This commentary maps European Citizens’ Initiatives (ECIs) that have fostered a European-wide debate and finds common characteristics among the campaigns that remained active following the period of collecting signatures. Despite campaigners’ fears that the current problems in implementing the instrument discourage its use, the authors find that the ECIs have contributed to a European public debate with cross-border communication and the exchange of knowledge among networks of actors

Greenwood, Justin.

Tuokko, Katja

Archive of European Integration

 EPIN Commentaries offer concise, policy-oriented insights into topical issues raised by the debate on the political integration of Europe. The European Policy Institutes Network (EPIN) is a network of think tanks and policy institutes based throughout Europe, which focuses on current EU political and policy debates (see http://www.epin.org). Unless otherwise indicated, the views expressed are attributable only to the authors in a personal capacity and not to any institution with which they are associated. Katja Tuokko is a Researcher at CEPS Energy Climate House. Justin Greenwood is Professor of European Public Policy at Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen. Available for free downloading from the CEPS (www.ceps.eu) and EPIN (www.epin.org) websites © Copyright 2017, EPIN     Despite teething problems, the ECI stimulates European-wide debates Katja Tuokko and Justin Greenwood he European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI), launched in 2012, was created to foster direct participation of citizens in EU decision-making and “to stimulate Europe-wide public debates on issues of concern to EU citizens” (European Commission, 2015).1 Due to the high technical and legal barriers, the requisite one million signatures has been reached by only a few campaigns, and the lack of enthusiasm shown so far by the European Commission to put forward proposals based on the ECIs has meant that the inclination among campaigners to register initiatives has waned.  Drawing on the authors’ previous research,2 this contribution maps initiatives that have fostered a European-wide debate and finds common characteristics among the campaigns that remained active following the signature collection period. The analysis shows that the ECI has contributed to a European public debate with cross-border communication and the exchange of knowledge among networks of actors. Despite ECI campaigners’ fear that the current problems in implementing the instrument discourage its use, the evidence of the ECI’s contribution to Europe-wide debates should be acknowledged in any assessment of its utility. The success of the ECI is often assessed through the lenses of the three ECI campaigns that have gathered a million signatures to date – One of Us, Stop Vivisection and Water & Sanitation are a Human Right – but as shown in Table 1, these campaigns are not the only ones that have remained active after the signature period came to a close. A total of 10 initiatives launched in the period 2012-15 continued to advocate on behalf of the issues they raised after the official ECI period had ended. Although the STOP TTIP and My voice against nuclear power initiatives did not obtain official ECI status, their public profiles warrant consideration in the ECI context since the campaigns lived on.                                                      1 A citizens' initiative has to be supported by at least one million EU citizens, spread across at least seven member states, in each of which a minimum number of signatories is also required. 2 See Greenwood & Tuokko (2016), which presented material collected via research and interviews with over 20 campaigners.  T  Commentary No. 37/20 March 2017  2 | TUOKKO & GREENWOOD  Table 1. ECI registration applications with continuing medium-to-high profile public campaigns, 2012-15 Initiatives Did the initiative bring new issues to a European-wide debate? Receiving over 1 million signatures Stop vivisection No Water and sanitation are a human right! Water is a public good, not a commodity Yes One of us   Yes Receiving 100,000 – 300,000 signatures End ecocide in Europe: A citizens’ initiative to give the earth rights   Yes European Free Vaping Initiative Yes Unconditional basic income  Yes Weed like to talk No European initiative for media pluralism No Registration rejected STOP TTIP Yes My voice against nuclear power No  While these 10 campaigns continued to foster a European-wide debate, not all of them introduced a new issue into the European public debate. Campaigns such as My voice against nuclear power as well as Weed like to talk, which promotes the legalisation of cannabis, served as additional vehicles for promoting causes that had long been in the public discourse in the European sphere and therefore cannot be seen to represent the success of the ECI. This nuance is indicated in the second column of Table 1.  Therefore, it is those campaigns that brought new topics to the European public debate that are of particular interest in this present assessment of the ECI’s success. Our previous research (Greenwood & Tuokko, 2016) showed that these campaigns share many common features, which can be used by campaigners, researchers and policy-makers alike to acquire a deeper understanding of the factors that can contribute to the effectiveness of ECIs in promoting European-wide debate. First of all, many ECI campaigns can be characterised as being largely autonomous from established organisations. The European Free Vaping Initiative, for example, arose in a context of vaping activism in the US, but started as an autonomous EU campaign in (unsuccessfully) seeking exclusion for e-cigarettes from the regulatory scope of the 2014 Tobacco Products Directive. At the same time, however, it gathered support from businesses with links to medical organisations both in the EU and the US. The Unconditional Basic Income (EBI) campaign took inspiration from the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), which dates back to the 1980s, and in some countries, from social movements embracing trade unions, ATTAC (an international movement promoting alternatives in the globalisation process) and Blockupy, a protest movement against austerity.  Secondly, some campaigns have shared linkages with global movements. This is the case, for example, with End ecocide in Europe, which brought the United Nations concept of ecocide to the European level. Thirdly, many campaigns that succeed in staying in the public’s eye for some time manifest a ‘post-student’ feel. Most campaigners belonged to a young cohort who view the ECI as a tool for political participation. Fourthly, some campaigns manage to attract the endorsement of celebrities, which can be linked to periods registering spikes in signature collection. Celebrity endorsement was an essential factor in the success of the STOP TTIP, Unconditional Basic Income and End ecocide campaigns. These campaigns also received notable support in Central and East European countries. This was particularly the case in Croatia (UBI, STOP TTIP), Bulgaria (UBI, End ecocide in Europe) and Estonia (End ecocide in Europe). DESPITE TEETHING PROBLEMS, THE ECI STIMULATES EUROPEAN-WIDE DEBATES | 3  Finally, campaigns regularly used national domestic politics to frame their cause and to maximise signature collection. This was particularly the case when campaigns touched local sensitivities that struck a responsive chord in neighbouring countries. The themes were therefore linked to national politics with substantial support from national and local organisations. In particular in the Central and East European countries, local NGOs reported that the ECI provided them with some of their first experiences in campaigning on an EU-wide issue.  The ECIs presented in this commentary demonstrate the transnational character of ECI campaigns. On the basis of our survey of the instrument’s first three years of operation, we have found evidence of its ability to contribute to a European public space. With the EU struggling to overcome serious challenges to its democratic legitimacy, the ability of the ECI to engage younger cohorts and the presence of campaigns in new EU member states show that the instrument has the potential to facilitate pan-European debates. Bibliography European Commission (2015), “Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the application of regulation (EU) No 211/2011 on the citizens’ initiative”, 31 March (http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2015/EN/1-2015-145-EN-F1-1.PDF). Greenwood, J. and K. Tuokko (2016), “The European Citizens’ Initiative: the territorial extension of a European political public sphere?”, European Politics and Society, July (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23745118.2016.1202234). European Union, Regulation (EU) No. 211/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on the citizens’ initiative. 

