Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on "Organised civil society and European governance: the Committee's contribution to the drafting of the White Paper"
Date: 2001-04-25
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: company constituted under civil law, powers of the institutions (EU)

10.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 193/117

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on ‘Organised civil society and European
governance: the Committee’s contribution to the drafting of the White Paper’

(2001/C 193/21)

At its plenary session on 19 October 2000 the Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 23(3)
of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on ‘Organised civil society and European
governance: the Committee’s contribution to the drafting of the White Paper’. Under Rule 11(4) and Rule
19(1) of its Rules of Procedure the Committee decided to set up a Sub-committee to prepare the opinion
in question.

The Sub-committee adopted its draft opinion on 4 April 2001. The rapporteur was Mrs Sigmund and the
co-rapporteur was Mr Rodrı´guez Garcı´a Caro.

At its 381st plenary session (meeting of 25 April 2001), the Economic and Social Committee adopted
the following opinion by 84 votes, with two votes against and five abstentions.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
The process of European integration was launched
over 50 years ago by Robert Schuman as a peace initiative.
The initial focus was on economic measures to which a social
component was added later. But European integration always
had a political dimension. This requires the further develop-
ment and if necessary introduction of new decision-making
structures, especially in view of the adjustments required prior
to EU enlargement. The Commission’s response within the
framework of its four strategic priorities for 2000-2005 has
been to draw up a White Paper on ‘Governance’
in the
European Union. A working document (1) intended to structure
a dynamic process of exchange which will be open and
interactive was drawn up in preparation for this White Paper.

1.1.1.
On 28 March the College of Commissioners dis-
cussed a document entitled ‘The possible approaches to
European governance’, which is to prepare the ground for the
White Paper ‘For democratic European governance’.

The Committee notes that this document clarifies and explains
the issues addressed in the working document, which are now
grouped under four broad approaches:

— understanding what Europe is all about;

— the challenge of participation and effectiveness;

— the tension between decentralisation and European unity;

— selectiveness, subsidiarity and proportionality.

This opinion represents an ESC contribution to the
1.2.
drafting of the Commission White Paper. The Committee has
previously observed that one of the biggest challenges for

(1) SEC(2000) 1547 final of 11.10.2000, p. 7.

European governance is ensuring effective participation of
organised civil society. It therefore focuses on this issue, which
is a main theme of both the Commission working document
and the current debate. The Committee believes that at this
stage, when the focus is on fundamental and procedural
questions, it can best contribute to the Commission initiative
by providing analysis and proposals in this area. The final
version of the White Paper should be adopted in July 2001,
and the Committee also intends to deliver an opinion on that
document.

1.2.1.
The Committee is convinced that — as the represen-
tative of organised civil society (2) in the EU political and
institutional system — its experience and working methods
enable it to provide the work of the Commission with added
value.

that

firmly believes

The Committee

1.2.2.
effective
implementation of a new European concept for the way in
which Europe is governed and administered must go hand in
hand with appropriate institutional reform. It is therefore
endeavouring in its own sphere to introduce the appropriate
reforms in order to adapt its working arrangements to current
requirements and make these more flexible. At the start of
his term, the Committee’s president identified eight priority
objectives; a panel is currently reviewing the Rules of Pro-
cedure; an ad hoc group has drafted a strategic communication
plan; and another ad hoc group is preparing specific proposals
on how the Committee can best perform its role as the
institution representing organised civil society at European
level.

(2) See Article 257 TEC, as amended by the Nice Treaty:

‘An
Economic and Social Committee is hereby established. It shall have
advisory status. The Committee shall consist of representatives of
the various economic and social components of organised civil
society and, in particular, representatives of producers, farmers,
carriers, workers, dealers, craftsmen, professional occupations,
consumers and the general public’.

C 193/118

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.7.2001

1.3.
In anticipation of the launch of the debate about future
EU governance, the Committee has over the past two years
looked closely at the following issues in its opinions: ‘The role
and contribution of civil society organisations in the building
of Europe’ (1), ‘The 2000 Intergovernmental Conference — The
role of the European Economic and Social Committee’ (2), ‘The
Commission and non-governmental organisations: building
a stronger partnership’(3) and ‘Strategic objectives 2000-
2005’ (4).

Concrete examples of how the Committee, as the
1.4.
institution representing organised civil society, is contributing
to the reform of European governance are its proposals on
simplifying rules in the single market (4) and its simplification
code of conduct.

