succeeded in collecting more than 1.5 million “statements of support” from more than seven EU Member States, and in sufficient numbers per country. It is thus expected to become the first ever ECI in history that will meet the official criteria. It was against this background that we sought an interview with Mr. Minrath and Mr. Schmitz of the Federal Office of Administration (BVA), which is responsible in Germany for checking the statements of support. As the authorities have, in principle, a certain room for manoeuvre in terms of the severity of their checks, it seemed to us important to find out how ‘citizen-friendly’ the German authorities are in relation to the ECI.

ECI Campaign: Sirs, you will soon be faced with a quite special task in the context of the ECI procedure. In Germany alone, 1.2 million statements of support for the “Water is a human right” ECI were collected. Can you tell us exactly what you have to do with them?

Mr. Minrath: Our main task arises from the EU Regulation and also from the German ECI law: coordinating the checking of the statements of support and issuing a certificate on the number of valid statements. In order to do so we must determine the percentage error i.e. the rate of invalid statements. So we check on possible errors, for example, whether anyone has given more than one statement or has signed on behalf of others without them knowing. Of course, this way of checking is not 100% reliable – but it is to a very high degree. At the end of the 90 day checking period we send the certificate to the initiative and finally destroy and delete the statements.

ECI Campaign: It’s important for ECI organisers to be able to estimate the number of signatures which are likely to be invalid. We recommend that they collect 15% more than the requirement, to compensate for any invalid signatures. Do you already have an estimate of the invalidity rate?

Mr. Minrath: No. The advice to the current ECIs – not to stick closely to the prescribed number of signatures, but to continue collecting beyond that, to be on the safe side – is good.

ECI Campaign: Do you compare the online and paper statements? Do you not expect the invalidity rates to differ?

Mr. Minrath: No.

ECI Campaign: With the online statements there isn’t the problem of illegibility or incompleteness ..

Mr. Minrath: In practice, we will take more trouble over the paper statements. But since our approach is a sympathetic one, we don’t expect any great differences here.

ECI Campaign: During the negotiations over the ECI implementation law in Germany we and our partners we argued strongly for a softening of excessively restrictive rules (see here). So it is our understanding that a statement is not automatically invalidated as soon as one piece of information is illegible or incomplete. How far does your goodwill extend in practice?

Mr. Minrath: Well, we are in principle accommodating – and it has even been agreed with the EU Commission and the Interior Ministry that where there is some doubt we would not apply excessively strict criteria, but rather somewhat gentler ones. If someone gives their postcode, but forgets to name their town – because they think that the postcode is sufficient – then we can live with that; just as we can live with someone forgetting to enter their house number – as long as we can positively identify the person by checking with the local residents’ registration offices.

ECI Campaign: ECI organisers are reporting that many citizens are forgetting to enter certain information in other boxes – like the place and date of birth. Can a person still be identified in such cases?

Mr. Minrath: Depending on the individual case, that’s still possible. On the other hand, we don’t really have the experience yet. At the moment, the organisational structure is as follows: we have a number of staff members who are involved in checking the statements. Several of them are responsible for inputting the data, and behind them is a person whose job it is to make a decision in those cases where there is doubt. Ultimately what we are dealing with here is a random sample. We’re bound in this by §4 of the German ECI law, which lists eight criteria for validity – such as the minimum age of 18 and the 12-month time allowance for collecting signatures.

Then we get into a grey area which puts us under greater pressure – such as when the statement is illegible or incomplete. In such cases we will be very open and try as much as possible not to reject the statement. Basically, we are trying to be as flexible as possible. On the other hand, we might reasonably expect a supporter of an ECI to take the trouble – and the small amount of time – to fill in the statement form fully and legibly. While it takes an individual supporter only a few minutes to fill in the form carefully, if there are problems with a lot of forms both we and the reporting authorities can incur a lot of staff time and expense. So in order to deal with an ECI from an organisational point of view our basically accommodating attitude needs to be matched by care on the part of the supporters.

ECI Campaign: Can signature collectors print data input boxes also on the back of the signature forms? And is it then sufficient just to have the ECI title and its registration number at the top of the page?

Mr. Minrath: Yes, that’s OK.

ECI Campaign: ECI organisers are reporting that they are receiving statements by email which have been scanned. Is that ok?

Mr. Minrath: Yes, we have to deal with those, even if we don’t like it.

ECI Campaign: We think the signature form is still overloaded. For example, the address field in the paper form asks signatories to state their country. But the country name is already included in the text at the top of the form. This confuses a lot of people. ECI organisers are telling us that many people are not entering the name of the country in the box. Does this make the signature invalid in your view?

Mr. Minrath: No.

ECI Campaign: How neat the signature has to be can’t be clearly defined. The main thing appears to be legibility – but that depends on who is reading it.

Mr. Minrath: Our appeal to the ECIs – for both our sakes – would be to complete the forms in as optically perfect a way as possible. It’s in everyone’s interest that we don’t have to take a magnifying glass to the form, or have to spend too much time thinking about it. We want to be finished within the legally allotted time frame.

