Regarding the Civil Society projects within the Europe for Citizens Programme, I worked before on this programme, but on strand 1. Basically this strand is more for youth organisations, social organisations such as Red cross, etc.
The project should consist in stimulating and organising reflection, debates or other activities related to the multiannual priority themes of the Programme and propose practical solutions that can be found through cooperation or coordination at European level, promoting opportunities for solidarity, societal engagement and volunteering at Union level:
The project should consist in stimulating and organising reflection, debates or other activities related to the multiannual priority themes of the Programme and propose practical solutions that can be found through cooperation or coordination at European level, and ensure a concrete link with the policy making process indicated above. Projects should actively involve a large number of citizens in the implementation and aim at setting the basis for, or encouraging the development of, long-lasting networking between many organisations active in the field.
The Priorities of the Programme for 2020, for civil society is Debating the future of Europe and challenging Euroscepticism, Promoting solidarity as a basic concept and Fostering intercultural dialogue and mutual understanding and combatting the stigmatisation of migrants and minority groups.
A project must involve organisations from at least 3 eligible countries of which at least two are an EU Member State.
Maximum eligible grant for a Civil Society Project is: EUR 150 000. The grant is calculated on the basis of Unit costs and Lump sum financing system fixed per “tranches”. The same parameters are valid for all participating countries.
The lump sum and the unit costs are based on three parameters which constitute the essential elements of all the citizenship actions: the number of participants, the number of countries involved and the number of events developed, with no direct impact on the format of activities. Initially, the lump sum and unit costs are determined by taking into account the number of participants and the number of countries, then, in the case of several events/activities, the lump sums corresponding to each event/activity are accumulated. For the projects in Strand 1 (European remembrance) and Measure 2.3 (Civil Society Projects), it may be useful to provide for preparatory or research activities, or activities linked to social networks. For this purpose, the system provides for limited lump sums which are in line with the number of participants in these activities. These amounts cover all preparatory activities together; in other words, the lump sum is linked to the total number of participants and not to the number of preparatory activities performed. Only one lump sum of this type can be awarded per project.
Calculation of the final payment, pages 36, 37, https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/sites/eacea-site/files/programme_guide_2020_final_0.pdf.
Thanks @andreja. Moving this to a public topic, maybe others are interested in the call too. They are allocating 3.9 million, which means funding 26 projects (source).
I am not sure I understand how to compute the amount of the grant. Imagine involving 150 people in 4 countries, the table at page 36 tells you get 22.5K in unit costs. The table at page 37 tells you you get another lump sum of around 10K. But here’s what does not make sense: looking at these tables, it seems that the absolute maximum grant size is 50.4K unit costs + 10.08 K lump sum. That’s 60K. How does this square with the maximum grant amount being 150K?
Exactly, that was my idea, to me the “collaborative economic sci-fi writing” sounds an innovative approach to engage citizens on the topic of the Call. I’m now checking with REVES if there’s any partnership working on it (the presence of European-level networks is quite essential), suggesting also your role. We are waiting for a feedback. But if you have any other potential interested partner, you might explore other paths.
Yeah, it sounds very interesting. @jakobskote, @amelia and I could potentially contribute to a well-formed proposal based on our work on Babel. Should we go for it? Are we then thinking about a proposal that focuses completely on that idea? In that case, my experience from Babel is that it would be very good to involve some organization that could open doors to reach writers.
Depending on what profile exactly is needed I could know some.
I was previously managing a project funded from the remembrance strand, I have to say it is “light” in terms of admin. The lumps sums are convinient.
As much as possible, except for a key thing: we need to make sure results are expendable as a proper ethnography of an economic utopia (emphasis on economic, as micro-founded as possible). This is not a funding issue (indeed it is a liability if your funder is a funder of art); but this is mostly worth it if it gives us ammo to power a shift in at least some small part of the real-world economy. “We are just being playful, it does not have to make sense” would be a very disappointing outcome for me.
Also I would like an open structure: not a closed list of “the authors”, but some funded writers-in-residence at the center, with the possibility for anyone to join in.
And a coded meta discussion about the world building, itself more important than the fiction. An important result is how much buy-in there is for radical economic ideas. UBI? MMT? Commons-based peer production?
Good project design is about enabling creativity, but make sure that at least part of it results in ideas with some kind of real world traction. Two good examples of world building that encourage critical appreciation of alternative systems:
Ada Palmer’s Terra Ignota series. Every human chooses a Hive, or to remain hiveless. This prompts readers to wonder “what would I choose, if I lived in this fictional world? What appeals to me, and why?”
@Malka’s Centenal Cycle. Same thing here: where would people like to live? Who would they vote for, what Supermajority would they like to support?
@bruces’s The Caryatids, with the Aquis vs. the Dispensation. Same thing again.
To get that kind of spin, we could encourage our authors-in-residence to create worlds with multiple systems. Which ones feel attractive, yet gritty and real?
When is the deadline for the application and when would it need to happen @andreja? @jakobskote and I are both pretty much booked full until 2021, so that needs to factor in too.
Yeah, we could do that. Personally I could only hold any lead role for this if it was planned for 2021, preferably second half, but being on call is possible either way.
This is a really great and fascinating idea! I will not be able to take on any lead role, not for 2021 either unfortunately, but happy to advise and help out where I can.
Keep in mind that the project should consist in stimulating and organising reflection, debates or other activities related to the multiannual priority themes of the Programme:
Debating the future of Europe and challenging Euroscepticism,
Promoting solidarity as a basic concept and
Fostering intercultural dialogue and mutual understanding and combatting the stigmatisation of migrants and minority groups;
and propose practical solutions that can be found through cooperation or coordination at European level, promoting opportunities for solidarity, societal engagement and volunteering at Union level.
Hi Giacomo, do you have any news about the EFC project or from REVES? We were talking about the proposed theme of the project idea and my concern is that the “collaborative economic sci-fi writing” cannot fit very well into the priorities of the programme for 2020 and get the max assessment score. Basically they are expecting and looking for:
The debates or activities on the future of Europe, on the rise of Euro-scepticism and its implications for the future of the EU (and to include younger generation in particular, especially in the light of the low turnout rates in European elections of the past years and the rise of populism in many Member States). Projects may be based on the outcome of citizens’ consultations and may lead to debates about concrete ways to create a more democratic Union…
To discuss the topic of solidarity and to assess existing solidarity mechanisms inside the EU. One aspect of the discussion will be to highlight the added value of the EU’s intervention in times of crisis, as was demonstrated in the case of the refugee and migration crisis.
A specific focus will be put on the situation of migrants in our society. The programme through this multi-annual priority will fund projects promoting diversity, tolerance and the respect of common values. Projects will in particular encourage intercultural dialogue and mutual understanding between EU citizens and migrants.
A Civil Society Project must include at least two of the following types of activities:
Promotion of societal engagement and solidarity: activities promoting debate/campaigns/actions
on themes of common interest in the framework of the rights and responsibilities of the Union
citizens and making the link to the European political agenda and policy making process.
Gathering of opinions: activities aiming at gathering the individual opinions of the citizens
favouring a bottom up approach (including the use of social networks, webinars, etc.) and media
literacy.
Volunteering: activities promoting solidarity among Union citizens and beyond.
What do you think about all these conditions, is it possible to fulfill them, or somehow adjust the proposed topic to the priorities and activities they are looking for? As I see it now, we will not be able to achieve the objectives of the Programme, strand and measure and comply with the Programme features (and this is 30% of assessment score).
