Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the Commission discussion paper "The Commission and non-governmental organisations: building a stronger partnership"

(2000/C 268/15)

On 25 January 2000, the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned Commission discussion paper.

At its plenary session on 26 and 27 January 2000, the Committee decided, under Rules 11(4) and 19(1) of its Rules of Procedure, to set up a sub-committee to prepare a draft opinion on the matter.

The sub-committee drew up its draft opinion on 28 June 2000. The rapporteur was Mrs Sigmund.

At its 374th plenary session (meeting of 13 July 2000), the Committee adopted the following opinion by 92 votes to 16, with 21 abstentions.

1. Introduction

1.1. The Commission discussion paper entitled "The Commission and non-governmental organisations: building a stronger partnership"(1) sets out proposals for more efficient cooperation between the Commission and NGOs and for making better use of the funds provided for this purpose. This paper is part of the Commission's general reform programme and marks a response to socio-economic restructuring and the greater importance of NGOs. The number of civil society organisations which are ready and able to be players in a model for a Europe-wide participatory democracy has significantly increased over the last twenty years. These representatives of organised civil society point quite rightly to the added value which they can contribute to the integration of Europe. Attention is drawn in this context to the Committee opinion of 10 December 1997 on cooperation with charitable associations as economic and social partners in the field of social welfare(2) and its opinion of 28 January 1998 on the role of voluntary organisations and foundations in Europe(3).

1.2. The Committee gave detailed consideration at a convention(4) last year to the role and contribution of civil society organisations in building Europe. In preparation for this convention, the Committee adopted an opinion(5) on 23 September 1999, which as well as providing a historical analysis of civil society, also took a look at its main features and the criteria to be met by representative organisations. This opinion also proposed how and with what means the Committee might best perform the task assigned to it by the Treaties of acting as a forum for organised civil society. The results of this first convention of civil society organised at European level (October 1999) confirmed the importance of the Committee as an institutional forum for organised civil society. During this convention the Commission also called on the Committee to step up its initiatives in this area.

1.3. The ideas and proposals contained in the Committee's opinion of September 1999 should be regarded as forming an integral part of this follow-up opinion. The present opinion also reflects the points made in the debates at last October's convention and the conclusions drawn up following the hearing of representatives of civil society organisations held on 28 April 2000.

1.4. The purpose of this opinion is to consider the Commission discussion paper against the background of the Committee's intention to act on the guidelines for action set out at the convention in collaboration with the representatives of organised civil society. In so doing, the Committee by no means intends to interfere in procedures that have already proved to be effective on the ground. However, the members of the Committee intend to assume their responsibilities as representatives - within the meaning of Treaty Article 257 - of organised civil society(6) and are ready to contribute, by offering the benefit of their expertise, to the creation of synergies between civil society organisations and the Community institutions. As the Committee is the only EU institution which represents the full spectrum of civil society organisations, it is both ideally suited and well able to bring the corresponding added value to this project.

1.5. For this reason the Committee will merely assess the fundamental and substantive aspects of cooperation between the Commission and NGOs. Questions relating to the allocation and use of budgetary funds which the Commission touches on in its discussion paper will not be discussed unless they involve fundamental issues which are relevant in the context of this opinion.

2. General comments

2.1. The Commission itself emphasises the close link between its discussion paper and its proposals for administrative reform, pointing out that "it is clear that specific proposals must be established as a coherent part of the process of overall administrative reform"(7). The question of how it can facilitate the activities of NGOs and improve the existing consultation procedures is considered by the Commission in the context of how to improve transparency and accountability and how to enhance the efficiency and coordination of the Commission's working relations with NGOs.

The Committee welcomes the Commission's efforts to eliminate recognised shortcomings on the ground in its cooperation with NGOs and to adopt measures which will make even more efficient cooperation possible. This is how the title of the discussion paper is to be understood in the Committee's view.

