It’s a common misconception that the rules and regulations organisations are bound by are produced largely by the national governments of their own Member States. In reality, these days, the large majority of laws originates in Brussels. Thankfully, more and more NPOs are beginning to realise this and have either become active at EU level or are looking to do so. Here are 4 key tips to help you make your voice heard in Brussels.

Start in Brussels

Exactly how much national legislation comes from the EU is difficult to assess. The general consensus seems to be that more than two-thirds of all national regulations originate in Brussels, with more recent sources quoting as much as 80%. Naturally, as the EU integrates further, this number is likely to only increase over time.

Unfortunately, as a lobbyist and consultant, I am still approached regularly by organisations wishing to make changes at EU level when it is already too late. When a piece of legislation has reached their Member State, it is often too far down the line to exert any meaningful influence, as the framework for the new rules has already been agreed in Brussels. In recent years, this has become even more apparent as the relatively flexible Directives have largely made way for the much more stringent Regulations. The latter leave virtually no room for negotiation at national level and must be implemented as is, across the EU. It is therefore vital to be aware of what is happening in Brussels at the very early stages, enabling organisations to intervene when and where necessary.

Join or form a collective, they are a powerful lobbying tool

In a sea of voices, it is easy to drown. There are 27 Member States, legions of organisations, and just one Brussels. In terms of staff, the European Commission is no larger than the average civil service of a large European city, yet they serve over 500 million people. Similarly, Members of the European Parliament are bombarded with meeting requests from individuals and organisations from across the EU. The result is that members of both Institutions need to be extremely selective about who they meet.

One key factor they will always consider is representativeness. How many people or organisations do you represent, across how many EU countries. For smaller organisations, and sometimes even for larger ones it can be difficult to be heard amidst all the noise. For those stakeholders, it can be a very good idea to join or form an association or coalition of like-minded organisations. By forming a larger collective, they become a more relevant discussion partner for EU officials, have a much stronger voice, and become more impactful in the EU decision-making process. The most straightforward approach is to join or form a sector specific or trade association, such as your national fundraising association. A strong, collective and unified voice from the sector can be a very powerful tool in the lobbying process.

Communicate – Associations are only as effective as their most active members

Every successful association is built on an active membership. Successful EU lobbying is a constant two-way street between the national Members and the Brussels secretariat. The EU team has the important task of informing its members at early stages of what is in the legislative pipeline. But effective feedback from the national members is at least of equal importance.

To be effective in a lobby it is vital to know the situation in every Member State, so that we can identify potential pitfalls in new legislative proposals and address these accordingly. Decision-makers need to know exactly where the shoe hurts and be adequately informed as to why this is the case, so that they can make the appropriate amendments on behalf of those organisations that would be affected by it.

Therefore, if you wish to make an impact in Brussels, it is important to provide feedback to your EU representatives. Which European rules make your work more difficult? And what potential threat could a proposed piece of legislation be to you or your organisation?

Moreover, whilst Brussels based associations can effectively lobby the European Commission and the European Parliament, influencing the third major European Institution, the EU Council, is not so straightforward. The EU Council is the representative body of the 27 European Member States. Influencing the Member States is best done at national level. For this reason, to be truly effective at EU level, it is essential for the national members of an association to carry the common lobbying message to their national governments.

Branch out and form broader alliances

Whether they are long-term or ad hoc, it is important to form alliances with other Brussels stakeholders too. Other organisations within the EU may have similar concerns to yours regarding proposed legislation and, in most cases, it makes sense to join forces. Many of the secretariats of EU associations are understaffed and under resourced. Pooling resources with other organisations can therefore be an effective tool to increase lobbying power.

A good example of this would be recent lobbying, where EFA worked as part of a cross-industry coalition on the subject of ePrivacy. This is a file that affects many NPOs and other organisations across the EU. Whilst it is difficult to find agreement on every aspect of a legislative proposal, there are certain elements in the ePrivacy dossier that will likely adversely affect many cross-sectoral organisations. In this case it makes sense to form ad hoc alliances, based on these specific elements.

By sharing information and coordinating messages within the alliance, we drastically increase the chances of effectively influencing the decision-makers. Hearing a message from a single association is one thing, but hearing that same message from many different directions will be very difficult to ignore.

Patrick Gibbels, Gibbels Public Affairs

About Patrick Gibbels

Patrick is EFA’s public affairs columnist in Brussels.

He is the director of Gibbels Public Affairs.

Follow Patrick @GPA_Brussels.

Read more from Patrick in our View from Brussels column here.