Mr. Schmitz: You are familiar with Annex III and with the signature form proposed for Germany by the Commission. In our view, that proposal leads to problems in filling in the statements of support. In consultation with the Commission and the Federal Interior Ministry, therefore, we developed a form that incorporates the criteria of the Commission and the law, but which makes it easier to enter the data. In doing so, we were thinking of the future use of OCR (Optical Character Recognition) software, which can make it possible for our technical applications to read handwritten data and upload it.

ECI Campaign: Will it be possible for ECI organisers to see exactly how the validation process was carried out – i.e. to see the relevant signature lists with the notes and comments?

Mr. Minrath: That has not been planned.

ECI Campaign: What measures, in your view, should ECI organisers take to ensure that they lose as few signatures as possible on formal grounds?

Mr. Minrath: They can have a look at our website and we are always available to speak to if necessary. That’s why we have already let the current ECIs know that the BVA is the place to come if they have any queries.

ECI Campaign: What’s the situation in other countries? Do you exchange information on the checking procedure? It seems that other Member States are not yet ready to check signatures.

Mr. Minrath: Yes, we meet on an irregular basis every few months or so in Brussels to coordinate specific issues. Our last meeting was in March. At the beginning of January we had a meeting to which people from all the different countries were invited to the German Federal Office of Administration.

ECI Campaign: Is it true that you have developed specific software for checking the statements of support which can also be used in every other EU Member State?

Mr. Minrath: Yes.

ECI Campaign:  The main complaints at the moment from the ECIs have to do with the implementation of the online collection system and its software, which is not functioning properly. This also led to the Commission extending the time allowed for collection to the first ECIs. As your authority has already developed checking software that can be used EU-wide, couldn’t Germany also develop an efficient online collection system that could be made available for the whole EU?

Mr. Minrath: As far as we are aware, the initial problems have now been resolved and the online collection systems are now predominantly fault-free. In addition, the systems are being modified and improved by the Commission in line with the reports, recommendations and fault notifications which the Commission is receiving. So there doesn’t appear to be a need for a new system to be developed. And there are, of course, also economic reasons for not going down that road.

ECI Campaign: Has a procedure already been thought of for reforming the internal processes with the aim of providing a new and improved basis for the legislation?

Mr. Minrath: Yes, but we haven’t begun it yet, because we first have to gain experience of the current system. But in the light of this experience, consideration will be given – in 2015 – as to how we can simplify the procedures and improve them. The ECI Regulation provides for the Commission to report to the European Parliament and the Council on the way the Regulation has been applied.

ECI Campaign: In connection with the signature check, the ECI organisers – in an extreme case – have to contact up to 27 different national authorities to get a certificate on the number of valid signatures. That costs ECI organisers an enormous amount of time and money – which deprives them of valuable resources. In Thuringia, a move has been made to make things easier for the citizens’ initiative organizers by making it possible for them to send their collected statements of support to a single central collection point, which then coordinates the checking by the various local authorities. Would it not be possible to propose such a simplified collection and checking procedure for the entire EU?

Mr. Schmitz: That’s definitely not within the powers of the BVA.

ECI Campaign: Sure, but we mean in principle – from a technical-administrative perspective – on the assumption that the political will for such a move would be there. Are there any insurmountable obstacles to implementing such a system?

Mr. Schmitz: I will have to enquire. Are you thinking of a single EU centre to which all ECIs would send their statements?

ECI Campaign: I think it’s an illusory idea at the moment – but it would be an option.

Mr. Minrath: At the moment the EU Regulation and national law specify that the checks have to take place in the relevant Member States. That makes sense, because the data required to carry out the checks exists only in the individual Member States – though in a great variety of different places and in relation to differing procedures. For that reason I find the suggestion rather far-fetched – at the moment.

ECI Campaign: But if it was only a matter of central coordination, for example? The reporting system in Germany is enormously decentralised, with around 5,200 reporting centres (population registries). It might be sufficient to have one coordination centre – such as in Thuringia – which then passed the statements on to the relevant local reporting centres.

Mr. Schmitz: We are doing that at the federal level in Germany as part of the processing of ECIs.

ECI Campaign: That’s great. Would it not make sense from the point of view of the ECIs to have an analogous procedure at the EU level – without necessarily having a central reporting authority as the German case shows?

Mr. Schmitz: That’s not up for debate at the moment.

ECI Campaign: ECI organisers have to carryout the collection process based on 27 different sets of legal provisions (for validation and appeals), which in the extreme case would have to be decided upon by 27 different court systems. Can you understand that this is very confusing for ECIs?

Mr. Schmitz: Yes, we can appreciate that – but we can’t change it.

ECI Campaign: Do you see any chance of the different legal provisions being simplified?

Mr. Schmitz: That isn’t relevant at this point for us in the BVA. It’s not our job. I think it would be important here for the initiatives to join forces and make a clear statement of the problems as they see them. But ultimately the issue can only be resolved at the EU level by the bodies which are responsible for it.

ECI Campaign: What about the need to simplify the signature form?

Mr. Schmitz: We can appreciate that many people see this signature form as a rather unwieldy instrument. We have to continue to communicate at national and EU levels and – in the light of the experience which have still to gain – clarify what is redundant and can be dispensed with. We have the opportunity – from now till 2015 – to identify and collate the issues and then consider redesigning the procedure.

