xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2020440EN.01004901.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 18.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 440/49 |

---

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions – Local and regional authorities in the permanent dialogue with citizens

(2020/C 440/09)

| | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | | | --- | --- | | Rapporteur: | Declan MCDONNELL (IE/EA), Member of Galway City Council | | Reference document: | Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Europe in May 2019: Preparing for a more united, stronger and more democratic Union in an increasingly uncertain world. The European Commission’s contribution to the informal EU27 leaders’ meeting in Sibiu (Romania) on 9 May 2019 COM(2019) 218 final | |

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Preamble

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 1. | Reiterates the importance of understanding and reporting citizens’ and local and regional representatives’ perceptions and expectations of the EU, of anchoring EU policies locally to make a difference to people’s lives and of building our union from the bottom up, as outlined in its opinion on Reflecting on Europe: the voice of local and regional authorities to rebuild trust in the European Union [(1)](#ntr1-C_2020440EN.01004901-E0001); believes that the way forward for an EU democratic revival must build on grassroots engagement over and beyond current measures; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 2. | Believes that bottom-up communication channels and participation instruments complement and strengthen representative democracy, as well as promote active subsidiarity, by giving citizens a greater say beyond and between elections; is convinced that transparent, serious and relevant citizen engagement means a shared role and thus practical participation for citizens in decision-making, and regards formal communication alone as insufficient in this case. Genuine participation increases the legitimacy and effectiveness of representative democracy by (1) increasing communication to prevent conflict, (2) enabling consensus creation and, above all (3) strengthening the power of the decisions made and explaining the rationale for decisions; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 3. | Shares the views expressed in the European Commission’s contribution to the informal EU27 leaders’ meeting in Sibiu [(2)](#ntr2-C_2020440EN.01004901-E0002), notably a whole reflection on communication challenges, including fragmentation and disinformation; is aware that communication is a precondition for citizens to make informed choices and participate fully in EU democracy; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 4. | Stresses that European institutions must commit to working more closely and cooperating with citizens, in order to increase understanding of European policy-making, improve the efficiency and efficacy of such policy-making and avoid the shortcuts that populism proposes, and that inevitably undermine the proper functioning of democracy; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 5. | States its determination to open two-way channels of communication between European institutions and European citizens, focusing on people’s everyday problems and that fosters citizen engagement in European policy-making. The COVID-19 pandemic has further shown that there is a need for a channel of communication that can remain operational in spite of and particularly during times of crises; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 6. | Recognises that the COVID-19 pandemic has encouraged the use of digital media and online conference systems and sees the opportunities that digitalisation offers for civic engagement in times of crisis; in recent months, civic engagement has shifted to digital forums and conferences; these have helped citizens to participate more quickly, widely and inclusively in decision-making; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 7. | Welcomes the upcoming Conference on the Future of Europe (CoFoE) and supports the European Parliament’s call, outlined in its resolution of 18 June 2020, to include in the CoFoE’s mandate a commitment to meaningful follow-up and the meaningful direct involvement of citizens and its position that ‘the direct engagement of citizens, civil society organisations, social partners and elected representatives must remain a priority of the Conference’; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 8. | Stresses that the CoFoE should not be just a one-off fixed-duration process but an opportunity to rethink and reform the way the EU functions and is perceived by its citizens; therefore wishes to propose a mechanism for a permanent dialogue with citizens which could be tested during the Conference but would aim to introduce a long-term structural mechanism for citizen participation in EU policy-making, led by local and regional authorities, as the level of government closest to citizens and including a clear feedback mechanism; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 9. | Reiterates its call to the Commission, expressed in its Resolution in view of the European Commission Work Programme for 2021 [(3)](#ntr3-C_2020440EN.01004901-E0003) to ‘cooperate with the CoR in developing a pilot model for a permanent and structured dialogue with citizens through local and regional authorities, allowing a two-way process of communication between citizens and EU institutions which could serve later on to improve EU decision-making in the long-run’; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 10. | Insists that in all public consultations related to the citizens’ dialogues should ensure maximum pluralism; stresses that this means that all programmes, speakers lists, panels, literature and documents, etc. must be balanced and ensure that a great variety of differing viewpoints is presented, reflecting the diversity of opinions in Europe, in order to stimulate a profound debate. Emphasises that the selection of participants in all such meetings must be made completely independently and without any political interference; |

Local and Regional Authorities as bridge builders between citizens and EU institutions