Photo by RAEng_Publications from Pixabay

Civil society organisations across the EU provide services, engage in communities, raise awareness, advocate on behalf of others and hold authorities to account. While their support is needed more than ever, the report finds that threats, attacks, funding cuts and disproportionate restrictions for such organisations have increased during the pandemic.

FRA Director, Michael O’Flaherty, says:

“A strong and healthy civil society is the lifeblood of our democracies. Yet in some countries, civil society organisations are under great strain.

“While there are some green shoots of hope, the EU and EU countries need to support civil society organisations everywhere, so they can fulfil their vital role and defend our fundamental rights.”

FRA’s report ‘Protecting civic space in the EU’ sheds light on the challenges civil society faces across the EU. An online consultation with over 400 human rights civil society organisations carried out for the report reveals not only deteriorating work conditions and funding challenges, but a lack of involvement in key decision making and public consultations, threats and attacks and limitations to their freedom.

However, the report also highlights positive developments and promising practices. These include authorities publicly acknowledging the importance of civil society work, involving civil society in policy development and reducing bureaucracy for NGO registration.

FRA is now encouraging the EU and EU countries to monitor future challenges for civil society and counter restrictions, address funding needs and remove obstacles, safeguard rights to freedom, encourage dialogue between  policymakers and civil society at the EU, national and local levels, and generally to protect civil society, ensuring effective protection against attacks and administrative harassment.

For more information, see the full report here.

Photo by Doğukan Şahin on Unsplash

The proposed EU ePrivacy laws have changed shape once more and this could have major consequences for fundraising across Europe, particularly when it comes to telephone campaigns.

The ePrivacy Regulation will of course replace the current Directive and it’s likely that the new rules will introduce even stricter rules for organisations’ use of data.

When speaking to Brussels decision-makers, the ePrivacy file often gets dubbed “everyone’s headache”. There seems to be a general fatigue within the European institutions to resolve the issue of ePrivacy. After four years lying dormant, due to the inability of Member States to align on its contents, the Council EU (of Member States) has tabled several compromise papers in an attempt to find balance. A new compromise paper has now been drafted and it does not look good for nonprofits.

The proposal is to delete article 16.4. While this article establishes the need to obtain user consent for direct marketing communication, it also provides Member States with flexibility to decide how the rules apply to telemarketing in their respective territories. In other words, with that article in place, Member States would have the freedom to decide whether this happens via an opt-out, or an opt-in regime. The deletion of the article would take away this right from Member States and impose a one-size-fits-all opt-in regime at EU level for telephone marketing. This would inevitably negatively impact all markets currently using an opt-out system and where telephone outreach is relied upon for fundraising.

This adds to previous concerns we’ve already raised here about other proposed amendments to the regulation. This includes concerns about the proposal for organisations that engage in telephone marketing to be assigned a certain label and a special telephone prefix. Telecom providers would then be able to offer users the facility to automatically block all incoming calls from such numbers, irrespective as to whether it is a charity known to the supporter or a cold sales call.

In other words, this would bypass donors’ explicit consent to be contacted. If a donor who had consented to be contacted activates the prefix block, all fundraising calls could be blocked by default. Needless to say, this could severely affect organisations’ ability to raise funds.

The combination of requiring an opt-in by default as well as the risk of a blanket block on these potential mandatory prefixes could cause a significant blow to nonprofits. A coalition of cross-sectoral stakeholders has been formed to object against these proposed amendments. EFA is in close contact with members of this coalition to share information and insights from the fundraising sector, coordinating our actions. EFA is in the process of drafting a letter to the institutions, outlining its concerns, and will report back on future progress.

Patrick Gibbels, Gibbels Public Affairs

About Patrick Gibbels

Patrick is EFA’s public affairs columnist in Brussels.

He is the director of Gibbels Public Affairs.

Follow Patrick @GPA_Brussels.

Read more from Patrick in our View from Brussels column here.

Main feature photo (lock) by ShonEjai from Pixabay

The campaign website states:

“[Translated] The Dutch give time, money and energy. Because they care about society, about the world and about each other. We need space to keep doing that. But this space is not self-evident. The government is increasingly taking measures that, intentionally or unintentionally, restrict the scope to give and ask for support.”

A collaborative initiative from SBF (Samenwerkende Brancheorganisaties Filantropie), developed in partnership by Goede Doelen Nederland, CIO and FIN, the Manifesto calls on politicians to create space for the Dutch to ‘do good’ with a series of actions. This includes stimulating giving by protecting and improving the tax incentives, maintaining a transparent self-regulatory system, eliminating unnecessary laws and regulations, protecting charities’ ability to ask for funds across a range of channels (including the telephone, mail and face-to-face), safeguarding lottery funding for charity, and making volunteering more attractive, among others.