ECI Campaign: Do you think that the ECI checking procedure could be relevant in the future also for direct-democratic procedures in Germany i.e. initiative rights which can trigger a referendum? (In Brandenburg, for example, there is a debate about introducing online procedures as well).

Mr. Minrath: If federal citizens’ initiatives become possible, and if a similar verification process were to be chosen, the software developed by the BVA could be used. But the system developed by the Commission could also be used for a possible future online collection system. The question of who would be responsible for the cost of any upgrades and who would operate (host) the collection system would of course need to be resolved.

ECI Campaign: Is there anything else you would like to say in relation to the short term?

Mr. Minrath: The bottom line would be that it’s important to say in conclusion: Firstly, we’re very much oriented towards the citizens here and we want to use our discretionary room for manoeuvre. Secondly, because we are citizen-centred and service-oriented, we are very interested in making contact with ECIs. We are proud of having developed the checking software in a very short time and that we managed to prepare ourselves – also in a very short time in organisational terms – for the great flood of support statements. We will cope with that in the 3-month period granted us – there’s no question about that – and the topic has high priority for the BVA. And as our authority is positioning itself increasingly internationally i.e. especially in relation to the EU – it’s a core concern of the BVA to tackle this issue well, sensibly and professionally.

ECI Campaign: Many thanks for talking to us.

The ECI Campaign was represented by Carsten Berg and Elias Bühring in the direct meeting and by Paul Carline who has translated the interview into English. Further information about the ECI can be found on the BVA website.

The European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) “Water is a human right” has reached an important milestone and is very likely to become the first ever successful ECI in history. Already by February 9, 2013 more than a million European citizens, the minimum number of signatories for a successful ECI, had supported the ECI “Water is a Human Right” (see our press release of Feb 9th). According to the organizers this ECI has now also hit the country quorum of at least seven Member States. Sufficient signatures have been collected in Austria, Belgium, Finland, Germany, Luxembourg, Lithuania, Slovakia and Slovenia. See today’s press release by the organizers and an overview of the distribution of signatures as of May 6 on the bottom-line of this up-date.

However, the collection process must continue across Europe in order to counter-balance potentially invalid signatures. Experience with citizens’ initiative rights at the national and sub-national levels have shown that up to 20% of signatures could be invalidated by national authorities due to incomplete or inaccurate information. Before the ECI signatures and statements of support are submitted to the Commission, they have to be certified by the national authorities in each of the Member States where signatures have been collected (a very burdensome procedure for ECI organizers). These authorities are given three months to validate the statements of support. The ECI Campaign Team will interview the German authorities how exactly signatures will be (in-)validated and publish the results on this website. Germany is the country in which most of the ECI signatures – alone in Germany more than 1.2 million – have been collected so far.

Given the institutional problems with the implementation of the new ECI instrument the European Commission had extended the deadline for the first ECIs by half a year (more information here). The “Water is a Human Right” ECI can thus still collect signatures until 31 October 2013.

Once the ECI is submitted to the Commission, the EU’s executive body will have another three months to examine the initiative and to decide how to act on it. Since the ECI is not a binding instrument, the EU institutions are only morally – but not legally – obliged to act on the issue. The ECI organisers will finally have the possibility to present their initiative at a public hearing in the European Parliament. This is expected to take place by the end of the year or the beginning of 2014.

More background:
– Website “Water is a Human Right” at www.right2water.eu
– Website of European Commission featuring all ongoing ECIs:
www.ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative/public/initiatives/ongoing

- A Special Feature: “Right 2 Water Initiative Pioneering the million, targeting transnationality, changing policy” by Carsten Berg ECI Campaign Coordinator
– For more information contact: Carsten Berg berg@citizens-intiative.eu

Distribution of signtures as of May 6:

Organizers as well as citizens complain about the Captcha. The “Captcha doesn’t work on mobile phone and is pointless” and “stops citizens” from signing. The biggest problem at the moment is that the audio version of the Captcha doesn’t work for some people at all and is available in English language only. This implementation not only blocks non-English speakers from signing by using the audio Captcha, but excludes blind people as a whole.

“All items are made fully accessible until you get to the famous Captcha. In other words, as blind user you can get all the information, explanation etc. on an equal basis with others, but before completing the signature procedure you get stuck. The problem is that the audio Captcha gives you an error message when clicking on it. I even tried the English version which is most likely to work, but even there it did not allow me to get any step further. “ writes Lars Bosselmann from the CBM EU Liaison Office. “As you will have understood at this stage, I failed to sign the initiative so could not exercise my right as every other citizen.”

The implementing regulation of the ECI is quite clear: the use of a Captcha is optional and only “one possible verification process” (Annexe 1 of the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1179/2011). Commission technicians responsible for the online collection system refuse to act, ignoring the accessibility problems caused by the English-only and oftentimes non-functioning Captcha.

Together with campaigners and NGOs, activists are currently encouraging, with the help of MEPs, to make the Commission aware of these problems and increase the technical support for the European Citizens’ Initiative. Hopefully these accessibility problems will be resolved as soon as possible so to enable blind and non-English speaking EU citizens to benefit from their rights in the same way other European citizens do.

