OpenLobby.EU
Explore

Centre for European Volunteering (CEV)

CEV

Supporting volunteering in Europe since 1992: The Centre for European Volunteering (Centre européen du volontariat, CEV) is the European network of over 60 organisations dedicated to the promotion of, and support to, volunteers and volunteering in Europe at European, national or regional level. Through our network we work together to promote and support volunteering through advocacy, knowledge sharing and capacity building training. In this way we reach out to the many thousands of volunteers and volunteer organisations who look to volunteer centres a source of support bringing the European dimension to their work. CEV channels the collective priorities and concerns of its member organisations to the institutions of the European Union and the Council of Europe. Together with other European networks active in volunteering we exchange policy, practice and information in order to ensure effective and coherent follow up to European Year of Volunteering 2011 and ensure its legacy.

Lobbying Activity

Response to A strategic vision for sport in Europe: reinforcing the European sport model

3 Dec 2025

We welcome the European Commissions initiative to develop a strategic vision for sport in Europe. Sport has a vital role in social inclusion, civic participation and community cohesion. It is fundamental that quality benchmarked volunteering is recognised and supported as a core component of sport, and that a European Sport Strategy ensures sustainability, recognition, and empowerment of volunteers across all levels of sport. Volunteers and volunteering are vital in sport, especially across grassroots sport initiatives in Europe. The engagement of volunteers fosters social capital, strengthens communities, and promotes the European values of solidarity, democracy, and inclusion. Any strategic vision for sport must place volunteers at its core, recognising them as active participants in shaping the sport ecosystem rather than passive supporters. Recognition, including through certification, skills validation, public acknowledgement and the pathways to career development, is fundamental to ensure the sustainable involvement of volunteers in sports and the progress of the field. It is also fundamental that there is a strengthened investment in sport, through sustainable resources, such as training programmes and other standardised educational frameworks for sport volunteer management, for example. Sport Volunteering is a vehicle for inclusion, and the European Sport Model should ensure that there are structures and strategies in place to ensure the inclusion of women, people with disabilities, ethnic minorities, migrants, and other people with fewer opportunities as volunteers and participants. Inclusive volunteering strengthens the social dimension of sport, ensures equitable access, and contributes to healthier, more cohesive communities. At both European and Member State level, financing of grassroots sport initiatives must be ensured in a structural and sustainable manner to guarantee accessibility, sustainability and the social benefits of sport to the people and communities benefiting from these initiatives. Grassroots sport promotes lifelong participation, supports physical and mental health, and fosters local identity and civic engagement. Strengthening grassroots infrastructure, including local clubs and associations, is crucial to ensuring the long-term sustainability of sport in Europe. In the sport field, like across all other policy areas, effective policy implementation requires a multistakeholder approach, involving public authorities, NGOs, volunteer centres, sports federations and other sport clubs and initiatives. This engagement will contribute to the creation and implementation of frameworks that facilitate volunteering, provide funding and other forms of support, as well as create sustainable networks that ensure training and capacity building of volunteers, as well as best practice dissemination across Europe.
Read full response

Response to EU’s next long-term budget (MFF) – EU funding for cross-border education, training and solidarity, youth, media, culture, and creative sectors, values, and civil society