2.1.1. The Committee sets great store by the Commission's discussion paper which it regards as a valuable initial contribution by the Commission to the task of improving the basis for cooperation with NGOs by putting forward proposals of an administrative nature. The Commission rightly recognises that, in the interests of its own credibility, it is essential for it to put forward concrete measures as soon as possible for acting on the operational principles which it identifies (efficiency, accountability, transparency, responsibility and service). The EU public has become sceptical about programmes announced from Brussels. Words must therefore be translated into deeds. For this reason the Committee endorses the pragmatic approach adopted by the Commission with a view to facilitating and improving the scope for involvement on the part of the public or their representatives through the creation of clear structures for participation. The Commission's efforts in this respect fully coincide with the goals set by the Committee, which is also seeking to make its contribution to the creation of an area of freedom, security and respect for the law in Europe. In the Committee's view a number or reforms have still to be carried out and the appropriate legal and administrative provisions have to be adopted before participatory democracy and "closeness to the people" can be said to have really been achieved in Europe.

2.1.2. However, it also seems vital in the Committee's view to define the remit of the Commission discussion paper clearly so that misunderstandings are avoided and false hopes are not raised. The Commission should therefore have stated clearly that its key aim in presenting its discussion paper is to make its partnership with NGOs more effective at EU level, rather than to help define and implement the civil dialogue.

2.2. It is absolutely clear that the social partners and European NGOs, within their respective spheres of responsibility, are and must also remain the Commission's preferred consultative partners. This does not, however, exclude consultation, in particular cases, of national or perhaps even regional or local NGOs. Such consultations could take place in cases where the experience of the organisations concerned could help to bring about solutions and where a corresponding organisation does not (yet) exist at EU level.

2.2.1. The Committee therefore urges the Commission not to exclude national NGOs that are not yet represented at European level from the process of dialogue and consultation as a matter of course but rather to consult them in exceptional cases. In this context it is of the utmost importance for NGOs to establish strong organisational structures at national level, thereby enabling them to pave the way for the establishment of strong European networks, on the basis of the "bottom-up" principle.

2.2.2. In the Committee's view it is, however, essential for NGOs wishing to participate in the consultation process to establish national and then European structures. They must cooperate among themselves by, for example, creating networks or establishing federal machinery in order to engage in effective dialogue between themselves and with the Community institutions.

2.2.3. In this context the Committee considers that the Commission should take concrete steps to encourage the process of establishing EU-level structures; this would be in line with the stated desire in the discussion document to rationalise procedures for dialogue and consultation with NGOs.

2.2.4. The Committee regards it as essential for the Commission to draw up a list of clear criteria and procedural rules in respect of funding. As far as the criteria are concerned, NGOs should be representative and self-financing, and the procedural rules should include provision for multi-annual budgeting (in order to enable NGOs to undertake longer term planning) and regular auditing and assessment, involving the establishment of the necessary management and monitoring systems. Steps must be taken to ensure that political considerations do not affect funding decisions. The Committee will play an active role in helping to draw up these criteria and rules and NGOs must also be involved in this exercise. In the Committee's view, such funding arrangements - implemented and monitored on the basis of objective criteria - are also vital if European NGOs are to avoid having to turn to commercial sponsors or national "pressure groups" in order to enable them to proceed with their work. By implementing the above arrangements, the Commission would pave the way for consultations with independent partners in a future civil dialogue.

2.2.5. The question of how to assess the degree of representativeness of NGOs will assume key importance in connection with the abovementioned list of criteria. If representativeness were to be measured solely by the number of members of NGOs, that would be tantamount to failing to grasp the basic principles of civil society. Civil-society initiatives often come to the fore in areas where there is not (yet) a general awareness of a problem, such as was the case in the environment field some years ago. NGOs therefore very frequently find themselves mandated by minorities to work against the majority. A good example of this can be found in the trade-union tradition: when they were established, trade unions did indeed represent the common interest but they did not (yet) have a representative number of members. Without wishing to jump the gun as regards decisions on deliberations and consultations, the Committee would, however, point out that assessment of the degree of representativeness of NGOs must under no circumstances be based solely on quantitative criteria - it must also involve qualitative criteria. Whether or not NGOs are representative can therefore not be established exclusively on the basis of the number of members whom they represent. The judgement must also take account of the ability of such bodies to put forward constructive proposals and to bring specialist knowledge to the process of democratic opinion-forming and decision-making.