Written by Jerry Weyer  weyer@citizens-initiative.eu

(!You Find Up-Dated News Below this Post!)

This are good news for ECI Organizers and European citizens. Luxembourg, France, Spain, the Netherlands and Ireland have announced that they will reduce cumbersome data requirements for ECIs. The ECI Campaign has rallied strongly in recent years (see here, here and here) for such reforms in the ECI instrument, i.e., to simplify the signature form and eliminate ID requirements.

For the time being 18 member states currently still oblige their citizens to provide personal identification numbers when signing an ECI. Such intrusive personal data requirements are frequently unnecessary, deter sup­port and raise privacy concerns. Even the European Data Protection Supervisor concluded that it would not be necessary to collect ID card numbers from citizens who wished to support an ECI.

The ECI Campaign thus strongly welcomes the latest developments, in particular in Luxembourg, and urges all remaining 17  member states, still requiring ID numbers, to follow this line. While it was not initially clear if these new rules could be applied to the ongoing ECIs or only to the future ECIs, Gilles Feith from the Luxembourg certification authorities has confirmed today:

“Hence OCS instances hosted by the CE in Luxembourg will be updated (if organizers wish so) as of the moment the new annexes are adopted. Paper forms of the old and new annexes will be accepted for the running initiatives.” For more details and comments of Gilles Feith, check the ECI Facebook posting from April 16th.

This means the ID-number requirement can be dropped in Luxembourg for all running ECIs, once the new annexes are adopted.

However the modification to the annexes will be done only after Croatia joins the EU on July 1st. This is too late for many of the running ECIs to profit from the new rules. Unfortunately the modifications in other countries like Spain and France are only little and remain very user-unfriendly asking for ID numbers:

- France will only slightly reduce the list of ID requirements and add place of residence and date of birth.
- Spain is going to remove the address and will add the NIE [the ID card for foreigners]
- The Netherlands is going to allow Dutch people living abroad to sign.
- Ireland is also reviewing its criteria.

If you have more information to contribute or want to receive more on the issue contact Carsten Berg.

UPDATE ON NEW ECI DATA REQUIREMENTS:

We have received the following from the European Commission indicating that the new data requirement will enter in to force later than expected:

A Commission delegated act is necessary to modify Annex III to the Regulation. The procedure for such delegated act to be adopted and enter into force is described in Articles 16 to 19 of the ECI regulation (in brief: once adopted by the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council have two months to raise objections – the act is published and enters into force only if there is no objection).

Organisers have to wait until this delegated act enters into force before being able to use the new requirements. The entry into force of this act is not related to Croatia’s accession and it is likely to be after 1st July.

 The modifications for Croatia will be made through another act (together with other elements to be adapted in EU legislation) which will enter into force on the day of Croatia’s accession.

The ECI has been in use now for one entire year but its potential has not yet been unfolded. That is why we address our message to the Commission, Council and Parliament: Tear the walls down for participatory democracy and eliminate all the restrictions still inherent in the ECI instrument now. Here are the eight most important proposals for change which we have presented today directly to the Vice-President of the European Commission Maros Sefcovic:

#1 Lengthen the signature collection time to 18-24 months
A longer collection period would allow small organisations to sponsor ECIs, as well as encourage ECIs on important topics that are not yet widely known. Even large organizations sponsoring ECIs on popular topics have difficulty meeting the 12 month deadline.

#2 Remove ID requirements to support an ECI
More citizens throughout the EU would likely use the ECI if personal data requirements were limited to name, address, and perhaps birth date. Although the European Data Protection Supervisor determined that ID card numbers are not necessary for the ECI, 18 member states still require them. This has raised serious privacy concerns and deterred many citizens from supporting an ECI.

#3 Ensure that all EU citizens can support an ECI — regardless of where they live
The ECI is a legal right of EU citizenship. Yet 11 million of the EU citizens who live outside their home country are denied this right – e.g., Irish and Dutch outside the EU, EU nationals in Austria, EU nationals in Luxembourg not registered with the national social security system. National regulations must be changed or a new method created so these EU citizens may support an ECI.

#4 Improve the online signature collection system
Since over 90% of signatures are collected online, the ECI online signature collection system must meet the needs of both campaigners and national administrations. The ideal system would include a single centralized online collection platform hosted on Commission servers (where signatures are stored) and allow all front-end material to reside on individual campaign websites. This would eliminate the expensive risk assessment and duplicate paperwork currently required by each ECI. It would also simplify and reduce costs for certification by national administrations.

#5 Allow ECI campaigns to collect and retain supporters’ contact information
To develop a European public space for dialogue and debate, campaigners must be able to contact past supporters of ECIs. The regulation must therefore be changed to allow ECI supporters to share contact information with and be contacted by campaigns.

#6 Remove the CAPTCHA from the online signature collection website
Removing the CAPTCHA from the online signature collection site would allow thousands of additional EU citizens to support an ECI. It has proven an unnecessary barrier to ECI supporters.

#7 Allow ECIs calling for treaty amendments
ECIs on many of the topics of greatest interest to EU citizens require treaty amendments. Registering these ECIs is vital to engaging more citizens in the EU. Since the Commission itself may propose amendments to treaties, ECIs should also be allowed to propose treaty amendments.