2. General comments on the governance concept

Although the concept of governance is becoming well
2.1.
established in modern political parlance in all languages, it
seems helpful to define the term more precisely. Calame and
Talmant define governance as ‘the capacity of human societies
insti-
to equip themselves with systems of representation,
tutions, processes and intermediary bodies in order to manage
themselves by intentional action. The capacity of conscience
(the intentional action), of organisation (the institutions and
intermediary bodies), of conceptualisation (the systems of
representation) and of adaptation to new situations is a
characteristic of human societies’ (5).

The Commission working document defines govern-
2.1.1.
ance as encompassing ‘rules, processes and behaviour that
affect the way in which powers are exercised at European level,
particularly as regards accountability, clarity, transparency,
coherence, efficiency and effectiveness’.

In his speech of 18 September 2000 in Santander,
2.1.2.
‘Governance
Commissioner Busquin gave a neat definition:
means public administration through the interaction of the
traditional political authorities and “civil society”: private
stakeholders, public organisations, citizens’ (6).

2.2.
The title of the working document, ‘Enhancing democ-
racy in the European Union’, describes both the means and the
objective of the initiative, alluding only obliquely to the
‘democratic deficit’
in European Union policy-making (an
accusation frequently made).

2.2.1.
The Committee does not wish in this opinion to
address the issue of the ‘democratic deficit’ that might result
from an imbalance between the legislative and executive
functions at Community level or from the difficulty of
organising civil society participation in decision- and policy-
making, an issue which will be dealt with below. However, it
would stress that democracy always relates to a collective
entity that regards itself as such (7). Can such a collective
identity be assumed to exist at European level? In the national
context this role is played by the population, the ‘demos’; but
in Europe we have to deal with the sum (or synthesis) of a
number of identity criteria, which are together based on
common values (8). A collective European identity could be
created through communities based on interaction, experience
and shared history. But
the European Union is not an
interaction-based community, it is hardly a historical com-
munity and only to a certain extent a community based on
experience (7). Thus it would be more appropriate in this
context to talk about lack of a common European awareness (9).

2.2.2.
European awareness will certainly be strengthened
when Europeans in the 12 countries currently in the eurozone
are connected with each other in their everyday lives by
a single currency. Another very important instrument for
developing a European identity would be a binding European
Charter of Fundamental Rights, as noted in the Committee’s
opinion on that subject (10).

2.2.3.
The Committee wishes to stress that the distance
between Europe’s citizens and Brussels is not just a quantitative
problem (distance), but above all a qualitative problem (experi-
ence), which must be addressed both by specific efforts to win
people over and by providing specific opportunities for them
to be involved.
Information must not remain a one-way
street, but must be improved to form a system of two-
way communication in which people are no longer passive
recipients of impenetrable facts. As long as people perceive
decision-taking that affects them to be remote and unfathom-
able,
it is understandable that their interest is constantly
waning and sometimes turns to hostility. People must be given

(1) OJ C 329, 17.11.1999.
(2) OJ C 117, 26.4.2000.
(3) OJ C 268, 19.9.2000.
(4) OJ C 14, 16.1.2001.
(5) Pierre Calame and André Talmant, ‘L’Etat au coeur, le Meccano de
la gouvernance’, Desclée de Brouwer, Paris 1997, p. 19. Taken
from the Commission Forward Studies Unit,
‘Developing new
modes of governance’ (Working Paper 2000).

(6) From SPEECH/00/313, ‘Science, Technology and Society in the

(7) Kielmannsegg in Jachtenfuchs/Kohler ‘Europäische Integration’,

Leski and Budrich 1996, p. 54.

(8) OJ C 329, 17.11.1999, ‘The role and contribution of civil society

organisations in the building of Europe’.

(9) ‘Accroître l’efficacité et la légimité de la gouvernance de l’Union

européen’ (Forward Studies Unit, CdP(99) 750).

(10) OJ C 367, 20.12.2000, p. 26,‘Towards an EU Charter of Funda-

21st century’.

mental Rights’.

10.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 193/119

the opportunity to interact and participate in an appropriate
way. This applies to measures both at European and at Member
State level. In short, responsiveness to grassroots concerns
must become a key feature of European policy. This also
means constantly checking and clarifying that Community
policies are coherent.

basis for legitimisation The Committee’s members — by virtue
of their appointment, their expertise and the fact that they are
rooted in organised civil society in the Member States — are
legitimised to exercise their right to participate in Europe’s
multi-tier system.