21 Nov 2025

The Centre for European Volunteering (CEV) welcomes the European Commissions recognition of the essential role played by cultural actors, media stakeholders, and civil society organisations in strengthening European democracy. We welcome the substantial increase in the programmes overall budget and the maintenance of clearly identifiable thematic strands. We support the five-fold increase of the CERV+ strand, which represents a meaningful step in supporting a more resilient civic space across the EU. CEV is, however, concerned with the merger of Creative Europe and the CERV programme within a single overarching framework. While we recognise the intention to promote synergies across culture, media, and civic participation, the rationale, methods, and budget for cross-strand collaboration are not detailed, which raises concerns about whether these activities will each be adequately supported. The European Commission must ensure that under AgoraEU, cross-strand actions must be funded robustly and transparently. While we support the thematic priorities of the CERV+ strand, including the presence of new topics related to the Democracy Shield and the Civil Society Strategy, we underline that the scope of the democratic participation and rule of law article shall also include the activities currently funded under the citizens engagement and participation strand of CERV, such as town twinning, and representative associations participation in and contribution to the democratic and civic life of the Union, or the full breadth of the initiatives related to remembrance. We welcome the mention of the protection of Human Rights Defenders, and plead for a specific mechanism to protect those within the EU. The cancellation of the Civil Dialogue Group, compared to the previous CERV regulation, is a concern, as the involvement of civil society and grantees in strategic reflection on the programmes is crucial for maximising the impact of the programmes and contributing to the implementation of art.11 TEU, establishing the principle of a structured dialogue between institutions and civil society organisations. We are also concerned about the disappearance of any direct reference to volunteering as an activity, objective or eligible action, as opposed to the current CERV programme, which explicitly lists volunteering as a supported activity and a legitimate form of democratic participation. Even though volunteering is a practical expression of the European values of equality, inclusion, solidarity and democracy, and actively contributes to social cohesion, active citizenship and participation, none of the articles in the newly proposed regulation for AgoraEU mentions volunteering. CEV urges the European Commission to explicitly recognise and address volunteering in the newly proposed AgoraEU, to give continuity to what has been achieved through Regulation 2021/692, in alignment with Article 11 TEU on participatory democracy, and as a recognition of volunteering as a key mechanism for democratic engagement, solidarity, and active participation. The streamlining of the re-granting mechanism for the entire AgoraEU programme is an encouraging sign, as it would also allow grassroots organisations to benefit from the programme through established cultural and civil society organisations acting as intermediaries. We welcome the recognition of civil societys key role in holding institutions accountable and driving positive change. While the list of eligible activities is not specified yet, it will be crucial for democracy that CERV+ continues to support CSOs advocacy and watchdog activities.
Read full response

Response to EU’s next long-term budget (MFF) – EU funding for external action

5 Nov 2025

We welcome the substantial increase in funding for external action under the Global Europe Instrument, albeit with caution, as the flexibility principle of this new MFF could make it easy to shift funding from one priority to another, hence decreasing funding for external action. However, we stress the importance to ensure an ambitious and fixed share of funding of the instrument will comply with official development assistance (ODA) standards, without the possibility for the Commission to unilaterally modify the ODA target. We propose 93% as the percentage of such a fixed share. While we understand the geographical angle of the Global Europe Instrument, more clarity is needed on how the accession countries will be able to specifically benefit from the fund, as no specific envelope is dedicated for accession. In addition, we are concerned by the lack of funding allocated to regions where needs are the greatest, such as sub-Saharan Africa. This concern is reinforced by the fact that, according to the flexibility principle, funding could be shifted very easily from one region to another, damaging the predictability of funding. Furthermore, the alignment of external action priorities to the political and economic objectives of the EU must not reduce the international partnerships and development dimension to the EU's economic interests. A careful balance between flexibility and predictability of funds will be crucial, with the right safeguards in place. These should include a commitment by the Commission to annual humanitarian and development budgets, and concrete guarantees to ensure that humanitarian principles and development aims - not political priorities - are the starting point for all external action. It would be important for the Global Europe instrument to specifically refer to the European Consensus on Development and its principles and commitments as one of its main guiding frameworks. Additionally, a new integrated Fragility Framework should guide the implementation of the Global Europe instrument in fragile and conflict-affected contexts, enabling the EU to clearly outline how it will deploy a differentiated approach in FCAS and allowing for more joined-up work across humanitarian, development and peace actions. We are also concerned about the lack of targets to ensure funding from the instrument will be dedicated to key areas that are crucial to achieve sustainable development. In this context, we support the establishment of spending targets on human development, gender equality, inequality, disability, climate, biodiversity. We also underline that there should be a ceiling for migration policies, to avoid the topic sideline the other objectives. We support the renewed commitment to civil society support and involvement in the programme, including the scheme to support human rights defenders. However, with civil society support no longer being covered by a dedicated thematic programme nor anchored in the core text, it will be important to guarantee dedicated funding, or else CSO support risks becoming invisibilised, diluted and deprioritised.
Read full response

Response to EU’s next long-term budget (MFF) – performance of the EU budget

5 Nov 2025

The next MFFs Performance Framework is an attempt at simplification, which, however, eliminates some of the key features of the shared management programmes in the current MFF, namely the thematic enabling conditions. The new performance framework aims at simplifying the different indicators existing in the current MFF via a streamlined set, whose structure clearly resembles that of those used for the National Recovery and Resilience Plans. It is, indeed, a performance framework tailored for the National and Regional Partnership Plans. We welcome the mainstreaming of the Do no significant harm principle (DNSH) and of gender equality across most of the MFF. It is important that the guide issued by the Commission is compliant with the taxonomy regulation, that it does not classify certain activities as automatically compliant, and that it is prepared in consultation with stakeholders/civil society. We recommend taking inspiration from the UN Do no harm principle and the EU DNSH technical guidance (C(2023) 6454. Its implementation should be reviewed regularly by the EP/co-legislator. The same would apply to the oversight of the specific indicators under the performance framework. Concerning the performance indicators, they should more explicitly track policy goals that relate to European public goods, such as climate, social cohesion or biodiversity. This would enhance the visibility of spending and guarantee their political relevance. While mainstreaming gender equality across most of the MFF is important, the removal of gender equality targets, in particular, in the new Global Europe Instrument raises questions of accountability. The commitment to mainstream gender equality is not enough to actually achieve this, and it should come with concrete tools, such as gender equality targets in the Global Europe instrument, as was the case in the NDICI, to ensure accountability. The performance framework, however, is not equivalent to the enabling conditions that exist in the current MFF, as the latter need to be fulfilled before the application of the programme, while the former focuses on the execution of the programmes. The enabling conditions, typical of the shared management programmes, are also present in the regulation laying down the National and Regional Partnerships. In the new proposal, only two horizontal conditions remain: the Rule of Law and the Fundamental Rights Charter (whose strengthening via the targeted freezing of EU funds linked to a breach of them we welcome), while other horizontal conditionalities disappear. For instance, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with disabilities (UNCRPD), a horizontal enabling condition in the current Common Provision Regulations for Shared Management Funds, is cited only in a recital, being subsumed under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Furthermore, the thematic enabling conditions completely disappear, which have been an important tool to align national and regional policies to EU objectives and targets. Finally, we call for a bigger and more autonomous budget that would allow us to sustain civil society effectively while enforcing enabling conditions effectively. The EU budget must remain a tool for enhancing democracy and solidarity, and with this in mind, it must provide multiannual, consistent, and flexible support for civil society organisations, including coordinating and umbrella networks such as Volunteer Centres and Platforms. A strong and autonomous EU budget would enable the Union to effectively sustain CSOs and volunteer-based and volunteer-led EU Values-based initiatives, thereby strengthening the European public sphere and democratic participation.
Read full response

