Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the Commission discussion paper 'The Commission and non-governmental organisations: building a stronger partnership'
Date: 2000-07-13
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: European Commission, cooperation policy, database, exchange of information, non-governmental organisation

19.9.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 268/67

2.11.
As regards the relationship between air transport and
R&TD policy, the Committee supports the guidelines set out
in the Commission document and urges that a new field be
included to assess the possible influence of air traffic demand
in the wake of the new professional situation brought about
by the information society. This could avoid expensive
increases in air traffic capacity and services which could be

reduced or even made obsolete by the impact of new
technologies.

2.12.
Finally, the Committee would urge the European Com-
mission to present, within two years, a new communication on
this subject after the ICAO Conference and after assessment of
the statistical system provided by the TERM project.

Brussels, 13 July 2000.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI

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 Com-
mission 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
for a Europe-wide participatory democracy has
a model

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 con-
vention (4) last year to the role and contribution of civil society

(1) COM(2000) 11 final.

level — 15/16.10.1999.

(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

C 268/68

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

19.9.2000

organisations in building Europe.
In preparation for this
convention, the Committee adopted an opinion (1) on 23 Sep-
tember 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.

the background of

The purpose of this opinion is to consider the Com-
1.4.
mission discussion paper against
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
Treaty
the
Article 257 — of organised civil society (2) 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.

meaning

of

must be established as a coherent part of the process of overall
administrative reform’ (3). 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 elimin-
ate 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.

The Committee sets great store by the Commission’s
2.1.1.
discussion paper which it regards as a valuable initial contri-
bution 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 facilitat-
ing 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 partici-
patory democracy and ‘closeness to the people’ can be said to
have really been achieved in Europe.

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 allo-
cation 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.

2.1.2.
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. General comments

2.1.
The Commission itself emphasises the close link
between its discussion paper and its proposals for administrat-
ive reform, pointing out that ‘it is clear that specific proposals

It

is absolutely clear that

2.2.
the social partners and
European NGOs, within their respective spheres of responsi-
bility, are and must also remain the Commission’s preferred
consultative partners. This does not, however, exclude consul-
tation, 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.

(1) OJ C 329, 17.11.1999, p. 30.
(2) Article 257 of the Treaty specifies inter alia that ‘the Committee
the various categories of

shall consist of representatives of
economic and social activity ...’.

(3) See point 1.1, final paragraph.

19.9.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 268/69

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.

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.

2.2.2.
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 net-
works or establishing federal machinery in order to engage in
effective dialogue between themselves and with the Com-
munity 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 Com-
mission 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 consider-
ations 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 — implement-
ed 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 represen-
tativeness 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
the
themselves mandated by minorities to work against
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

The term ‘civil dialogue’ is referred to time and again
2.3.
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.

The Committee, in its capacity as the institutionalised
2.3.1.
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 democ-
racy — must be provided with a general organisational frame-
work and content before being developed in the areas where it
already exists in part.

2.3.2.
In its opinion on the 2000 Intergovernmental Con-
ference 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 pro-
posal 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’.

C 268/70

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

19.9.2000

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.

The Commission stresses that ‘the decision-making
3.1.3.
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 rep-
resentative 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 appoint-
ments 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’ (1).

Participatory democracy requires that parties who
3.1.4.
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.

(1) See point 5.1 of
September 1999.

the aforementioned Committee opinion of

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 organis-
ations.

4.

Building a stronger partnership between the Com-
mission 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 depart-
ment 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 trans-
parency 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.

In the same context and as a general rule,

4.1.2.
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 trans-
the Commission.
parency which they rightly demand of
The credibility of NGOs’ stances depends on participatory
democracy being practised in their midst, too.

19.9.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 268/71

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 mono-
lithic 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, trans-
parent 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.

Regardless of the criteria which might finally be
4.4.2.
applied for admitting NGOs to consultations with the Com-
mission — 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 bench-
marking, 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 organis-
ations 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 (1). 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.

(1) 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).

C 268/72

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

19.9.2000

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.

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.

5.1.3.
Committee’s opinion — have the following features (1):

At all events, the civil dialogue should — in the

— 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 represen-
tatives 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 (2), apart from those areas
covered by the social dialogue, but should also embrace
consumer matters, development,
the
human rights, culture and all other questions which are
important for civil society in all its component parts;

environment,

— civil dialogue players should also be responsible for
ensuring that non-EU countries and especially the candi-
date 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 organis-
ations 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

6.3.
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 democ-
racy. 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.

As a follow-up to the first convention on civil society
6.4.1.
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.

6.1.
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’.

(1) See, too, the Committee opinion of September 1999.
(2) 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.

6.4.2. With regard to enlargement, the Committee con-
siders 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 democ-
racy, which alone will further the implementation of partici-
patory democracy. Work in this field will undoubtedly occupy
an important place in the future strategy of the Committee.

19.9.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 268/73

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.

the Committee declares that

In the light of the above and the hopes raised by the
6.4.4.
convention,
is willing to
consider setting up an organisational structure for carrying out
the appropriate work and,
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.

in particular,

it

6.4.5.
could include:

The main tasks to be performed by this observatory

— 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;

Brussels, 13 July 2000.

— 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 organis-
ations 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 partici-
pation. It fervently hopes that its actions receive the support
of the other institutions, and especially the Commission.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI