The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the ECI implementation and future topics

Addressing the recent COVID-19 pandemic, the European Union has found its self in an unfamiliar form of crisis management. The actions that were executed by the EU member states lacked supervision and coordination; therefore, did not assure all commitments of the member states were well respected. We must construct consistent and binding procedures for all member states of the European Union, in case of such. It is essential to institute a common platform in order to avoid violations of human rights, notably focusing on cybersecurity and the right to privacy. This must be undergone with the aim to assure the security, personal data protection, and values the European Union stands for since its creation. It is fundamental to create a legislative tool that member states can refer to when assuring its citizen's rights and in case of breach will be penalized. In this context, we are addressing states that have declared an emergency situation defined by the Art. 5 of the Constitutional Act no. 227/2002 Coll; where the circumstances under which the state of emergency was declared were clearly unjustified, i.e. Slovakia. States are therefore acquiring exceptional rights over their population; that is to say, monitoring of its citizens residing within a given territory through telecommunications and private companies. As we do not have to further develop, this raises many questions concerning human rights in regard to European citizens. The measures must concern both private and professional activity, which is currently highly concentrated within the cyberspace. This concerns programs such as Zoom that are rapidly rising in popularity; even though, security professionals warn the lack of default settings as not safe. That is to state one example of many. Emphasizing the necessity to act, the European Union must be prepared to assure the security of its citizens while respecting human rights in case of the second wave of COVID-19 or any other possible pandemic.   

In theory the ECI would seem to be a wonderful way to encourage citizen participation, in that it enables a group of citizens to ask the European Commission to prepare a legislative proposal on a specific issue of interest to them. However, even before the COVID-19 pandemic, it received a lot of criticism.

Firstly, citizens have to invest a lot of time and effort in their projects, and there is very little prospect of a successful outcome. The figures show that although quite a lot of projects are accepted for registration, very few go on to have a legislative follow up by the European Commission. There is also a lack of transparency at the initial stage because the examination of the project takes place behind closed doors. Even when the project is successful and obtains one million signatures, the Commission is not obliged to take legislative action; in fact, there is no particular pressure on it produce legislation. The whole process is very slow and cumbersome and can take up to two years because of the various stages involved (the collection of signatures takes a year).

One improvement would be to simplify the collection of signatures so that it is quicker and less complicated to set up. Another measure, which has been proposed by Carnegie Europe, in order to put more pressure on the Commission to take action, would be hold hearings and debates in the national parliaments and the European Parliament at a much earlier stage in the procedure. This would also promote the ECI and publicise the very interesting projects that had been put forward but that the public was completely unaware of. Furthermore, given that coronavirus pandemic has impacted all sectors and made it more difficult to coordinate the preparation of a project, a special more flexible procedure should be put in place in crisis situations.

Under Article 1 of Regulation (EU) 2019/788 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019, on the European citizens' initiative, EU citizens are empowered to petition the European Commission to submit a legislative proposal on any EU-related matter, which they feel needs addressing. In order for an initiative to be admitted by the Commission, ECI organizers must obtain at minimum one million signatures (Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2019/788). 

With the current COVID-19 pandemic, however, it has become increasingly difficult (if not impossible) for ECI organizers to carry out their campaigns and obtain signatures on paper (Council of the EU, 2020). 

In an effort to remedy the situation, the European Commission has submitted a proposal in which it proposes, among other things, to extend the collection period by 6 months (ibid, 2020). 

In addition to the Commission's proposal, I would suggest that campaigning be carried out online. Concretely, ECI organizers could use social media platforms (such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Youtube, etc.) along with video-conferences to promote their initiatives and discuss ideas. I would also suggest that the collection of signatures be conducted electronically (at least until the situation reverts back to "normal").

While this will in no way replace campaigning in person, it is the best viable option available in that it preserves citizens' right to freedom of expression.

That being said, the EU will have to remain vigilant. While digitalisation may have its perks (its rapid and efficient), it can also pose some issues such as misinformation, hacking, identity theft, etc., which could violate fundamental rights as enshrined in the European Declaration of Human Rights (1950).