2.3. The term "civil dialogue" is referred to time and again in discussions about the possible ways in which organised civil society could become a player at Community level. It would seem that people using the term "civil dialogue" do not necessarily agree on what the prerequisites and framework for this dialogue are to be, who is to participate and what objective is to be served. A certain number of organisations have already demanded that the civil dialogue be given a legal basis. In the Committee's view a series of preliminary questions, especially as regards purpose, content, procedures and organisational aspects, first need to be resolved.

2.3.1. The Committee, in its capacity as the institutionalised representative of civil society organisations as a whole, will also play a constructive role in bringing about public discourse on this matter. In the Committee's view, the civil dialogue - a sine qua non for the European model of participatory democracy - must be provided with a general organisational framework and content before being developed in the areas where it already exists in part.

2.3.2. In its opinion on the 2000 Intergovernmental Conference the Committee proposed that Article 257 of the EC Treaty be amended to read as follows: "The Committee shall consist of representatives of the various economic and social components within organised civil society". The Committee appreciates the Commission's positive appraisal of this proposal and trusts that the IGC will approve it. Such endorsement would enable (organised) civil society to become a legal concept and make it possible to clarify, on the basis of law, any outstanding questions relating to participation in a civil dialogue.

3. Non-governmental organisations

3.1. The upsurge in the development of NGOs in many areas of life in recent decades was both the reason for and result of enormous socio-economic change and the growth in political awareness. Therefore, NGOs represent a mirror image of this process to some extent. Since this process of change is by no means over, it is scarcely possible to set out a conclusive definition of NGOs. This is clear even from their name, which is in the negative and merely states what NGOs are not. Hence the Committee welcomes initiatives to find a positive definition, such as using the term "civil society organisations".

3.1.1. In the main, NGOs are growing in importance and their tasks, responsibilities and powers have developed considerably. A number of them are already active outside the local area where they were formed and now come under EU law. However, because of their background, field of activity and structure, NGOs generally remain grassroots associations, which by their very nature are close to the people and promote participatory democracy. Collectively, they should also seek to foster the well-being of society in all components.

3.1.2. In this context, the Committee points out that NGOs do not cover all civil society players. As the Committee noted in its opinion of 29 September 1999, the social partners, in particular, form the core of civil society organisations, which have expanded as a result of the abovementioned evolution, embracing, above all, the large number of NGOs in many areas. The common characteristics which the Commission ascribes to NGOs in point 1.2 of its document and to which it alludes elsewhere are not peculiar to such organisations. The Commission also fails to take account of the wide range of organisations. The Committee would refer here to its aforementioned opinion of last September, and especially to sections 5 to 7.

3.1.3. The Commission stresses that "the decision-making process in the EU is first and foremost legitimised by the elected representatives of the European people". In response, the Committee would point out that legitimate action at Community level cannot be reduced simply to the territoriality principle and the election mechanisms associated with representative democracy. The weakness of the principle of the (numerical) democratic majority is particularly highlighted in cases of low turn-out at elections. It may well happen that, although elected representatives exercise their mandate by virtue of having received a majority of the votes cast, this majority does, in numerical terms, constitute only a minority of the electorate. This does not, however, prevent these elected representatives from claiming to derive their legitimacy from a (fictitious) absolute majority. The Commission refers to the democratic legitimacy of the elected representatives of the people; a further basis for legitimacy is constituted by appointments made on the basis of specialised knowledge, as is the case with both the members of the Committee and representatives of NGOs. This situation ties in with the work on developing and consolidating a "participatory model of civil society" and formulating policies which "provide an opportunity to strengthen confidence in the democratic system so that a more favourable climate for reform and innovation can develop"(8).

3.1.4. Participatory democracy requires that parties who are affected by legal provisions should be involved in the opinion-forming process at the earliest possible stage and should be given the opportunity to bring their wishes to bear in this process and to put forward their proposals. This principle, in particular, chimes with the participatory model of civil society, under which a form of civil dialogue is already being practised via a public discourse.

3.1.5. The Committee, for its part, forms an integral part of this participatory model of civil society by virtue of the fact that its members belong to civil society organisations in the Member States, be they national, regional or local organisations.