#8 Provide an ECI “help desk infrastructure”
An ECI support infrastructure offering practical and legal advice, logistical assistance, and translation services would allow small citizen groups to use the ECI. Consider also assigning additional EU staff to support the ECI and providing partial cost reimbursement for ECIs with at least 50,000 signatures.

75 Members of the European Parliament have asked the Commission and Council, through an official parliamentary question, to improve the ECI instrument. The ECI Campaign welcomes this initiative as many of our concerns have been addressed and integrated; however, by far not all. Special thanks go to all the ECI organizers who have given their valuable input to these questions. After a first written question by MEP Turmes (which we reported; see here), MEP Häfner has now submitted the following questions which are supported by a large group in the European Parliament from all the different parties.

MEP-Text:

Since 1 April 2012, citizens across Europe have the right to submit their ideas to decision makers on the European level using the European Citizens’ Initiative. However, almost all the registered initiatives keep reporting significant technical and administrative difficulties leading to tremendous delays and unacceptably high costs. Most issues concern the open source software for online signature collection offered by the EC, which is extremely complicated to handle. Assistance remains slow and ineffective. An estimated 11 million EU citizens residing outside their home country are denied their right to support ECIs by some Member States.

• Is the Commission aware of the problems reported by the initiatives and what measures has it undertaken or plans to undertake to solve them?

• Does the Commission plan to extend the assistance with the deployment of the online signature gathering tool also to upcoming initiatives so that fair and equal treatment of all is guaranteed?

• What will the Commission do to improve response times and capacities for problems reported?

• Will the Commission create the necessary infrastructure for answering directly to citizens’ difficulties?

• Will the open source software be re-developed in a truly open procedure using a community approach including proper testing and appropriate documentation?

• What prevents the Commission from establishing one centralized online collection platform that is hosted on Commission servers as the place to store signatures, but that allows all the front-end material – the public forms – to be realised within the individual campaigns’ websites?

• Would the Commission consider revising the implementing regulation before the foreseen deadline in 2015? If yes, how can it be ensured that the experience of the existing initiatives is reflected and the responsible Committees of the European Parliament are fully involved?

• Can the initiatives that have been loaded with the burden of testing and bug fixing the software apply to be reimbursed for their costs?

• Does the Commission have sufficient resources to provide the necessary technical environment and technical support to the initiatives? If yes, by which budget lines are these covered and by which organisational units are they carried out?

• Will Member States consider unifying the requirements for the scrutiny of signatures (both online and in written form), thereby eliminating legal insecurities and creating a level playing field for all citizens?

• What will Member States do to ensure that they are able to check the signatures of all their citizens regardless of their place of residence?

• Will Member States ensure that the design of paper signature gathering forms is citizen friendly and reflects feedback from initiatives?

• Will Member States grant the European Commission the resources it needs to deliver a full and equal support to all initiatives?

• Does the Council intend to establish a single point of contact for the initiatives on matters of the ECI which fall under the responsibility of Member States to avoid organisers having to enquire at 27 (28) different authorities, facing linguistic and bureaucratic hurdles?

Questions to the Commission and the Council on the lessons learnt from one year experience with the implementation of the European Citizens’ Initiative

– Explanatory Statement –

The European Union announced 2013 as the European Year of the Citizens. This is a good occasion to remember that the main goal of all EU Institutions is to serve the citizens and that all legitimacy for our political actions stems from the citizens. It is a good occasion to inquire to what extent the promise for more democratic participation made by the Lisbon Treaty is put into practice and in which way this new legal instrument for citizens´ initiatives has changed the role of and the relationship between EU-citizens and institutions.

One year ago, the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) entered into force as the first transnational instrument of participative democracy. Since April 2012, citizens across Europe have the right to transmit their ideas towards decision makers on the European level in a bottom-up process. Undoubtedly, the ECI has the potential to be a major step towards a more democratic EU. It could foster truly transnational debates, contribute to the emergence of a European public space and strengthen the sense of ownership for EU policy making among Europeans. It is tremendously important, therefore, that the EU institutions undertake all efforts to ensure the functioning and the success of this instrument as well as to encourage citizens to use it.

In practice, however, a large number of technical and administrative shortcomings have caused severe problems and a feeling of disappointment among those citizens who tried to make use of what should be an unbureaucratic and citizen-friendly instrument of participation. Almost all initiatives registered as admissible by the European Commission since 9 May 2012 or tried to do so, reported significant difficulties concerning the legal framework and technical issues:

• The open source software for online signature collection offered by the EC has not been conceived, developed and tested in an open community approach. It has not been tested properly at all. The result is a product that is extremely complicated to handle, full of bugs and very poor in terms of customization possibilities and multilingual capabilities. Organisers of the first ECIs had to spend hundreds of working hours and thousands of Euros to handle this.

• The technical and procedural requirements for certification of an online collection system have been set so strict in the implementing regulation that it consumes an unrealistically high amount of resources which most initiatives cannot afford – irrespectively whether they work with own programmers or try to look for commercial solutions.