2.2.4.
In this context the open coordination method used
since the Lisbon Summit for implementing certain Community
policies opens up interesting possibilities in terms of increasing
the involvement of civil society organisations. For example,
using this method for the programme to combat social
exclusion would require the active participation both of
the authorities in the Member States and of civil society
organisations and other parties concerned, at local and Euro-
pean level. The Committee will monitor the new coordination
method closely to ensure it genuinely involves civil society
organisations in relevant policy areas.

3. Guidelines for reforming modes of European govern-

ance

3.1.
It is a considerable challenge for the Commission’s
governance concept to strengthen and develop this European
awareness and so make the activities and decisions of the
European institutions more responsive to grassroots concerns.
With well-coordinated and complementary measures,
the
governance concept could offer an appropriate way of involv-
ing Europe’s citizens more closely in the joint task of building
Europe through information, cooperation and participation
and helping to make this European awareness develop from
the grassroots level, starting with the people themselves. The
Committee is prepared to play a central role in realising this
concept by acting as a bridge between Europe and its citizens.

3.2.
Governance is accurately described as a governing and
administrative culture that presupposes a consensus about
certain terms, principles, rules and procedures. The Committee
therefore feels it would be useful in the context of drawing up
this opinion to look briefly at four key concepts which are
invoked again and again in connection with new forms of
governance.

Legitimisation:

3.3.
legitimised action, or action that is
authorised within a remit, always has several points of
reference, that of the issuer of the remit, that of the remit itself
and that of the aim of the remit. If the remit is to adopt
legislation, then the electoral system, within the meaning of
representative democracy, is surely the appropriate means of
legitimisation (1). However, where it is a question of influencing
opinion-forming in a political process with specialist know-
ledge (representation of interests), appointment is an adequate

(1) Without prejudice to the tasks entrusted to the social partners in

Articles 137 and 138, TEC.

it

The ‘European democratic model’ will contain many,
3.3.1.
but not only, elements of participatory democracy;
is
designed as a model for cooperation and allows room to
formulate new types of participation, while retaining many
elements of representative democracy. This European political
system is based on relatively recent structures and is thus,
overall, more accessible than most Member States’ systems. In
this context, European governance must above all ensure
effective representation of people’s interests by giving their
representatives a real say in matters. This is to be achieved by
improving and,
transforming cooperation
between the existing institutions at Community level in the
interest of greater transparency, efficiency and accountability.

if necessary,

3.4.
Participation means providing the opportunity to help
shape an opinion-forming and decision-making process in
accordance with democratic principles. This opportunity must
already exist when the problem or the need to address it is
identified. A basic precondition and legitimising basis for
participation is adequate representativeness of those speaking
for organised civil society. The Committee has addressed this
question in the past (2), and repeats its view that representa-
tiveness must be qualitative as well as quantitative. This is
understood as meaning that representatives are able to partici-
pate effectively and constructively in the opinion-forming and
decision-making process through the provision of appropriate
organisational structures and expertise.

The Committee feels that, when consulting civil
3.4.1.
society organisations, the European institutions should check
how representative these bodies are. The Commission has
already addressed the question of criteria for representa-
tiveness (3). This experience has shown that the criteria must
also take into account differences between the Member States.
Account should be taken of certain criteria when deciding
whether an organisation can be recognised as entitled to
participate at European level. The Committee proposes the
following criteria for representativeness:

(2) OJ C 268, 19.9.2000, ‘The Commission and non-governmental

organisations: building a stronger partnership’.

and

special

interest

the Commission

(3) Commission Communication: ‘An open and structured dialogue
between
groups’
(SEC/92/2272 final); ‘Communication concerning the application
of the Agreement on social policy presented by the Commission
to the Council and to the European Parliament’ (COM(93) 600
final); ‘Study of the representativeness of management and labour
within sectoral European organizations — Open procedure’
‘Communication from the
(OJ C 228, 7.8.1996, pp. 24-25);
Commission on promoting the role of voluntary organisations
and foundations in Europe’ (COM(97) 241 final).

C 193/120

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.7.2001

The organisation must:

— exist permanently at Community level;

— provide direct access to its members’ expertise and hence

rapid and constructive consultation;

— represent general concerns that tally with the interests of

European society;

— comprise bodies that are recognised at Member State

level as representative of particular interests;

— have member organisations in most of the EU Member

States;

— provide for accountability to its members;

— have authority to represent and act at European level;

— be independent and mandatory, not bound by instruc-

tions from outside bodies.

Consultation: The Committee supports all initiatives
3.5.
that enable whoever is affected by a measure to express their
views at the earliest possible stage. However, the working
document does not mention the Commission’s widely used
practice of setting up committees, particularly advisory com-
mittees and groups of experts, whose number is steadily
increasing (1).

The setting-up of advisory committees and groups of
3.5.1.
experts must be considered in the light of the objective
formulated by the Commission itself of improving efficiency,
in the sense of ‘institutional efficiency’, or the ability to fulfil
the task in hand with reasonable resources, within a reasonable
timeframe and with a reasonable cost-benefit ratio (2). It is
possible to assume, without exact figures being available, that
there are some 600 such committees and groups, a fact which
makes this objective seem all the more important (3).

3.5.2.
The Committee notes that however legitimate it may
be to consult experts, the legitimacy of decision-making is not
increased, even if this expertise helps to give decisions more
technical validity. The Committee thus recognises the need for
external expertise on certain Commission activities, but points
out that in such instances major ‘policy shaping’ takes place
that is not subject to any control or legitimised participation.
The Committee therefore proposes that the setting up of
further committees should be reconsidered in the interests of

(1) In 1987 already, Delbrück characterised this situation as ‘com-
mittee hypertrophy’ — Wessels, ‘Verwaltung im Mehrebenensys-
tem’
in Jachtenfuchs/Kohler-Koch, Leske and Budrich 1996,
p. 176.

(2) Roland Bieber: ‘Die Demokratie und Entscheidungsfähigkeit in der

EU’ in ‘Direkte Demokratie und EU’.

(3) ‘Verwaltung im Mehrebenensystem’, Wessel, in Jachtenfuchs/Kohl-

er-Koch, Leske + Budrich 1996, p. 176.

transparency, efficiency and accountability, principles pro-
moted by the Commission itself. In their present form such
committees pose a problem in terms of efficient governance,
transparency and legitimacy.

In its working document the Commission also says
3.5.3.
that more extensive consultations held earlier in the decision-
making process should not make this process unwieldy or
complicated. But in another part of the text it calls for
consultation to extend down to the lowest — i.e. local — level,
and even below the level of civil society organisations, i.e. to
individual people. It remains to be seen whether the new
information technology that
it proposes as a means of
achieving this will solve the problem and whether such an
‘electronic democracy’ is really practicable.

3.6.
In simplified terms, subsidiarity means that decisions
should be taken at the level that is most appropriate for solving
a problem. Subsidiarity is often equated with responsiveness
to grassroots concerns. However, the concepts of a ‘decision-
making level’ and ‘responsiveness to grassroots concerns’
encourage the mistaken assumption that subsidiarity is deter-
mined only by vertical — i.e. hierarchical and territorial —
criteria. The basic idea here is to achieve efficiency through a
particularly close understanding of problems; however, a close
understanding of problems depends not just on territorial, but
also on functional, criteria. When deciding who is to be
involved in decision-making,
functional
subsidiarity, as determined by specific expertise, must be taken
into account as described in point 3.4. Functional and
territorial subsidiarity are complementary concepts, and they
each in their own right guarantee greater responsiveness
to ordinary people’s concerns and greater efficiency. The
subsidiarity principle does not mean simply redistributing
decision-making powers, but also — and perhaps principally
— redistributing the responsibility shared by institutions and
organised civil society players at every level. The idea of an
interactive network that is inherent in the governance concept
is also fully consistent with these two facets of subsidiarity.

this means that

4. Role of the European Economic and Social Com-

mittee in European governance

The Committee is both a forum for dialogue and the
4.1.
institutional platform that enables representatives of
the
Member States’ economic, social and civic organisations to be
an integral part of the Community decision-making process.
Under the role assigned to it by the Treaties, and by virtue of
the
its composition and the knowledge of
Committee is a key player as the representative, centre of
information and mouthpiece for organised civil society, and
thus an essential bridge between Europe and its citizens,
thereby complementing their political representation by the
European Parliament and the representation of local and
regional authorities by the Committee of the Regions.

its members,

10.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 193/121

4.1.1.
Although its mandate is primarily to issue opinions,
the Committee has gradually diversified its activities with the
aim of helping to ensure effective involvement of organised
civil society in opinion-forming and decision-making, and
promoting a Europe that is closer to its citizens.