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 11. | Shares the concern that European institutions might appear as physically and — even more so — culturally far from the daily lives of European citizens; calls on representative institutions like regional and local government, especially those that are not currently involved in citizens’ engagement mechanisms, to play an active role in establishing efficient and meaningful communication channels with citizens for the design and implementation of demand-driven EU policies, but stresses that this must be done in a way that respects citizens’ time and produces results; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 12. | Invites local and regional authorities from across the EU to play a central role in educating citizens about the EU, to encourage citizens to play a role in participatory democracy. It is recognised that citizens can only engage if innovative methods are used and if citizens are fully informed about the implications of policy developments and/or funding decisions for their local area. The use of digital technologies and social media as well as working with voluntary organisations are encouraged; points to successful recruitment approaches, such as those involving citizens selected randomly by telephone, from the population register or by means of a door-to-door conversation, with a view to reaching a much wider cross-section of the population; |

The CitizEN Network — Citizen ENgagement in the EU Network — an ecosystem of citizen participation

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 13. | Proposes the setting-up of a pan-EU network based on voluntary participation – CitizEN, to act as a central resource for strategies, methodologies and instruments and to communicate both directly and indirectly, via existing initiatives with citizens across the EU on European issues and their impact on people; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 14. | Recognises, notwithstanding, that there are many deliberative and participatory mechanisms active across most Member States and regions and therefore suggests that the CitizEN Network take cognisance and build on the good practice that already exists. The Network would therefore facilitate inter-regional dialogue and consistency between institutions to ensure a coherent approach, whilst respecting the diversity of approaches in different political and social realities; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 15. | Invites the Network to include member organisations at the regional (mainly NUTS2, but also NUTS1 or NUTS3 depending on national organisations) and city level which already operate citizen engagement, as well as voluntary organisations active at the local and regional level, which involve a wide spectrum of interests; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 16. | Expects the Network to have three objectives: (1) to strengthen interaction between European institutions and citizens, through direct methods for engagement at local and regional level, (2) provide examples of participation methods that can be used both formally and informally, and (3) act as a repository for information and sharing of best practice of national, regional and local participation initiatives from across the European Union; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 17. | Is willing to design a set of common principles for the Network that are non-binding but serve to act as guidelines for good practice, for building a common approach (whilst recognising different methods) and for establishing a set of minimum standards for participating organisations; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 18. | Suggests that the Network be organised with thematic working groups, which will consist of the member organisations based around a number of overarching themes (such as: participatory budgeting, digital citizenship, inclusivity in citizen engagement) as well as thematic issues such as: climate change, social cohesion, environment, sport, culture, youth, education, urban and rural organisations and the arts; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 19. | Suggests that the Network identify, coordinate and deploy a common training strategy on citizen participation. Local and regional authorities, as well as public and private bodies, would be encouraged to take part in training initiatives, to enable public officers and local leaders to fully engage with citizens and contribute to leveraging the enormous potential of citizen participation. It will also be important to engage with schools and educational institutions to ensure that active European citizenship becomes part of the curriculum across the EU; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 20. | Is willing to lead, in collaboration with all other European institutions, on the design, implementation and governance of the Network, working to promote a common working methodology and the deployment of a toolbox of participation instruments (deliberation processes, citizen initiatives, participatory budgeting, government crowdsourcing processes, mini-publics, etc.) including a shared digital platform that can be used to manage best practice examples which will be gathered from different Member States; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 21. | Requests resources to be made available to operate the network for a limited period of time, whilst the network seeks permanent funding or technical assistance from EU funding programmes; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 22. | Expects the Network to promote and increase the visibility of the citizens’ engagement practices of the participating regions which in turn should ensure higher levels of active participation; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 23. | Suggests that the Network could assist organisations to ensure trust is built with citizens so that they receive feedback on the impact of their work in shaping EU policy; would therefore propose that the CoR act as an intermediary between the Network, its members and EU institutions, serving as a two-way channel; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 24. | Suggests that the Network be launched during the CoFoE, with a view to becoming a stable and permanent infrastructure able to carry on with the follow-up on the work of the CoFoE and ensuring that citizens are kept well informed and can be involved in the monitoring, evaluation and assessment phases of the CoFoE; |