Response to EU’s next long-term budget (MFF) – EU funding for competitiveness

5 Nov 2025

We understand the clustering of several current MFF programmes into a single European Competitiveness Fund as a way to support the industrial development and technological sovereignty of the European continent. We underline, however, how a key recommendation from the Draghi report to reach these goals, namely European common debt to finance investments in European public goods, has not been included in the MFF proposal. Furthermore, the inclusion of part of the LIFE programme in the Competitiveness Fund results in the disappearance of the only programme specifically dedicated to nature and biodiversity: the new strand in the Competitiveness Fund will focus only on economically oriented projects, and the so-called LIFE actions are too vague and cannot replace the ambitions of the LIFE Programme. This also makes the EU budget less understandable and readable by citizens. Also, it gives the impression that the EU, despite its international commitments and its wide-reaching legislation on environment setting a model, no longer considers this as a priority. We are critical of the lack of involvement of civil society in the design and implementation of the Competitiveness Fund. We understand the possibility of individuals coming from civil society to be involved in the Stakeholder Board - we urge a broader, organisational participation of civil society in the Board, as well as the involvement of civil society in the Committees linked to the Competitiveness Fund. We are glad that Horizon Europe remained a self-standing programme. While we understand the linkage with the Competitiveness Fund and appreciate the mainstreaming of Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH), the framework that would ensure the linkage between Horizon Europe and the Competitiveness Fund is not clear. Furthermore, it is not clear what space fundamental research and research in SSH not linked to competitiveness will have - we underline how fundamental research and SSH must be clearly supported beyond the competitiveness framework. We are also critical about the lack of stakeholder and civil society involvement in the design and implementation of Horizon Europe, setting a step back from the current programme.
Read full response

Response to EU’s next long-term budget (MFF) – EU funding for civil protection, preparedness and response to crises

5 Nov 2025

We welcome the EUs strengthened commitment to civil protection, preparedness, and crisis response under the proposed MFF 2028-2034 in face of the increasing frequency and complexity of natural, technological, and societal crises and their demand for coordinated, inclusive and sustainable responses, that integrate civil society organisations (CSOs) and, in particular, the voluntary sector given the necessity that volunteers are mobilised across Europe in the face of these challenges. We support the inclusion of specific capacity-building actions for civil society organisations, especially those that engage volunteers under the Union Civil Protection Mechanism. This is particularly important because CSOs represent a vital component of Europes preparedness and resilience infrastructure as the first responders, trusted community intermediaries, and partners in recovery and rebuilding efforts. To ensure that civil society is meaningfully included, the Union Civil Protection Knowledge Network must be strengthened both in resources and governance. It is fundamental that a whole-of-society approach is considered and that CSOs are involved in management and advisory structures. This model should be replicated across Member States to ensure the development of a whole-of-society approach at the national level as well. This would create a cohesive, multi-level infrastructure, involving CSOs, volunteers and other volunteer-involving initiatives, capable of responding rapidly and inclusively to crises, while reinforcing trust and collaboration among institutions and communities. It is important that civil society is supported in this context, including through the provision of operating grants and dedicated action funding for CSOs (at local, national and EU levels) that work on civil protection and preparedness. Long-term, sustainable funding is necessary to maintain stable organisational capacities and invest in volunteer training. It is vital that the role and contribution of volunteers in this field is explicitly recognised as a fundamental expression of European solidarity and social cohesion. A whole-of-society approach to preparedness and resilience instruments is very welcome and should be mainstreamed across all funding instruments related to crisis management, to guarantee that local communities, CSOs, and volunteers are involved and considered equal partners of the efforts. The resilience of communities across Europe requires local ownership. A whole-of-society approach strengthens not only operational capacities but also democratic legitimacy, social cohesion, and civic engagement. On crisis response, we also support the built-in flexibility of the MFF via the Flexibility Instrument and the Single Margin Instrument. We also commend the creation of a permanent programme on common borrowing to support Member States in times of crisis. However, we underline that this and CatalystEU under the NRPPs are loan programmes: while they try to respond to the problem of repayment of the debt (which is already affecting the proposed MFF), making it self-sustainable, debt-aversion attitudes and the new Fiscal Framework might limit the willingness of Member States to use such a mechanism, therefore limiting its impact. We also underline how no common debt instruments proposed under the current MFF fulfil the Draghi reports call for a common EU debt to finance the investment in European public goods.
Read full response

Response to EU’s next long-term budget (MFF) – implementing EU funding with Member States and regions