• The assistance provided by the Commission to individual initiatives seems to be clearly less than effective. First contact points are too often not familiar enough with the matter. Bug reports are not given the priority they should have. Reaction time for simple questions or bug reports takes often a week or longer; on the Commission’s “Joinup” platform in many cases more than six months.

• The ad-hoc solution that, after seven months of attempts to solve the problems,  the European Commission has offered to the first initiatives – i.e. using a central deployment of the collection software on Commission servers – does not address all problems, but neutralise all the added value of using an open source software. The degree of interoperationability with the initiatives’ own website is close to non-existent. Customization of the online collection forms, even concerning look-and-feel design issues, is not possible. Initiatives can use only the original version of the collection software.

• An estimated 11 Million EU citizens are denied their right to sign, even though this being an inherent part of their citizenship rights guaranteed under the Treaties. Some Member States decline to check signatures of their citizens if they reside outside of their home country. Other Member States refused to cooperate with the Commission on extending the deadline for signature gathering for initiatives with start-up problems they can not be made responsible for.

• The interface of the online collection software does not meet common standards for user-friendliness; it is discouraging and sometimes misleading citizens willing to support an initiative. In some cases, the online signature gathering tool does not allow EU citizens to sign if they do not reside within EU territory; it also does not accept certain number formats of otherwise valid identification document. The way the Commission implemented the security measure that is meant to prevent scripted mass-signing (the “CAPTCHA”) actually prevents a large number of natural persons from supporting an ECI. The Commission has been notified of this problem by the initiatives repeatedly since September 2012, but failed to take action so far.

• Initiatives also reported problems with the design of the form for written signatures that has obviously not been favourable for gathering purposes.

• There is a high level of uncertainty among initiatives on what grounds signatures can be declared invalid by the authorities, even when the identity of the signatory can be clearly defined.

• At this stage, initiatives are requested to respond to all technical and legal difficulties citizens experience when trying to sign their initiatives. It is obvious that it goes beyond their means to find answers on problems that the EU institutions and Member States have created by the legal and practical design of the rule set and the technical tools.

The majority of EU citizens still do not even know the ECI exists. The Commission never promoted the ECI in a comprehensive way. There is not enough staff and not enough money to actively promote it, to provide sufficient and competent assistance, to train the necessary personnel in the institutions involved, and to develop, run and maintain solutions for the online-collection of signatures that work smoothly and citizen-friendly in every digital environment.

There is no time to be wasted. If citizens feel that the institutions have no interest in turning the ECI into an open, functioning communications channel but allow unnecessary bureaucratic and technical hurdles to block it, the effects for its popularity and acceptance could be devastating. This would also mean a long lasting blow to the EU’s already fragile democratic credentials. We need a clear signal of commitment from the institutions towards the citizens now.

As of April 1st the ECI has been in use for one year but its potential has not yet been unfolded. Here you find the ECI Briefing Package of the ECI Campaign and its partners as well as an analysis for the German speaking community by Carsten Berg, general coordinator of the ECI Campaign. 

Lessons and Successes of the “Right2Water” Initiative

The Right2water European Citizens’ Initiatives is a pioneer among the first more than 25 attempts to set the EU agenda. In early February this ECI hit the magic hurdle of one million statements of support. As those signatures must come from a transnational sample, the initiative continues. At the same time it offers an interesting showcase on the options and limits of the new tool.  Read the report by Carsten Berg.

This ECI aims at establishing water and sanitation as a human right and providing water as a public good by keeping it out of the internal market rules. The organizers are against the liberalization of water services in the EU:  “We want the Union to change their mindset from its current focus on competition and a completely market-based approach to a public service attitude and a rights-based approach. It is a ‘natural’ monopoly and must be kept out of internal market rules.”

The European Commissioner for the Single Market, Michel Barnier, has argued that his legislation would not impose the privatization of water, as he recognizes it as a common good. However, he does not plan to exempt water from the internal market rules. In particular his legislation, the so-called “Directive on Concessions”, focuses on granting public bodies the right to tender public services, including water distribution, to private businesses if they want to do so. Given the intense debate on this issue Barnier declared that he would reformulate his proposal, giving more room for public bodies to decide how to deal with water. But the controversial debate continues, while a million citizens want to see the pledge for the protection of water to be waterproofed by having it written into EU law.

Properly fundraised and well prepared ECI

The right2water ECI has been initiated by the European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU) which is an umbrella organization representing more than 270 unions or 8 million public service workers across Europe.
The EPSU didn’t only prepare their campaign plan well in advance; they also fundraised 100,000 EUR before even beginning the campaign – about the amount experts recommend you to start with if you want to conduct a fully-fledged and successful ECI. The funds are used for paid staff and the manifold tasks connected with an ECI, in particular assisting with practical and organizational issues such as translations, the registration, legal expertise, the development of the website, regular newsletters as well as volunteer and signature return management. In addition, further EPSU staff are investing time over the entire collection process which is estimated by the initiative to cost up to 50-80,000 EUR. Moreover, the organizers inspired the creation of new networks that go far beyond EPSU’s own established networks – such as action groups from the environmental, social and health sectors. Political parties also jumped on the train to promote the initiative at regional and national level. For example, the parliament of Andalucía, the most populous region of Spain, voted in favor of supporting this ECI. While it is not easy to calculate and convert into financial terms, it becomes clear that the right2water ECI is strongly backed by a well elaborated network and a wide-ranging infrastructure.