Despite teething problems, the ECI stimulates European-wide debates. EPIN Commentary No. 37/20 March 2017

 EPIN Commentaries offer concise, policy-oriented insights into topical issues raised by the debate on the 
political integration of Europe. The European Policy Institutes Network (EPIN) is a network of think tanks 
and policy institutes based throughout Europe, which focuses on current EU political and policy debates (see 
http://www.epin.org). Unless otherwise indicated, the views expressed are attributable only to the authors in 
a personal capacity and not to any institution with which they are associated. 
Katja Tuokko is a Researcher at CEPS Energy Climate House. Justin Greenwood is Professor of European 
Public Policy at Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen. 
Available for free downloading from the CEPS (www.ceps.eu) and EPIN (www.epin.org) websites 
© Copyright 2017, EPIN 
  
 
 
Despite teething problems, 
the ECI stimulates European-wide debates 
Katja Tuokko and Justin Greenwood 
he European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI), launched in 2012, was created to foster direct participation of 
citizens in EU decision-making and “to stimulate Europe-wide public debates on issues of concern to 
EU citizens” (European Commission, 2015).1 Due to the high technical and legal barriers, the requisite 
one million signatures has been reached by only a few campaigns, and the lack of enthusiasm shown so far by 
the European Commission to put forward proposals based on the ECIs has meant that the inclination among 
campaigners to register initiatives has waned.  
Drawing on the authors’ previous research,2 this contribution maps initiatives that have fostered a European-
wide debate and finds common characteristics among the campaigns that remained active following the 
signature collection period. The analysis shows that the ECI has contributed to a European public debate with 
cross-border communication and the exchange of knowledge among networks of actors. Despite ECI 
campaigners’ fear that the current problems in implementing the instrument discourage its use, the evidence 
of the ECI’s contribution to Europe-wide debates should be acknowledged in any assessment of its utility. 
The success of the ECI is often assessed through the lenses of the three ECI campaigns that have gathered a 
million signatures to date – One of Us, Stop Vivisection and Water & Sanitation are a Human Right – but as 
shown in Table 1, these campaigns are not the only ones that have remained active after the signature period 
came to a close. A total of 10 initiatives launched in the period 2012-15 continued to advocate on behalf of the 
issues they raised after the official ECI period had ended. Although the STOP TTIP and My voice against 
nuclear power initiatives did not obtain official ECI status, their public profiles warrant consideration in the 
ECI context since the campaigns lived on. 
                                                     
1 A citizens' initiative has to be supported by at least one million EU citizens, spread across at least seven member 
states, in each of which a minimum number of signatories is also required. 
2 See Greenwood & Tuokko (2016), which presented material collected via research and interviews with over 20 
campaigners.  
T 
 