4. Building a stronger partnership between the Commission and NGOs

4.1. The Commission emphasises at several points in its paper the various forms of cooperation with NGOs and the fact therefore that the rules governing cooperation with NGOs are bound to differ. Nonetheless, the Commission states in its conclusions that it needs "to establish a more coherent approach to its relations with NGOs", and considers it desirable "to provide for general coordination of the relationship between the Commission and the NGOs by a horizontal department." Because different NGO groups work in a variety of ways and fields, the Committee thinks that such a department should not deal with specific domains but should primarily confine itself to exercising a coordinating role and providing a better information service. Such a "one-stop" shop, which, for example, would provide information about EU programmes or assistance for aid claimants, would be a further important step towards the creation of a Citizens' Europe.

4.1.1. This department could also (i) be responsible for ensuring that best practice is employed is carrying out the consultations, on the basis of a number of joint principles still to be determined, without in any way jeopardising the distinctive features of NGOs' various sectors of activity, their structures and the resultant needs and (ii) contribute towards greater transparency. The Committee called for such transparency for voluntary organisations and foundations in its aforementioned opinion of 28 January 1998. In adopting such a horizontal blueprint for information provision and coordination, which should also encompass national NGOs, the Commission would go a long way towards establishing more democratic communication structures, which would cater more for citizens' concerns.

4.1.2. In the same context and as a general rule, it is vital that the conditions in which consultations take place (especially as regards duration of consultation, availability of documents in different language versions, and provision of the requisite human resources) enable European NGOs to pursue a "bottom up" approach in their relations with their members and to implement, within their own structures, the transparency which they rightly demand of the Commission. The credibility of NGOs' stances depends on participatory democracy being practised in their midst, too.

4.2. The strengthening of the partnership with NGOs, which focuses on the management side, presupposes a clear definition of the NGOs with which the Commission wishes to cooperate in future. The Commission is planning to draw up "its own ... criteria for selecting the NGOs" and lists some possible criteria, such as "previous participation in committees and working groups" and "their track record as regards competence to advise in a specific field." In the latter case, the Commission would again be the judge if its approach were to be accepted. In order to reduce the impression that a monolithic system of selection will be created, the Commission concedes later that "self-selection by the NGO community through the appointment of representatives ... can be a useful alternative." This alternative is illusory, however, for it does not refer to the criteria but only to the subsequent technical procedure for the appointment of representatives.

4.3. A selection procedure which implies de facto that new NGOs have practically no chance of fulfilling the criteria ("previous participation in committee and working groups") is unacceptable. This method of selection is also contrary to the very nature of civil society, which should be seen as a dynamic and not as a static phenomenon, and would also mean an inadmissible perpetuation of the status quo by not permitting the recognition of any new structures or new forms of organisation for NGOs.

4.4. However, the Commission itself does not seem to regard this proposed solution as definitive, since later on in connection with the desire for greater transparency it suggests that "the issue of whether joint criteria should be agreed between the NGOs and the Commission should be considered." Regardless of this, these criteria should be objective, transparent and made public. The process used to define these criteria should also be participatory and involve NGOs.

4.4.1. The consultations which the Committee held in the course of drawing up this opinion revealed a lack of consensus, including amongst NGOs, in favour of establishing an official consultative status for NGOs and, in particular, of a system of accreditation for such bodies. The Committee calls on the Commission to give detailed consideration to the pros and cons of such a system, in the light of the practices in force at the UN and its specialised bodies and at the Council of Europe.

4.4.2. Regardless of the criteria which might finally be applied for admitting NGOs to consultations with the Commission - criteria which the Committee itself intends to help define by organising hearings - the Committee would already stress that this selection procedure must not lead to the creation of fixed consultation structures and procedures. It must above all be open, transparent and as simple to administer as possible in order to take full account of the evolving nature of European civil society. The list of selected NGOs will have to be public, and there will have to be a complaints body to which NGOs can turn if they feel that they have been unfairly rejected. The Commission should also state why it has rejected an NGO. At all events the views of the Committee should be ascertained in this procedure.

4.5. The Commission would go a long way towards making its partnership with NGOs more transparent if it were to publish regular assessments and submit them to NGOs for comment. For the sake of comparison and effective benchmarking, these reports should provide a regular update of the Commission's cooperation with NGOs in general. The Committee also called for such reports on voluntary organisations and foundations in its aforementioned opinion of 28 January 1998.