Once it has entered into effect, the Nice Treaty will
4.1.2.
confirm the Committee in its role as the Community institution
representing the leading forces of organised civil society. This
treaty will give the Committee further scope to really play its
role as the link between Europe and organised civil society and
as a permanent and structured forum for dialogue and
consultation at Community level. It will thus become a vital
part of European governance (1).

4.2.
On this basis the Committee reaffirms the need to
involve civil society organisations more specifically and more
fully in the political process. This applies — given the territorial
and functional aspects of subsidiarity — both at the different
territorial
levels — (national, regional and local) and in
the different sectors of civil society, as represented in the
Committee. In this connection, the Committee will consider
how its members can increase acceptance of the EU in the
Member States through grassroots actions and with the
support of their organisations.

Committee opinions are drawn up in a process that
4.3.
reflects civil society dialogue and is geared to achieving a
consensus. The Committee’s working methods provide for a
‘bottom-up’ process where decisions are reached by involving
a steadily widening circle of people. The vote in plenary session
reflects a synthesis of views that may initially have been
conflicting, based on the different interests of the civil society
organisations represented in the Committee. Within this
decision-making process the members are able to gather an
optimum amount of information, which often means that
their views change as a result of discussion. The added value
of this process is that each Committee member can try to
reach a consensus on the basis of his or her position and can
gauge to what extent this position can also evolve. The
Committee’s opinions thus accurately reflect the views of
organised civil society.

4.3.1.
In the interests of the transparency that the Com-
mittee itself is calling for, it will consider whether and, if
necessary, how it could record the different initial positions of
its members.

The Committee sees its consultative role as more
4.3.2.
than just delivering opinions;
it considers participation to
extend from the point when a problem is identified to the
stage immediately preceding the taking of the decision. This
wider view of participation, which includes evaluation and
monitoring, is particularly valid for specific problem areas (e.g.
the single market, the euro, enlargement).

4.3.3.
An example of this global approach is the recent
evaluation of the new open coordination method introduced
by the Lisbon Summit (2). The Committee notes that this new
method of coordination requires the participation of all
organised civil society in implementing the strategy. It also
points out that the applicant countries, especially the represen-
tatives of organised civil society, have to be involved in the
process without delay.

4.3.4.
The success of the Single Market Observatory (SMO),
which was set up in 1994 at the request of the Community
institutions in order to monitor the working of the single
market and propose improvements if necessary, testifies to the
added value provided by the Committee’s activity in this sphere
and to the benefits of developing such activities. With the aid
of an interactive information network that collects data
provided by ‘users’ of the single market (PRISM: Progress
Report on Initiatives in the Single Market), the SMO is able not
just to identify obstacles to the completion of the single
market, but also to spread good practice, facilitate information
transmission and encourage cooperative arrangements (3).

The Committee as a barometer of socio-political
4.4.
development: The appointment of ESC members by the
Member States guarantees that they have a strong connection
— because of their work, too — with what is happening in
their countries. This means that they will be able to estimate
whether Community legislative measures are acceptable in
their countries, but also to promote understanding for these
measures in their countries and to explain to the general public
the relevance of the EU to their everyday lives.

4.4.1. With a view to ensuring that legislative proposals
meet people’s needs, the Commission can draw on this fund
of experience at a pre-drafting stage by asking for exploratory
opinions. The Committee can also provide useful information
whenever the EU’s position on an international issue has to be
broadly based, drawing on the views of civil society. In a quite
general way, the Committee can serve as an early warning
system for socio-political developments and make suggestions
for useful measures at an early stage, before conflicts arise or
threaten to become difficult.

4.5.

Specifically, the Committee’s work takes the form of:

— referrals under the EC Treaty: these opinions are generally
issued too late, however,
i.e. at a point when the
Commission has already in many cases consulted interest
groups and so completed an initial opinion-forming
process. There is a causal link between the timing of

(1) President’s inaugural address, 29.11.2000.

(2) OJ C 139, 11.5.2001.
(3) PRISM initiative (Progress Report on Initiatives in the Single
Market) of the Single Market Observatory (www.esc.eu.int/omu–
smo/prism).