Jan van Berkel, chair of SBF and Goede Doelen Nederland, says:

“Dutch political parties are right now discussing the programme and composition of the new Dutch coalition government. The Manifesto calls for support and no interference in the philanthropy sector by the new Dutch government. It has been presented to all political parties and the media.

“We are happy that the Manifesto is not only endorsed by the members of SBF, but also by 10 other umbrella organisations representing volunteers, sports, health work, development cooperation and the cultural sector. Together we hope this will lead to a positive approach towards philanthropy under the new coalition government.”

Entitled ‘Dutch people want to help. Give us the space‘, the Manifesto was presented by letter to Informateur Mariëtte Hamer, the party leader and relevant spokesperson of the House of Representatives, and launched via social media with a 1-minute promotional film.

The campaign is part of SBF’s efforts to make government policy more positive so that Dutch people can continue to work for a better world.

Read more at the campaign website.

Every nonprofit organisation has a mission and a purpose, and fulfilling that purpose is its number one priority. To do so, they need to build and maintain capacity and resources. Fundraising is therefore a crucial part of the sector’s work, and donors form the lifeblood of the organisation.

COVID-19 and the many restrictions that came with it have significantly restricted the ways in which we can reach out to donors. Live events are near impossible to organise under the current circumstances in many parts of Europe, and visitor attractions and public fundraising are still limited. At least we still have the phone, right? Well, maybe not.

The EU has been cracking down hard on privacy violations in an effort to protect its citizens from data abuse. Whilst the primary targets of the EU’s crackdown are internet giants such as Facebook and Google, who have been known to harvest and sell citizens’ data, many other smaller players are becoming collateral damage. We all know the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) by now and most of us understand how it protects consumer rights, but also how restrictive it can be in terms of data collection and outreach.

The e-Privacy directive is a piece of EU legislation that is closely connected to the GDPR but zones in even more on what data may be harvested. And the new ePrivacy Regulation, which will replace the current Directive, focuses specifically on outreach by telephone.

For years, the ePrivacy Regulation has been in a deadlock at European level, as the European Council refused to progress the file. During the second half of last year, the file started moving again and the institutions are now getting closer to an agreement. The Council made two amendments to the Commission’s proposal which could make telephone fundraising very difficult.

Article 16 states that organisations that engage in telephone marketing may receive a certain label and a special telephone prefix to be recognised as such. To make matters more difficult, the proposed article 14 states that telecom providers will be able to offer users to automatically block all incoming calls from such numbers. This would bypass donors’ consent to be contacted. If a customer who had consented to be contacted activates the prefix block, all fundraising calls – including those to current supporters, would be blocked by default. Needless to say, this could severely affect organisations’ ability to raise funds.

Personal data has become a commodity and abuse of these data by large online players is a real threat. It is logical that the EU legislators wish to protect citizens from this type of abuse. But applying a catch-all approach, which sadly seems to be the EU’s modus operandi in many cases, can be particularly dangerous in this case.

EFA calls on the European institutions to consider the magnitude of the impact this proposal might have on fundraisers and to adopt a risk-based approach, leaving this line of communications intact for those organisations that legitimately rely on it.

About Patrick Gibbels

Patrick is EFA’s public affairs columnist in Brussels. He is the director of Gibbels Public Affairs. Follow Patrick @GPA_Brussels.

Read more from Patrick in our View from Brussels column here.

Main photo by Murray Campbell on Unsplash

The former proposal for the Dutch Telecommunications Act restricted organisations from contacting individuals who have not opted in for marketing calls unless they have a financial relationship as customers or, in the case of charities, donors.

But in a landmark ruling, these amendments broaden the concept of what constitutes a customer relationship, widening the boundaries for those who charities can call to include volunteers and supporters who do not currently donate financially. The decision recognises that charities are of great social importance and that their income is often highly dependent on telephone fundraising.

When lobbying for these amendments, Goede Doelen Nederland and fellow trade bodies emphasised that charities’ supporter relationships are more wide-ranging than the private sector customer base.

Margreet Plug, director Goede Doelen Nederland said:

“We are very pleased that the Dutch government has recognised the importance of charities asking for support for the work they do. Also by phone. After all, when they call to ask for support, it is not to gain a profit, but to fund special services and projects and to support beneficiaries.”

These changes follow the publication of public research showing that the vast majority of Dutch citizens do not object to a telephone approach by charities (Zest 2020).

The new Telecommunications Act is expected to become law in either July this year or January 2022.