4.6. The Committee would reiterate its view, as stated above, that the Commission should specify more clearly that the present - entirely commendable - attempt to build a stronger and better partnership amounts simply to an attempt to improve existing consultation mechanisms in terms of management and content. Its sole intention is to let the Commission's work benefit in the best possible way from NGOs' great technical and strategic expertise in certain sectors. It is not the a priori creation of structures for a civil dialogue in general.

5. Civil dialogue

5.1. The need for a European form of public discourse at Community level between representatives of civil society organisations has increased as a result of their growing importance. Organised civil society's wish for a "civil dialogue" as a democratic and public opinion-forming process has been made clear and is also accepted in principle by public institutions. It is agreed in principle that Europe needs to be more politically open, that decision-making processes must be more transparent and that ways and means must be found of reviving the general public's interest in Europe. In this context the representatives of organised civil society have a special responsibility and role to play as intermediaries vis-à-vis the general public.

5.1.1. As the Committee has already pointed out in its opinion of last September, the Commission itself is planning the building over time of a strong civil dialogue at European level to take its place alongside the policy dialogue with the national authorities and the social dialogue with the social partners(9). The specific nature of the latter, as regards both the powers and tasks of the players involved, must, of course, be safeguarded in this context.

5.1.2. In the Committee's opinion the Commission should start, however, by clarifying the definition of a few terms in connection with the civil dialogue. The Committee itself is prepared to carry out the groundwork in conjunction with NGOs and to draw up basic material for discussion in joint talks with NGOs.

5.1.3. At all events, the civil dialogue should - in the Committee's opinion - have the following features(10):

- in principle, all members of organised civil society (and therefore the social partners, too) may participate in the civil dialogue;

- the civil dialogue should not take the place of or compete with the social dialogue, which has its own exclusive, clearly-defined participants and remits;

- the civil dialogue can be conducted between the representatives of organised civil society alone or between them and a Community body or institution; it can cover horizontal or vertical issues and thus take the form of either a general or sectoral dialogue;

- the civil dialogue should be provided with the structures which it requires to operate; its remit should be mainly in the socio-economic sector(11), apart from those areas covered by the social dialogue, but should also embrace the environment, consumer matters, development, human rights, culture and all other questions which are important for civil society in all its component parts;

- civil dialogue players should also be responsible for ensuring that non-EU countries and especially the candidate countries are familiarised with the organisational structures and forms of communication of organised civil society. These countries must also be helped to form or develop similar structures.

In this context the Committee would urge European Union NGOs to support the development of civil society organisations in the candidate countries by establishing cooperation structures and procedures for information exchange and consultations and, in particular, by creating pan-European networks.

6. Conclusions

6.1. The Commission does not devote a separate section to the "civil dialogue" in its discussion paper, but it does refer to "fostering the development of civil dialogue and civil society at the European level" and to the Commission "offering ... dialogue ... to the NGOs as representatives of civil society".

6.2. The Committee thinks that it is particularly important, for the reasons indicated above, to define the terms very clearly straightaway: the form of consultation referred to by the Commission can and should take place within the framework of the civil dialogue, but does not represent the civil dialogue as such, which must be defined more widely from both the institutional and civil society angle.

6.3. The Committee reiterates its readiness to take on its role in full within the framework of the civil dialogue. It regards its task as being neither to act as the spokesman for all NGOs nor to be the body through which NGOs must deal with the EU institutions. As the catalyst initiating this public discourse, it wants instead to contribute to the further development of the European Union on the basis of the principles of freedom and democracy and with due regard to human rights and the basic freedoms. The members of the Committee, as the immediate representatives of the interests of organised civil society, will help to ensure that this development responds to the concerns of the general public within the framework of a pluralist and participatory democracy. The Committee would like to play a part in ensuring that this civil dialogue creates a political openness in Europe which offers transparency and not only permits but even demands participation. It intends in this way to take practical action to create synergies between civil society organisations and the Community institutions, and to bring added value to the measures being taken by these organisations to create a Europe which is closer to Europe's citizens.