28 Oct 2025

We criticise the merger of the shared management funds under a single, nationally centralised programme (the National and Regional Partnerships plans - NRPPs): it is a cut in the overall spending for agriculture, social and territorial cohesion. 14% of the NRPPs should go to social policies, amounting to around 121 billion (excluding the loans), which is less than the current ESF+ considering inflation, the broader scope of the social objectives in the new Performance Framework, and that other shared management instruments in the current MFF had to comply with the European Pillar of Social Rights. The funds for the NRPPs diminish constantly from year 1 to year 7, and it is not clear if it is linked to the logic of disbursement of the 7-year NRPPs. The NRPP regulations do not maintain explicit earmarking for social objectives (e.g., 25% for social inclusion, 5% for child guarantee). The new budget tracking system does not enforce minimum allocation, risking underfunding of social priorities. The centralisation under a single national programme, negotiated with the Commission and approved by the Council, sidelines the Parliament. The centralisation also risks undermining the localised approach of current EU shared-management funding mechanisms, which have been instrumental in addressing specific regional challenges through tailored interventions. We support the mainstreaming of the partnership principle for the elaboration and monitoring of the whole NRPPs, as well as the annual meeting of the European stakeholders involved under the partnership principle to monitor the implementation of the NRPPs. However, the timing of the drafting of the plans, which must be presented by January 2028, with a first draft by June 2027, leaves very little time to involve stakeholders, as well as regional and local authorities. This can lead to controversial reforms being carried out as part of the plans, due to the possible vagueness of the commitments under the NRPPs, as it was the case for the NRRPs. We also criticise that Member States can exempt border management and internal security from the partnership principle. Differently from the current MFF, only two horizontal thematic enabling conditions remain: the Rule of Law (RoL) and the Fundamental Rights. For instance, the United Nations Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities (UNCRPD), a horizontal enabling condition in the current MFF, is cited only in a recital, subsumed under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. This may mean no structured safeguards to ensure that funds are used effectively for social inclusion, deinstitutionalisation, or UNCRPD implementation. The thematic enabling conditions completely disappear, which have been an important tool to align national and regional policies to EU objectives and targets. We look favourably to the strengthening of the Rule of Law (RoL) and Fundamental Rights Charter horizontal conditions, the linkage between failure to implement RoL and Fundamental Rights recommendations and the freezing of parts of the funds under the NRPPs can be a powerful tool to strengthen the RoL conditionality, as well as the programmes providing agreed support to RoL reforms. The proposal to recommit the frozen funds to other programmes in support of civil society under direct management is welcomed. However, if the idea for such recommitment is to mitigate the impact on civic space of the freezing of the funds, then a linkage between such recommitment and expenditures for the affected Member State should be established. Similarly, the suspension of funds can also affect regional chapters, when the regions themselves are not responsible for the reasons that lead to the suspension. We welcome the possibility of operating grants to civil society under the EU Facility; however, it must be clarified that such grants shall be given under direct management, to ensure that they are not subject to political manipulations by Member State authorities.
Read full response