The ECI is a great method for European citizens to voice their concerns and discuss crucial topics that matter to them; in theory, it unites people to bring up a particular subject and, with enough signatures, can go to the European Commission for further development. However, due to the latest Covid-19 pandemic, there have been a lot of delays and obstacles that have ‘stopped’ this process. 

Many state that the ECI was receiving criticism long before the pandemic. With issues such as lengthy processes, lack of transparency and even uncertainty to implement changes once the legislation reaches the European Commission. The early stages alone require a lot of time and effort to initiate a legislation, with a very low success rate of the legislation going through. In addition, the wait period to receive signatures is one year and the remaining actions can take up another year. Moreover, the examination / discussion of the legislation is not publicised while it’s taking place and thus does not provide any transparency for the people. All of these major issues were not only present but had a major impact on the ECI and its forum before the pandemic. Therefore, the situation has only worsened since Covid-19. 

It has been highly difficult for people to carry out their programs and be able to potentially implement European legislation, as well as near impossible to receive votes. However, with the Europeans Citizens initiative 2.0, it is now easier to sign initiatives online with very few personal data to provide. I strongly recommend the development of the online forum, facilitating the entire process, from beginning to end. As well as establishing a strong social media presence that is easily accessible to all Europeans. Lastly, all the issues raised by the pandemic, specifically in regards to human rights and peoples’ privacy, should be heavily focused on in the upcoming time period.

In order to address the effects of the Coronavirus pandemic on the implementation of the European Citizens’ Initiative, and provide meaningful commentary among the excellent contributions of my colleagues, I've opted to look at its recent past. 

The ECI conceptually represents the degree of vertical integration in policy making which the European Union aims to approach. It is considered the “first transnational tool of participative democracy”. At least in theory, the ECI is a testament to the EU’s success in its massive undertaking of conglomerating governance on a continental level while maintaining and promoting democratic and pluralistic values. In practice, however, the ECI has as of yet been a magnet for criticisms from activists as well as establishmentarians. These frustrations are very lucidly illustrated in this 2015 interview with EU parliamentarian (at the time) György Schöpflin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYr3t9Yhrqk). “Failure might be a little too harsh,” Mr. Schöpflin says in the interview, “but it’s not been a success”. This is attributed commonly to the restrictions detailed in the other contributions on this thread.

Much to the credit of the EU and the ECI, many of the criticisms that Mr. Schöpflin and the activists featured in the video had for the program were addressed in a major 2020 reform of the ECI’s platform. The initiative, dubbed “ECI 2.0”, was launched on 1 January 2020. The platform came with a simplified registration mechanism and the inclusion of the Forum to foster a greater level of engagement and discussion with regards to the ECI (changes to registration & signature collection phases as well as an eventual change in the trend of topics as guided by the forum) These modifications are potentially groundbreaking, so attempting to measure or qualify whether or not they have been effective so soon after their implementation is a challenge, even before taking the current crisis into consideration. In addition, due to the circumstances imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic, the EU has not been able to promote and workshop this new platform as well as hoped. (illustrated by the 6 March 2020 event on the “ECI 2.0” upgrade which has been delayed until further notice; https://citizens-initiative.europa.eu/conference-european-citizens-initiative-20-design-engage-impact_en)

This opens some new questions as well; How can the EU catalyse the implementation and adoption of the new “ECI 2.0” in the post-COVID-19 climate? Can the EU include some of the reform suggestions made by others in this thread (social network campaigning and online signature collections etc..) into the “ECI 2.0” project or a similar reform initiative in the near future?