6.4. The Committee is fully aware that it is not able to influence the appointment of its members. In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, this is the responsibility of the Member States. For this reason, one of the Committee's priorities is to find means of involving more representatives of Community-level civil society organisations in its work and in the implementation of concrete initiatives as part of an ongoing process. The tripartite structure of the Economic and Social Committee will have to be respected in this context.

6.4.1. As a follow-up to the first convention on civil society organised at European level (October 1999) and bearing in mind the comments made in the preceding paragraphs, the Committee has set itself two priority goals here, namely (i) to establish bases for cooperation with organisations representing civil society at European level which wish to cooperate and (ii) to serve as a bridge between civil society organisations - both within the EU and in the candidate countries - and the Community institutions.

6.4.2. With regard to enlargement, the Committee considers that one of its principal tasks is to assist the institution-building process in the candidate countries. The Committee is convinced that it will not be sufficient to take over the acquis communautaire; appropriate structures will also have to be created to ensure that this body of law is implemented by consolidating the European model of representative democracy, which alone will further the implementation of participatory democracy. Work in this field will undoubtedly occupy an important place in the future strategy of the Committee.

6.4.3. At the first civil society convention, the Committee was strongly encouraged, especially by the Commission, to embark on this path. Also welcomed were the initiatives which the Committee had already taken and which it intended to pursue further with a view to assisting the institution-building process in the candidate countries.

6.4.4. In the light of the above and the hopes raised by the convention, the Committee declares that it is willing to consider setting up an organisational structure for carrying out the appropriate work and, in particular, to consider the possibility of establishing within its midst a civil dialogue observatory, to serve as a forum for discussion and interaction. European NGOs, in particular, would be involved in the work of this observatory.

6.4.5. The main tasks to be performed by this observatory could include:

- drawing-up criteria for assessing the representativeness of NGOs, in conjunction with NGOs and the Commission;

- assessing the various accreditation models for NGOs (Council of Europe, UN) and discussing with NGOs and the Commission the feasibility of establishing a system of accreditation for NGOs;

- monitoring the development of civil society organisations and the civil dialogue at European level;

- assessing the means which need to be employed to enable NGOs to be more involved in the EU decision-making process and, in particular, in the formulation of policy;

- supporting the development of civil society organisations in the candidate countries;

- formulating proposals for the implementation of joint initiatives between the Committee and NGOs.

6.4.6. These tasks could be achieved by:

- collecting and circulating general information about European civil society and its representative organisations;

- creating, with the help of experts, a documentary database on civil society organisations;

- organising regular consultations and hearings, as well as meetings and conferences;

- organising information seminars for civil society organisations from the candidate countries, in cooperation with the Commission in particular;

- launching a periodical publication on the civil dialogue, thereby giving organisations not represented on the Committee the chance to express their views.

6.5. The Committee thinks that each institution has a role to play in ensuring that the public is fully involved in the European venture and can actively and effectively take part in the building of Europe and influence its development. With this aim in mind, it is convinced that close cooperation between the various EU institutions and bodies is also essential. The Committee would reiterate its willingness to take action in this direction within the framework of an open dialogue on the establishment of new forms and structures for participation. It fervently hopes that its actions receive the support of the other institutions, and especially the Commission.

Brussels, 13 July 2000.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice Rangoni Machiavelli

(1) COM(2000) 11 final.

(2) OJ C 73, 9.3.1998, p. 92.

(3) OJ C 95, 30.3.1998, p. 99.

(4) First convention of civil society organised at European level - 15/16.10.1999.

(5) OJ C 329, 17.11.1999, p. 30.

(6) Article 257 of the Treaty specifies inter alia that "the Committee shall consist of representatives of the various categories of economic and social activity ...".

(7) See point 1.1, final paragraph.

(8) See point 5.1 of the aforementioned Committee opinion of September 1999.

(9) See point 9.3 of the Committee opinion of September 1999 and the Commission Communication on promoting the role of voluntary organisations and foundations in Europe (COM(97) 241 final).

(10) See, too, the Committee opinion of September 1999.

(11) As demonstrated by the invitation issued to the European platform for NGOs in the social sector to attend the informal meeting of Ministers for Social Affairs in Lisbon, 10-11 February 2000.