C 193/122

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.7.2001

the Commission’s referral and the effectiveness of the
Committee’s work, i.e. the earlier the Commission con-
sults the Committee, the more useful its work is for the
Commission. Normally the Committee should already be
consulted by the Commission at the stage when the need
for action or legislation is first identified. The Committee
could then make a useful contribution to analysing the
problem and finding solutions, so that its work provides
as much added value as possible for the Commission.
However, it should also be consulted again later on in
the decision-making process, for example when new
positions are discussed and additional expertise seems to
be called for under the co-decision procedure;

— exploratory opinions: the Committee carries out a for-
ward analysis on behalf of an institution and formulates
proposals on a given subject. The Commission has taken
up the Committee’s suggestion of consulting it at an early
stage on two recent occasions; exploratory opinions on
‘Human rights in the workplace’ (1) and ‘Towards an EU
strategy for health and safety at the workplace’ are
currently in preparation;

— own-initiative opinions: these allow the Committee to
address certain issues directly, without a referral, to speak
on matters of general interest and give its views about
topical and politically important issues.

4.5.1.
The Committee is for ever widening the circle of
those involved in its work beyond its members, which is also
helping it to develop as a forum for dialogue and consultation:

— public events:: by holding public events, the Committee
helps to create an open forum in Europe for discussing
key European issues with a broad range of civil society
organisations (see ‘First European convention of organ-
ised civil society’) and considering self-contained subject
areas (e.g.
the annual European Consumer Day on
15 March);

— hearings: these have become an increasingly popular
instrument for the Committee. The aim is to enable as
many civil society organisations as possible to participate
in the drafting of opinions too (not only in Brussels, but
also in the Member States), and to ensure that its work
also reflects the views of those civil society organisations
that are not represented by its members.

4.6.
The ESC and EU external relations: One of the Com-
mittee’s priorities is to promote the development of a plural-
istic, participatory democratic model in the applicant countries

(1) Adoption scheduled for July 2001.

and other geographical regions with which the EU maintains
structured relations, and to establish appropriate mechanisms
for consulting civil society in the countries and regions
concerned (2).

4.6.1.
In the context of enlargement the Committee feels
that it is not enough for the applicant countries to adopt
Community laws (the Community ‘acquis’), but that it is just
as important for them to create structures that enable them to
apply and monitor these laws (social ‘acquis’):

— The Committee supports the applicant countries’

‘insti-
tution building’ through bilateral joint consultative com-
mittees (3) and is trying to promote the setting up of
equivalent civil society structures to those existing in the
Member States.

— It is involving organised civil society in the applicant

countries more and more in its proceedings.

4.7.
The ESC as the forum for organised civil society: At
the ‘First European convention of organised civil society’, held
in October 1999, the Committee considered possible ways of
involving in its communication process those parts of organ-
ised civil society that are not currently represented by its
members. The first proposals were adopted in its opinion ‘The
Commission and non-governmental organisations: building a
stronger partnership (4)’. An ad hoc group is currently drawing
up proposals for practical implementation.

4.8.
The Committee has tried to explain in several opinions
and other statements that it is not the forum in which social
dialogue takes place. Social dialogue has its own clear legal
basis, enshrined in the Treaty (5), and represents a special,
highly qualified form of governance based on the particular
remit of the social partners (especially their ability to conclude
binding agreements) and its own specific objectives.
In
addition, an embryonic public debate has begun to develop
with the increased involvement of organised civil society, a
debate that the Committee feels should be structured. This civil
dialogue is also one form of governance, and the Committee
feels that its aims, structures, procedures and participation
criteria should be more closely examined and defined. An
initial analysis containing proposed definitions can be found
in its opinion ‘The Commission and non-governmental organ-
isations: building a stronger partnership(4)’. Accordingly, the
Committee feels that civil dialogue should have the following
features:

(2) Cf. Meeting of representatives of EU/Latin America/Caribbean
civil society (June 1999) and EU-India Civil Society Round Table
(January 2001).

(3) These currently exist for Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania,

and one is soon to be set up for Slovakia.

(4) OJ C 268, 19.9.2000.
(5) Articles 137 and 138, TEC.

10.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 193/123

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

— the civil dialogue should not take the place of or compete

with the social dialogue, but provide an adjunct;

— 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, apart from those areas covered
by the social dialogue (1), 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 (2);

— civil dialogue players should also be responsible for
ensuring that non-EU countries and especially the appli-
cant 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.