Editorial note: The headline has been updated since publication to include the word ‘forthcoming”, making it clearer that it relates to future amendments. This piece follows past news that highlight concerns about the new Act restricting charities’ ability to fundraise via phone.

2020 is coming to an end, and it is safe to say that this has been an eventful year. The global pandemic meant drastic changes, both in the day to day business of fundraisers and nonprofits, and in terms of the EU policy agenda. Whilst the European Commission had laid out a carefully planned Annual Work Programme, many elements were delayed or bumped off the agenda entirely, due to more pressing COVID-related matters. So, where are we now and what’s in store for 2021?

Patrick Gibbels, director of Gibbels Public Affairs

At the beginning of the year, the European Commission announced proposals on non-financial reporting; a European data strategy; a digital services act; measures to fight tax evasion; e-privacy; the reform of EU VAT rates; and of course, the rules on anti-money laundering and terrorism financing. Whilst some of these files saw some movement this year, none of them was finalised.

In February of this year, we reported on the EU’s plans to reform rules on e-privacy. These rules give rights to individuals regarding electronic marketing methods such as direct marketing and the use of cookies, which also apply to fundraising, marketing, and campaigning. Since the new ePrivacy proposal is a Regulation under EU law, rather than a Directive, it means that it will apply across the EU, without much room for adjustments at national level. This reform could have significant implications for nonprofits, as it is part of a move away from opting out to explicit consent.

Whilst this file was expected to be finalised this year, it has stalled in the EU Council. In July 2020, the German Presidency published its first discussion paper. National delegations recently rejected a revised version of the paper and on 23 November 2020 the German Presidency presented its progress report, stating it would ‘closely work with the forthcoming Portuguese Presidency to facilitate further discussions and to ensure smooth progress on the file’. In other words, the end is not yet in sight and we have no clarity about the new rules in the meantime.

A similar evolution could be seen in the well-known dossier on anti-money laundering and terrorism financing. The NPO coalition, EFC, Dafne, EFA, Civil Society Europe and others, have prepared a joint response to the public consultation on the matter. And whilst the European Commission has indicated this as a priority pending proposal, no regulatory initiatives have been planned until Q1 of next year, at the earliest.

Due to the lockdowns and other crisis measures, many very important means of generating funds have been made impossible. Fundraising events and face-to-face activity in many markets are impossible due to social distancing restrictions, and whilst many organisations have been creative in coming up with alternative ways to raise money, COVID-19 has caused considerable losses. The Belgian Red Cross had to cancel its annual event where it sells stickers at cross-roads and other busy places. But they distributed 770,000 stickers in letterboxes across Belgium and called on people to donate online.

But even this type of fundraising may be in jeopardy due to increasing calls by a number of Member States proposing that residents should not receive unaddressed mailings unless they have opted in. Door drops and the opt-out system are a part of the EU’s 2005 Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. If the EU were to adopt an opt-in approach, nonprofits would no longer be able to send unaddressed mailings to any households, unless they proactively permit them to do so. As it is unlikely that many people will do so, such a proposal could further inhibit fundraisers in an already very challenging time.

On 1 January, Portugal will take over the Presidency of the EU Council. Whoever holds the Presidency has a deciding impact on the political agenda of the EU for those 6 months. What we know so far through an early version of the Presidency Priorities is that the Portuguese Presidency will focus on a social and resilient Europe, whilst focusing on digital policies (such as e-privacy and data laws). And the new EFA survey findings show just how important digital channels have become for nonprofits this year.

Once the Presidency starts its term on 1 January, we will know more. We’ll be following up this retrospective look with a forward-looking policy perspective of 2021 in the next issue of Fundraising Europe, in January of next year.

Image credit: Photo by Frederic Köberl on Unsplash

With some EU states proposing that residents should not receive unaddressed mailings unless they have opted in, our public affairs columnist Patrick Gibbels explains how this might impact charity fundraising and underlines EFA’s role in challenging these proposals.

In recent times, proposals have been raised in five European Union Member States (Netherlands, Belgium, France, Denmark and Germany) to change the current opt-out approach for receiving unaddressed printed advertising to an opt-in approach. Many non-profits rely on these ‘door drops’ to build awareness within the local community and beyond and encourage supporters to donate, raising concerns about the impact of restrictions to this fundraising channel.

Door drops and the opt-out system are a part of the EU’s 2005 Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. If the EU were to adopt an opt-in approach, non-profits would no longer be able to send unaddressed mailings to any households, unless they proactively permit them to do so. Few people are likely to do so, which would have a significant negative impact on fundraising organisations and their opportunity to rebuild income levels at a time where many are facing critical funding shortfalls.