Challenging campaign start

The ECI applied for registration with the EC on the first possible day in April 2012 and was officially registered by the Commission on May 10th, 2012 as the second ECI in history. But even though this initiative had been prepared and financed very well in advance, a lot of patience was required before one could see this ECI taking off. After the first half year, only 3.5% of the necessary signatures had been collected. In contrast to other registered ECIs, right2water first began to collect statements of support in the traditional paper-based way.  However, the figures ultimately speak a clear language about the dominating mode of participation: only about 5% of signatures have been collected on paper and the other 95% of supporters have signed online (see diagram above).

The numbers of supporters are not equally distributed per month – as shown in the table below – but have strongly increased beginning in mid-January 2013 when the European Commission was proposing specific legislation and national mass media, in particular public TV in Germany (see ARD  here + here as well ZDF here), were reporting on the issue as a potential threat to public water quality. However, the table shows that this did not happen uniformly in all European member states, but only in Germany and Austria.

Distribution of signatures (March 12th 2013)

The distribution of signatures by early February 2013 showed a high concentration, with 84% of supporters coming from Germany. The minimum quorum of at least 74,250 supporters has been exceeded there twelve times over, with a total of more than 900,000 collected signatures. Similarly in Austria, where more than 5% of the signatures come from, and where the minimum quorum of at least 14,250 supporters has been exceeded four times with a total of more than 50,000 collected signatures. By February 9th, 2013, when the magic one million target was hit, only Germany, Austria and Belgium had reached the minimum quorum. This implies that this initiative must continue to collect a substantial number of signatures in order to reach the distribution quorum of at least seven member states. The ECI must also continue to collect support to compensate for potentially invalid signatures. In fact, up to 20% of signatures could be invalidated by national authorities as a result of incomplete or inaccurate information.

The online challenge

The initial slow growth of this initiative can be explained by various factors. On the one hand, the water issue was not very well known yet in Europe, with the same being true for the ECI instrument as such. It thus takes a long time to outreach and to communicate the message Europe-wide. But it is not only time that is crucial; the technicalities of the online collection system (OCS) are also decisive. Due to the fact that the OCS didn’t work in the first months, the European Commission had to apologize to ECI organizers, offering all registered ECIs an extension on the collection deadline to November 2013. However, the organizers of this ECI continue to report that even in 2013 thousands of signatures have been lost due to major defects in the online collection system offered by the European Commission.

Legal barriers difficult to overcome

In view of the strict legal framework, the relative success of this ECI is remarkable. Campaigners report that EU citizens living outside their home country often cannot sign initiatives. For example, Dutch citizens living in Austria report that they cannot sign in Austria as they need an Austrian passport or ID card in order to sign. But they also cannot sign in the Netherlands as the Dutch authorities require them to be residing in the Netherlands.    
In addition, citizens are generally reluctant to sign ECIs in countries that require ID or passport details. Eighteen member states ask their citizens for personal identification numbers when signing an ECI. Such requirements are unnecessarily intrusive, raise privacy concerns and deter individuals from engaging in the democratic process. The ECI right2water distribution table shows that more than 95% of statements of support are coming from countries that do not require ID card numbers. This can be interpreted as an unequal treatment of citizens when it comes to participation at European level.

Critical alliance-building

The ‘Water is a Human Right’ initiative is a remarkable example of citizens proposing law through the ECI. Several factors explain its success. The most important one is that the campaign has been very well prepared, fundraised and organized with sufficient time. It has been crucial that it transformed into a broad alliance that goes far beyond the initiating public service unions to include thousands of volunteers and groups such as environmental organizations and political parties. This ECI would not be as successful as it is if it had not been covered by the mass media. The conclusion is that an ECI takes off if it is connected with current issues that have a national impact and are covered by the national mass media. The ECI organizers have succeeded in placing a relatively unknown issue on the European agenda with a new – and for many citizens still unknown – ECI instrument which in many ways is still in its infancy.

This article has been written by Carsten Berg and is part of the ECI Briefing Package.

On April 1st the ECI will have its first formal anniversary; this is a good time to evaluate the first experiences made with the new European Citizens’ Initiative right. We encourage you to put forward your own ideas about what needs to be changed. ECI activists in Luxembourg, for example, have encouraged their MEP Claude Turmes to put the questions below to the European Commission. We encourage you to ask your own MEP to do the same!

MEP Claude Turmes putting his parliamentary question to the Commission:

Subject:  Implementation of the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI)

Nearly one year after the launch of the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI), organisers of such initiatives are reporting numerous technical and legal problems that are preventing citizens from signing an ECI.

1. What specific efforts is the Commission making to respond to citizens’ complaints about problems with the ECI online collection software? How many technical advisers and programmers are currently assigned to answer requests concerning the ‘JoinUp platform’? In view of the large number of complaints, does the Commission plan to increase its efforts to resolve the problems encountered with the ECI software?