The Committee has also already done considerable ground-
work on defining the civil society organisations that are to
participate in civil dialogue (3).

4.8.1.
Civil dialogue could become the key instrument for
participation in the European democratic model. Civil dialogue
is based on public debate, which extends to legislative matters.
However, it will be essential to bear in mind that consultation
and participation are two different forms of involvement that
are governed by different conditions.

4.9.
Annual conference: The Committee supports the Euro-
pean Parliament decision of 10 December 1996 (4)‘to hold an
annual debate in the form of a special part-session of
Parliament, attended by the Commission and the Council, on
the general guidelines for economic policy, and that the debate
should be preceded by a preparatory conference of
the
European Parliament with representatives of the Economic and
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions’. This
pragmatic approach to interinstitutional cooperation should
be extended to other areas.

4.10.
The future of Europe: The Commission’s governance
team was set up in summer last year and therefore had to base
its work on the practical and legal situation prior to Nice. The
outcome of the Nice summit has required that new discussions
be held on technical issues but also on the decision about new
decision-making structures in the run-up to the intergovern-
mental conference planned for 2004. The Committee does not
think this makes the governance issue any less relevant: on the
contrary, the Commission’s work on governance is vital in
paving the way and clearing the ground for future discussions
about Europe’s future.

There already seems to be a consensus that better
4.10.1.
instruments must be created to prepare for
the next
intergovernmental conference and also that the list of topics
appearing in the declaration about the future of the Union is
not exhaustive. The Commission and European Parliament
have so far indicated that they would prefer to establish a
structure along the lines of the Convention used for drawing
up the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

4.10.2.
The Committee believes that organised civil society
should be fully involved in the whole process of preparing the
Intergovernmental Conference and that its involvement should
not be limited to the public debate which, under the Declar-
ation on the future of the Union annexed to the Treaty of Nice,
must take place before the European Council
in Laeken.
Although it had the right to express its views to the Convention
drawing up the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, the
Committee believes that it could be a considerably more
effective link in future between institutional dialogue and the
broad public debate if, in accordance with its remit, it was a
full part of the definitive structure.

5.

Enhancing the Committee’s role in the context of
new European governance

5.1.
Each institution has a role to play in ensuring that
Europe’s citizens are really involved in the European venture
and can influence it, through the organisations that represent
them. The Committee has already realised that it — like the
other institutions — must adapt to the challenges facing the
European Union. However, this also means, as observed above,
that new synergies must be created between the Committee and
the other institutions in the context of improving European
governance.

(1) i.e. matters relating to social negotiation under Articles 137 and

138 of the Treaty.

(2) One example of structured civil dialogue would be ESC partici-

pation in informal Council meetings in these areas.

(3) OJ C 329, 17.11.1999: ‘The role and contribution of civil society

organisations in the building of Europe’.

(4) ‘Resolution on participation of citizens and social players in the

Union’s institutional system’, paragraph 11.

5.2.
In his address to the plenary session on 20 October
1999, the President of the European Commission, Romano
Prodi, recognised this need for a new partnership between the
Commission and the Committee. This partnership should
be spelt out in the cooperation agreement currently being
negotiated between the Committee and the Commission.

C 193/124

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.7.2001

5.3.
This agreement, which will lead to the establishment
of a refurbished framework for cooperation, should promote
the development of new forms of partnership and formalise
those that already exist (1), so that the Committee can increase
the added value of its activity.

5.4.
The Committee proposes that similar agreements be
concluded with the Council and the European Parliament,
since this alone will enable it to effectively play its role in the
new system of European governance, both in terms of its
consultative tasks and as a forum for dialogue and consultation
and a link with organised civil society.

In this context, the Committee urges the Commission,
5.5.
the Council and the European Parliament to consider the
following proposals and guidelines:

1)

2)

Referring to the Committee at the earliest possible stage:
the Committee has already indicated that consulting it at
an early stage enhances the added value of its involvement
in the opinion-forming and decision-making processes,
and it therefore calls on the Commission, Council and
Parliament to request more exploratory opinions, which
must not be limited to future legislative measures, but
could also be drafted prior to the preparation of, for
example, green papers.

Effectiveness of the Committee’s consultative role: to be
as effective as possible, the Committee must not just be
consulted at the earliest possible stage, but must also be
involved throughout the whole decision-making process.
The Committee not only feels it is necessary to have an
overview of its proposals that are accepted, but also
hopes that
in future the Commission, Council and
Parliament will provide reasons for not taking its pro-
posals on board.