The European Fundraising Association has signed a joint letter (along with Intergraf, FEDMA, the European Letterbox Marketing Association and others), calling on the European Commission to address this issue with the Member States concerned. The letter asks for clarification that any restrictions on this form of advertising need to take into account the principle of proportionality and must be compliant with EU law.

The General Data Protection Regulation has significantly curbed the way in which charities and fundraisers can reach out to potential donors. Moreover, the Covid-19 crisis has made it impossible to physically approach donors and make collections or to organise events.

Unaddressed printed postal mailing is one of the few remaining viable alternatives.

Recently, the Belgian Red Cross had to cancel its annual event whereby it sells stickers at crossroads and other busy places. Alternatively, they distributed 770,000 stickers in letterboxes across Belgium and called on people to donate online. Actions like these, which aim to offset some of the negative consequences of the current crisis, would no longer be possible under the Member States’ proposals.

Whilst it is understandable that consumers need a certain level of protection against targeted advertising and the (ab)use of their personal data, printed and unaddressed postal mailings do not pose a threat to anybody’s privacy. Usually, a simple ‘NO unaddressed mail’ sign or sticker is enough for a household not to receive these. An opt-in would indeed be disproportionate and unrealistic, as very few people will actively go out and place some sort of ‘YES’ sticker or signage. Therefore, many philanthropic organisations would be affected substantially by such a measure.

EFA will continue working with its partners, to sensitise decision-makers of the negative consequences further restrictions on donor outreach would have for the sector as well as its beneficiaries.

Joint response to Anti Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing

In another push for better lawmaking, EFA has contributed to a joint response (with ECNL, EFC and DAFNE) to the European Commission consultation on the Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing Action Plan. The group will continue to collaborate to finalise its submission to the consultation, which closes on 29 July 2020.

Related articles: View from Brussels

Follow Patrick @GPA_Brussels

Patrick Gibbels, Gibbels Public Affairs

The COVID-19 pandemic has severely disrupted our daily lives and the economy. As a result, the EU political agenda virtually screeched to a halt and most ongoing policy proposals have been placed in the fridge, as the Institutions needed to focus on the immediate crisis and the necessary measures to tackle it. Having absorbed the first shock, the European Commission, on 27 May, tabled two highly relevant documents that will decide the immediate future: the adjusted Annual Work Program and the Recovery Plan for Europe.
 
The Annual Work Program lists a number of initiatives that will be of interest to the philanthropy sector (including measures on data protection; Single Market Barriers and enforcement; Foreign Subsidies; tax evasion; Anti-Money Laundering and terrorist financing). But whilst the presentation of the Work Program is usually a big deal in Brussels, all eyes were on the Recovery Plan for Europe. A €750 billion (!) recovery instrument, designed to support Member States to recover and to help kick-start the economy.
 
Good news, yes. But there is a problem for philanthropy. The package focusses on businesses and individuals. Charities and fundraisers are neither and thus run the risk of being overlooked. Many individuals have lost their jobs and companies are struggling. But so are charities and fundraising organisations, particular the smaller ones and those in certain regions of Europe, and there are no EU measures specifically for the sector.
 
Due to the lockdowns and other crisis measures, many very important means of generating funds have been made impossible. Physical campaigns and personal fundraising are prohibited and whilst many organisations have been creative in coming up with alternative ways to raise money, online and offline, COVID-19 has cause considerable losses. Belgian Red Cross had to cancel its annual event whereby it sells stickers at cross-roads and other busy places. Alternatively, they distributed 770,000 stickers in letterboxes across Belgium and called on people to donate online. Sadly, they were only able to collect 10% of their usual revenue. Needless to say, the Belgian example is only one of many throughout Europe.

The EU focusses on saving businesses, because businesses employ people. But charities do too. They are an important part of the European economy. Are EU decision-makers sufficiently aware of this?
 
The business community is used to lobby the European Institutions and knows how to get theirs. So do the Member States. It is important that the fundraising sector is vocal and visible in Brussels. This pandemic has created an unprecedented situation, and the European Institutions are very much in listening mode. Moreover, starting in July, Germany will take over the EU Presidency as the first of a new trio (the EU agenda is always set for three consecutive Presidencies). This provides a real opportunity for the fundraising sector to provide input and expertise.  
 
In the coming months EFA will attempt to get an overview of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the sector. We hope to be able to produce our first findings by the summer. Based on these findings, EFA may engage in a constructive dialogue with EU decision-makers in both the European Parliament and the Commission, in order to raise awareness and establish an adequate approach vis-à-vis the sector.

Related articles:

National governments unveil support packages for charities

View from Brussels

Patrick Gibbels, Gibbels Public Affairs