The start of 2020 was for many of us a joyful event, filled with hope for the decade to come. For European Citizens the health crisis started in the province Wuhan was far from their concerns until they had to face reality and the importance of this sanitary crisis. From now on 2020 is inherent form Covid-19. In May EU leaders decided to present a proposal for a recovery plan of a short term reinforcement of 750billion euros in the EU budget and a revised long-term budget. The response from the European Union focuses on four different priorities: limiting the spread of the virus, proving research for the treatments and vaccines, ensuring the provision of medical equipment and supporting jobs, businesses, and finally the economy. What about the European Citizens Initiative (ECI), we have already been temporarily deprived to a certain extend of our freedom of movement, is effective participatory democracy going to be negatively impacted by the crisis? Being a key feature of the section on the participatory democracy of the Lisbon Treaty, the ECI allows EU citizens to identify a common issue and call for action.

The basic framework for ECI is laying down in Article 11(4) TEU and Article 24(1) TFEU details the general principles of the procedures and conditions. In 2020 the Commission aimed to developed further the ECI and make the procedure more accessible. However, with the sanitary crisis, the collection of signatures seems to be complicated as well as the acceptance of the project since the European Union has priorities linked with the current crisis. The 2020 initiative to boost the ECI already extends the dateline for the signatures collection of six months but with limited contact, this might not be enough. However, in a digital age, we should take advantage of the technologies available. This would enable greater visibility and can enhance the transparency of the process as well as be more accessible.

An important change that Covid-19 could bring is regarding the ECI is the initiatives. Indeed, in the proposal made by the European Parliament and Council, it is stated that the new initiatives have to be related to the effect caused by the Covid-19.

Since 2011 only four initiatives have been successfully approved, which shows the importance to make it more accessible.

COVID-19 has had a huge impact on the way the EU and the world functions, it has had a severe impact on our human rights and freedom. As much as these last few months have been filled with negative events, it has also allowed us to realise which topics need immediate attention. The ECI and the European Union have been focusing on a vast majority of subjects including important subjects such as climate change but other important subjects such as privacy have not had the attention deserved. Throughout lockdown privacy became a sensitive subject as phone tracking and unsecured online conference calls were introduced.

Many countries inside and outside the European Union have used app tracking technology to fight Covid-19, some even sharing information with each other such as the United States of America sharing data collection with Germany and Italy. The debate between ensuring the health of the EU citizens and their privacy is a long and complicated debate. I included this topic in the discussion as it is an example of how easily private information such as location and data collection can be collected and transmitted. The lockdown only demonstrated an existing privacy issue as long before Covid-19 many governments and private companies have been collecting user data, even though they are not hiding it they are not explicitly announcing it. The most notable example which was known a few months ago but only came to light recently, is how the popular app TikTok has been collecting user’s phone data and transmitting everything to the Chinese company who created TikTok.

Change within the concept of the ECI is needed and the trends of topics as well. Without abandoning other important topics such as climate change, the ECI and the EU definitely need to prioritise privacy at a greater level, as slowly but surely the EU citizens’ are losing one of their most important human rights, their privacy. 

The European Citizens Initiative (ECI) is a tool that gives citizens the ability to influence EU policymaking. It is considered the “first transnational tool of participative democracy”. However, since its creation in 2011, only four initiatives have reached the required number of signatures (Right2Water, One of Us, Stop Vivisection, and Ban Glyphosate) and only the latest has reached the parliament (2014) and might become a reality. This illustrates how difficult and unlikely is to be able to influence EU politics.

However, as the pandemic has shown us, a strong and unified civil society is more needed than ever, and the ECI can greatly contribute to this. How can the ECI become the tool that all European citizens use in order to ask the European Union for help? How can the ECI become the participative tool that it is supposed to be?  

My suggestion is that ECI should make its forum more visible, by making a social media campaign in order to help people know more about the ECI. It took me a while of time to hear about the ECI. In my opinion, the ECI should be presented as what it is: a great tool for transnational democracy and human rights promotion. This should be promoted via social media platforms (Facebook, Twitter, Youtube or Instagram) and even newspapers from the different member states. Another way of doing this is by campaigning inside the EU institutions, among the institution’s employees, and also in universities in Brussels and all the European Union. The ECI could also create a Youtube channel in which it could explain the different initiatives that are been debated at the moment. This can facilitate the process of collection of signatures, and foment public participation in the ECI.