An ecosystem for citizens’ participation

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 25. | Believes that efforts should be made by all member organisations in the Network, as well as local and regional authorities, to interact with citizens in non-formal and informal ways, using non-conventional participation spaces (such as sporting clubs) and practices; to design participation devices that make it possible to ‘go where the citizens gather’ instead of ‘asking them to come’ and enable ways to adapt informal participation to formal policy-making; to create strategies so that institutions participate in informal settings without undermining or de-naturalising them. Such devices and strategies can contribute to a new participation toolbox that ranges from active listening on social media to social innovation methodologies and living labs for democratic experimentation. This is especially important for citizens that are underrepresented in democratic institutions (ethnic minorities, people with disabilities, young people, older people); |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 26. | Expects, thus, that this ecosystem of participation methods would continually work to complement the institutional, official channels of communication and representation of European democratic institutions. It would not aim to substitute representative democracy but rather to enrich it with the instruments and means of deliberative democracy and, sometimes, direct democracy; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 27. | Highlights that citizens are moving towards new formats of political engagement — technopolitics — which has been brought about by digital technologies and open data. This allows for participation to take place in informal spaces and outside of the normal formalised settings. This new means of engagement should be embraced by political institutions to encourage an ecosystem of engagement; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 28. | Believes that the use of online platforms is crucial to the management of the types of participation methods; to enable participants from all over the EU regardless of social origin to take part in debates; and to ensure traceability and accountability of the proposals in an easy and accessible way. Digital technologies should complement face-to-face participation methods and should be used to encourage participation among citizens who do not feel represented by civil society organisations or citizens who do not normally participate through traditional participatory instruments; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 29. | Assumes that this participation ecosystem should have clear support from public administrations at all levels and also be flexible enough to promote new and innovative ways of citizen engagement, enabling the use of digital technology tools that facilitate multilingual dialogue with citizens; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 30. | Expects transnational solidarity between more advanced regions in the field of citizen participation helping less advanced ones to help to become involved in a Europe-wide ecosystem, by contributing knowledge and initiative; and that an EU ecosystem would respect the autonomy of Member States, regions and cities, while being flexible enough to be adapted to cultural, social and political needs and priorities; |

Citizen dialogues during the Conference on the Future of Europe

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 31. | Calls for information, communication and engagement strategies between the European institutions and citizens during the CoFoE to run via the appropriate local and regional representative bodies, in conjunction with civil society organisations; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 32. | Encourages regional and local organisations to run participatory processes during the CoFoE at their respective levels, using a mix of open deliberative processes. The proposals and results of the deliberative processes can then be summarised and fed into the CoR’s contribution to the CoFoE as well as help build the Network’s repository of knowledge and experience in communicating with citizens; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 33. | Promotes transnational civic engagement in the CoFoE, as the debate must have a cross-border and pan-European dimension; it requires a forum of citizens from across Europe to engage transnationally, to address common problems; |

Towards a new approach to policy- and decision-making

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 34. | Is, indeed, convinced that, by increasing citizen participation and leveraging the potential of citizens in active policy-making, open government is one of the answers to a crisis of democratic institutions; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 35. | Considers that transparency and open data are a must for trust. Administrations should strengthen the link between participation policies and transparency strategies and open data, and work towards the openness of all resources and policy- and decision-making public goods: data, information, methodologies, training resources and technological platforms; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 36. | Expects the creation of criteria for open government at EU level that are appropriate for all other government levels; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 37. | Local and regional authorities are the only authorities that know best the citizens’ needs and challenges on local level and are responsible for the implementation of EU policies on local and regional level. Therefore, there is a need for EU regulations to include requirements toward Member States to not only consult and involve LRAs into EU and national legislation related decision-making process, but to delegate funds’ and financial instruments’ management, based on the principle of subsidiarity. This can ensure that decisions taken closer to citizens shall allow citizens to better understand the EU. In conclusion, this would allow for a new approach to policy- and decision-making, which is more open, more participative, led by local and regional authorities in a more permanent dialogue with citizens: in short, a new common European political and democratic culture. |

Brussels, 14 October 2020.

The President of the European Committee of the Regions

Apostolos TZITZIKOSTAS

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2020440EN.01004901-E0001)  CoR 2018/C 461/02 ([OJ C 461, 21.12.2018, p. 5](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2018_461_R_TOC)).

[(2)](#ntc2-C_2020440EN.01004901-E0002)  COM(2019) 218 final.

[(3)](#ntc3-C_2020440EN.01004901-E0003)  RESOL-VII/007 ([OJ C 324, 1.10.2020, p. 16](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2020_324_R_TOC)).

---