2. Will the Commission provide technical and financial aid to organisers who have to develop their own online collection software because of the numerous problems reported with the solution provided by the Commission?

3. What steps is the Commission taking to stop certain groups of EU citizens being excluded from signing ECIs, for example Irish and Dutch citizens living outside the EU or in a Member State that only accepts signatures from its own citizens, or EU personnel who are not registered with the national social security system (as in Luxembourg)?

4. What efforts is the Commission making to include NGOs and campaigners in the development and improvement of the ECI instrument?

5. Citizens of Luxembourg are obliged to enter their social security number in order to be able to sign an ECI. However, the online collection software does not specify in what format users should input the number into this compulsory field. In addition, the field name (‘numéro d’identification national’) is misleading, as citizens normally do not automatically make the connection with the social security number. Indeed, this number is normally referred to as ‘numéro de matricule de la sécurité sociale nationale’. Furthermore, the text labelling this field is only displayed in French, regardless of what language is chosen. When can we expect the Commission to tackle this defect in the online collection software, which is preventing many Luxembourg citizens from signing ECIs?

6. The system currently prevents organisers from adding translations into languages other than the official EU languages, for example Luxembourgish. When will the Commission allow translations of ECIs into languages other than the official languages of the EU?

Source: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+WQ+E-2013-001851+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=DE

The European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI), Europe’s first step toward participatory and direct democracy, is a new tool, created by the Lisbon Treaty, which gives 1 million citizens the right to ask for changes to European law. As of today the ECI ‘Water is a Human Right’, with more than 1 million collected signatures, is the first ECI in European history to have succeeded in collecting a minimum number of signatures.

Jan Willem Goudriaan, organizer and Vice President of the Citizens’ Committee “Water is a Human Right” states:  “Today we have reached an important milestone – one Million EU citizens agree that water and sanitation are human rights! The Right2Water ECI is a success, despite the legal and technical barriers forced upon us by the European Commission and Member States! We appreciate the support of so many and will continue campaigning to pass a strong message.”

While the initiative must continue to collect signatures in order to reach the distribution quorum of at least seven member states, and to compensate for potentially invalid signatures, this is a critical moment in the European integration process.

 “This is an important day for the evolution of European democracy as it appears that citizens want to make use of their new right of initiative which is the first element of transnational participatory democracy in the world” says Carsten Berg, ECI Campaign Director. “The organizers of the ‘Water is a Human Right’ initiative are to be congratulated all the more as they have managed their campaign under extraordinarily difficult conditions. Thousands of signatures have been lost due to important defects in the online collection system offered by the European Commission under the administration of Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič”.

IT specialist Xavier Dutoit, of the NGO Tech to the People, was asked to set up the online collection system for the “Right to Water” initiative: “The software currently offered by the European Commission requires major upgrades and has a long way to go before it fulfills its objectives; the current design cannot even be sufficiently modified without developing new software and certainly does not correspond to 21st century user expectations.” Other ECI organizers among the first 14 filed ECIs have reported similar experiences: “The Online Collection System is unnecessarily complex, and plagued by major programming faults – far more than would normally be expected. This has presented serious obstacles for ECI organizers, who have little in the way of financial or staff resources,” says Heike Aghte, who launched the European Citizens’ Initiative “30 km/h – making the streets liveable!” In order to resolve the wide array of problems connected to the online collection system several IT specialists have even decided to establish an ECI for a user-friendly central public online collection platform.

Technical problems have plagued the ECI; and the strict legal framework has made the success of this initiative remarkable. Campaigners report that EU citizens living outside of the EU cannot sign initiatives and people are generally reluctant to sign ECIs in countries that require IDs. Eighteen member states ask their citizens for personal identification numbers when signing an ECI. Such requirements are unnecessarily intrusive, raise privacy concerns and deter individuals from engaging in the democratic process. While the European Data Protection Supervisor concluded that ID card numbers are unnecessary for the purpose of an ECI, it is nonetheless mandatory in the majority of member states.

While ECI campaigners have regularly been expressing their grievances to both the Commission and the Parliament, reactions to complaints have been slow. The EC Vice-President’s declaration that “collecting signatures for the ECI will be very easy” could be seen as a serious misrepresentation of the situation.

The ECI Campaign insists that these kinds of problems need to urgently be addressed with an inter-institutional working group consisting of all stakeholders including the EC, EP, EESC, ECI organizers and ECI specialists, in order to prepare for the much-awaited ECI framework review and revision, foreseen in 2015.

“We have to eliminate the IT problems when it comes to signature gathering and offer a help infrastructure for ECI organizers. Otherwise only a very few large organizations with their own infrastructure and large budget will be able to run successful ECIs,” says Carsten Berg from the ECI Campaign.

 The ECI Campaign is a coalition of democracy advocates, including more than 120 European NGOs dedicated to the creation and successful implementation of a European citizens’ initiative right. More information Carsten Berg at +49-1764-3064365 or visit www.citizens-initiative.eu.

ECI right2water: Pablo Sanchez, psanchez@epsu.org , 00 32 474 62 66 33 Background information of German Public TV with ENGLISH subtitles

Link to all 15 ECIs registered with the European Commission