Commentary 
No. 37/20 March 2017 
 
2 | TUOKKO & GREENWOOD 
 
Table 1. ECI registration applications with continuing medium-to-high profile public campaigns, 2012-15 
Initiatives Did the initiative bring 
new issues to a 
European-wide debate? 
Receiving over 1 million signatures 
Stop vivisection No 
Water and sanitation are a human right! Water is a public good, not a commodity Yes 
One of us   Yes 
Receiving 100,000 – 300,000 signatures 
End ecocide in Europe: A citizens’ initiative to give the earth rights   Yes 
European Free Vaping Initiative Yes 
Unconditional basic income  Yes 
Weed like to talk No 
European initiative for media pluralism No 
Registration rejected 
STOP TTIP Yes 
My voice against nuclear power No 
 
While these 10 campaigns continued to foster a European-wide debate, not all of them introduced a new issue 
into the European public debate. Campaigns such as My voice against nuclear power as well as Weed like to 
talk, which promotes the legalisation of cannabis, served as additional vehicles for promoting causes that had 
long been in the public discourse in the European sphere and therefore cannot be seen to represent the success 
of the ECI. This nuance is indicated in the second column of Table 1.  
Therefore, it is those campaigns that brought new topics to the European public debate that are of particular 
interest in this present assessment of the ECI’s success. Our previous research (Greenwood & Tuokko, 2016) 
showed that these campaigns share many common features, which can be used by campaigners, researchers 
and policy-makers alike to acquire a deeper understanding of the factors that can contribute to the effectiveness 
of ECIs in promoting European-wide debate. 
First of all, many ECI campaigns can be characterised as being largely autonomous from established 
organisations. The European Free Vaping Initiative, for example, arose in a context of vaping activism in the 
US, but started as an autonomous EU campaign in (unsuccessfully) seeking exclusion for e-cigarettes from the 
regulatory scope of the 2014 Tobacco Products Directive. At the same time, however, it gathered support from 
businesses with links to medical organisations both in the EU and the US. The Unconditional Basic Income 
(EBI) campaign took inspiration from the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), which dates back to the 1980s, 
and in some countries, from social movements embracing trade unions, ATTAC (an international movement 
promoting alternatives in the globalisation process) and Blockupy, a protest movement against austerity.  
Secondly, some campaigns have shared linkages with global movements. This is the case, for example, with 
End ecocide in Europe, which brought the United Nations concept of ecocide to the European level. Thirdly, 
many campaigns that succeed in staying in the public’s eye for some time manifest a ‘post-student’ feel. Most 
campaigners belonged to a young cohort who view the ECI as a tool for political participation. 
Fourthly, some campaigns manage to attract the endorsement of celebrities, which can be linked to periods 
registering spikes in signature collection. Celebrity endorsement was an essential factor in the success of the 
STOP TTIP, Unconditional Basic Income and End ecocide campaigns. These campaigns also received notable 
support in Central and East European countries. This was particularly the case in Croatia (UBI, STOP 
TTIP), Bulgaria (UBI, End ecocide in Europe) and Estonia (End ecocide in Europe). 
DESPITE TEETHING PROBLEMS, THE ECI STIMULATES EUROPEAN-WIDE DEBATES | 3 
 
Finally, campaigns regularly used national domestic politics to frame their cause and to maximise 
signature collection. This was particularly the case when campaigns touched local sensitivities that struck a 
responsive chord in neighbouring countries. The themes were therefore linked to national politics with 
substantial support from national and local organisations. In particular in the Central and East European 
countries, local NGOs reported that the ECI provided them with some of their first experiences in campaigning 
on an EU-wide issue.  
The ECIs presented in this commentary demonstrate the transnational character of ECI campaigns. On the 
basis of our survey of the instrument’s first three years of operation, we have found evidence of its ability to 
contribute to a European public space. With the EU struggling to overcome serious challenges to its democratic 
legitimacy, the ability of the ECI to engage younger cohorts and the presence of campaigns in new EU member 
states show that the instrument has the potential to facilitate pan-European debates. 
Bibliography 
European Commission (2015), “Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on 
the application of regulation (EU) No 211/2011 on the citizens’ initiative”, 31 March 
(http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2015/EN/1-2015-145-EN-F1-1.PDF). 
Greenwood, J. and K. Tuokko (2016), “The European Citizens’ Initiative: the territorial extension of a 
European political public sphere?”, European Politics and Society, July 
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23745118.2016.1202234). 
European Union, Regulation (EU) No. 211/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 
2011 on the citizens’ initiative. 


http://aei.pitt.edu/85413/1/EPIN_Commentary_No_37_Tuokko_and_Greenwood_ECI.pdf

Despite teething problems, the ECI stimulates European-wide debates. EPIN Commentary No. 37/20 March 2017

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Archive of European Integration

Archive of European Integration