Response to EU Civil Society Strategy

4 Sept 2025

Civil society, including CSOs and volunteers, is a vital pillar of European democracy. It promotes human rights, the rule of law, and active citizenship, ensuring diverse community representation and participation. By connecting citizens with governments, civil society directly benefits people, communities, and vulnerable groups, especially during crises, where volunteers are crucial. CEV welcomes the ECs proposal of an EU Civil Society Strategy, and the acknowledgement of the role of civil society as an essential partner in shaping and implementing EU policies. CEV considers this particularly relevant in face of the democratic backsliding and shrinking civic space in the EU which has direct consequences on the healthy functioning of civil society organisations and, in turn, of healthy and vibrant democracies. In the face of this growing polarization and shrinking civic space we reiterate the importance of recognizing volunteering for the role it plays in strengthening democratic resilience, civic engagement, and social cohesion and believe it should be approached as a strategic priority for the European Union and a horizontal focus within the EU Civil Society Strategy.An engaging and well-rounded civil society strategy must, therefore, consider the needs of the field and the experiences of civil society actors to be able to benefit the sector and contribute to better inclusion, resilience and healthier democracies.Key initiatives we expected to be included in and fostered through the Civil Society Strategy include: Carry out a systematic civic space impact assessment across all legislative and regulatory proposals, to ensure that all EU policies support rather than restrict civic space including that for formal and informal volunteers. Develop clear EU guidelines outlining both legal and non-legal actions to prevent and respond to civic space deterioration, including structured engagement with national & regional authorities. Develop a comprehensive, multi-layered EU protection system for Human Rights and Environmental Defenders and Civil Society Organisations. Providing timely legal, financial, psychosocial, and digital security support to defenders and CSOs under attack. This system should be independent, sustainable, and rooted in human rights standards, with rapid response capacity and follow-up for systemic reform. Ensure strong and structural support for civil society in the new MFF through directly managed funding programmes dedicated to civil society and strengthening civic space. Increase the overall funding allocation to Operating Grants, improve their accessibility, explicitly include advocacy as a legitimate activity, and simplify their functioning procedures. Develop a binding Agreement on Civil Dialogue between the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to establish regular structured practices of engagement of independent civil society across all stages of the policy cycle. Include specific provisions dedicated to civil dialogue within the Better Regulation toolbox, to ensure the European Commissions engagement with civil society is meaningful and result-oriented. Structure the upcoming Civil Society Platform as a mechanism to support systematic, transversal and vertical dialogue between the EU Commission and values-based civil society organisations and strengthen civic participation in shaping the political agenda. Encourage Member States to develop formal, transparent, and inclusive civil society engagement frameworks to strengthen civil dialogue and participation mechanisms at the national level Develop recommendations for an enabling environment for civil society at national level. Remove obstacles to cross-border cooperation of non-profit organisations and foundations in the single market, guaranteeing them freedom of establishment and free movement of goods, services and capital. The European Cross-Border Association Directive would be an important first step.
Read full response

Meeting with Sunčana Glavak (Member of the European Parliament)

1 Jul 2025 · European Solidarity Corps

Response to European Democracy Shield

23 May 2025

Volunteering Organisations wish to collaborate with EU institutions to ensure the European Democracy Shield (EDS) is a credible, effective, and inclusive response to democratic challenges. We welcome the EDS as a crucial tool in honouring the EUs commitment to safeguarding democracy, the rule of law, and fundamental rights, essential for a thriving EU. The EDS must reflect volunteers experiences, and contributions and, recognizing their vital role in healthy democracies. The EDS must actively and meaningfully involve volunteer-involving and volunteer infrastructure organisations as essential partners from its beginning through implementation, ensuring genuine co-creation and shared responsibility. The EDS presents a significant opportunity to firmly secure, safeguard, and proactively protect democracy. This protection must extend to a dedicated and sustained investment in, and the robust safeguarding of volunteers in the European civic space. This commitment should manifest not only in supportive rhetoric but also in concrete actions, including the development and implementation of necessary legislative proposals aimed at bolstering civic freedoms and ensuring the operating space for volunteers as part of democratic collaborative communities. A strengthened European Solidarity Corps is a key component of this. Furthermore, the EDS should actively seek to build strong synergies and complementarities with the upcoming European Strategy for civil society, ensuring a coherent and comprehensive approach that supports the volunteering sector. In this context, the EDS should demonstrably: Promote a safe and enabling space for volunteering as a key pillar for democracy, cohesion, participation and civic engagement. Provide direct and accessible support to volunteers including through structural (not project based), long-term, funding. Enable a strengthened civil dialogue for volunteers through participatory structures at EU and MS levels. A mechanism such as the EDS must be both robust and inherently flexible. This adaptability is essential to allow the EDS to effectively adjust and respond to the constantly evolving and increasingly complex realities. This is particularly relevant in the face of the democratic backsliding observed in various parts of Europe but also in the context of the growing frequency and severity of both natural and human-made crises, which often disproportionately impact vulnerable populations and require the active engagement of volunteers in response and recovery efforts. We emphasize that the EDS must operate with unwavering transparency and be demonstrably actionable including in the development and effective implementation of early warning systems, designed to identify and flag emerging threats to democracy, with the active involvement and cooperation of volunteering organisations in their design and operation. Volunteers have a vital role regarding the significant threats posed by the proliferation of mis- and disinformation. We emphasise the importance of ensuring that response mechanisms designed to counter these threats are carefully crafted and implemented in a way that does not inadvertently jeopardize the fundamental rights and freedom of association of volunteers. Democracy encompasses far more than the holding of free and fair elections and the guarantee of freedom of expression. It is equally necessary for fundamental democratic and EU values to be actively upheld, promoted, and celebrated, and for meaningful and inclusive citizen participation through volunteering in democratic processes to be actively encouraged and facilitated. Investing in the strengthening of democratic culture at all levels of society, including through increased values-based volunteering is essential for building long-term societal resilience to both internal and external threats to democratic values and institutions.
Read full response

Meeting with Olga Panagopoulou (Cabinet of Commissioner Piotr Serafin) and European Environmental Bureau and

4 Mar 2025 · Presentation of the views of Civil Society Europe on the issue of funding of NGOs, following the concerns raised in the EP CONT Committee in the context of the annual discharge procedure.

Meeting with Miriam Lexmann (Member of the European Parliament)

10 Sept 2024 · Volunteering initiatives in Slovakia

Response to Ex-post evaluation REC and EfC programmes (2014-2020) and interim evaluation CERV programme (2021-2027)

19 Sept 2023

The CERV programme is essential to support a more democratically active population and in supporting citizens to implement EU Values through volunteering. This takes place in a context of shrinking civic space and challenges to the rule of law across Europe. Supporting volunteers in addressing societal needs while also focussing on promoting gender equality and the inclusion of discriminated and marginalised groups is an essential role for the CERV programme. It also contributes to addressing gaps in funding at member state level in all these areas especially through the regranting mechanism reinforcing democracy and active participation through volunteering at the local level. We firmly believe in the need not only to continue the programme, but also to further reinforce it. It is the only EU funding provision ideally suited to co-financing of European Civil Society networks focussed on active participation and volunteering, other possibilities are extremely limited. The scope of the programme is far reaching and addresses key challenges in the areas of equality, participation as well as EU rights and values. The recent European Parliament report on shrinking civic space in Europe, the 2022 EC annual report on fundamental rights focusing on civic space, as well as the Council Conclusions have shown that there is a need to further enhance this dimension notably in the strand on citizens engagement. Beyond citizens participation there is a need to focus specifically on civil dialogue and integrate dedicated support for the establishment of a two-way process between institutions at all levels and civil society organisations, as part of the implementation of article 11. Innovative actions to support dialogue with civil society should be supported, including engagement with volunteers and not only paid staff in this context. Another important element is the promotion of citizenship education which should be wider than just addressing disinformation and support the concepts of Service learning and volunteering in general in order to promote a culture of active citizenship and support social inclusion and greater social cohesion. A key element of the programme is the Civil Dialogue Group which should be ensured through the setting up of a task force with civil society organisations that would define a work programme with topics for discussion. It should benefit from lessons learnt from the previous Europe for Citizens programme civil dialogue. The involvement of non-EU civil society organisations representatives participation in CERV activities should be allowed, with priority for candidate or associated countries independent of their government participating in the programme given the decision of the European Commission to extend the rule of law process to candidate countries. A reconsideration of the possibility to hold CERV co-financed events in Non-EU countries especially Candidate countries should be looked at with urgency. Excessive administrative burden and red tape is an issue with EU funding and CERV is no exception. The application and reporting process should be simplified, to make EU funds under CERV more accessible and efficient for the organisations involved, enabling a greater focus on outreach and capacity building rather than on internal adminstrative issues.
Read full response

Meeting with Ilana Cicurel (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

6 Jun 2023 · Implementation of the CERV programme - Meeting with the Director of the European Volunteer Centre

Meeting with Michaela Šojdrová (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur) and European Youth Forum and

23 May 2023 · European Solidarity Corps