3) Helping to fix specific requirements for cooperation
between the European institutions and civil society
organisations: the Committee is offering, with the help of
the institutions and civil society organisations, and on the
basis of the proposal formulated in point 3.4 above, to
draw up a list of criteria for representativeness which
could serve as a precondition for such cooperation. It is
also prepared to take charge of monitoring.

(1) The latest example is the hearing of organised civil society held
by the Committee, at the request of and in collaboration with the
Commission, on 26 and 27 April 2001, on the subject of
sustainable development.

4) Helping to develop civil dialogue:

the Committee is
willing, with the help of the parties involved in civil
dialogue and on the basis of work it has already done, to
provide a closer definition of
the dialogue and its
structures, objectives and procedures. At the same time,
the Committee can provide the impetus for a new
pragmatic approach to civil dialogue.

5) Annual conferences: following the example of the Euro-
institutions should hold annual

pean Parliament, all
conferences on specific topics.

6)

Role of the Committee in the debate about Europe’s
future: the Committee sets great store in being involved
at the earliest possible stage in discussions about the
structure of the future decision-making processes, so
link between the
that it can act as the institutional
interinstitutional debate and the broad public debate
about the future of Europe. It also intends to involve
civil society players from the applicant countries in its
discussions about Europe’s future.

6. Meeting the challenge of the new governance con-

cept

6.1.
To sum up, the Committee welcomes the reaffirmed
intention of the Commission to make the processes by which
civil society is involved in legislative or executive decision-
making more transparent, predictable and structured.
The Commission is now considering the following option as
one way of achieving this objective:

— focusing on enhancing the consultative role of

the
Committee and if necessary establishing additional guide-
lines to promote the ongoing development of European
civil society structures;

— giving socio-economic interest groups a key role in
drawing up provisions (e.g. by developing new forms
of self-regulation or co-regulation within the existing
regulatory system).

On the basis of the guidelines and proposals in this opinion,
the Committee supports such an approach and trusts that the
Commission will be guided by it and opt for it when drafting
the White Paper.

6.2.
Finally, the Committee reiterates its readiness to meet
the challenges of the new governance concept and to makes
its contribution to institutional reform. Thus on 19 December
2000 its Bureau decided to lay down operational measures
that would help the Committee to be an even more effective
representative of and institutional broker for organised civil
society in its dealings with the organisations concerned and
the Community institutions. In this context, the President of

10.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 193/125

the ESC indicated on 29 November 2000 that the Committee
needs an external ‘corporate identity (1)’.

The Committee believes that a medium-term strategy should
be drawn up in cooperation with the institutions and European
bodies representing organised civil society.

The Committee is convinced that
the following specific
initiatives would accelerate the developments desired by all
interested parties:
1.

‘Forum for civil society’: this is the Committee’s unofficial
title for the platform it wishes to set up to provide
ongoing support for open dialogue and exchanges of
opinion and experience between civil society organis-
ations, whether or not
they are represented on the
Committee. The Committee would very much like to see
the European bodies send their representatives regularly
to these meetings.
Exploratory opinions: these already provide the Com-
mission with an effective instrument for decentralisation;
Committee analyses of topical issues carried out for the
Commission could replace green papers and lighten the
Commission’s workload.

2.

3. Hearings: experience has shown that hearings enhance
the Committee’s expertise and are also a good way of
improving responsiveness to grassroots concerns. The
Committee will therefore continue to expand in this area
and also organise hearings in Member States whenever
possible.
Strengthening organised civil society in the Member
States: the Committee would also like to promote the

4.

(1) The prime importance of such a measure was also made clear in
the President’s inaugural speech on 29 November 2000: ‘The ESC
should, in the near future, press ahead, with the support of all
concerned, with the process of promoting an internal awareness
of the distinctive nature of the Committee; this process must be
backed up by a corresponding process of external promotion of
this distinctive character in order to enable us shortly to reach a
conclusive agreement on the Committee’s role, the reason why it
exists and the purpose of its activities in a period marked by rapid
change and in the light of the large number of new tasks to be
assumed by the Committee. We will be able to achieve this goal if
we avoid getting bogged down in ideological debates and concen-
trate on the challenges facing us’.

Brussels, 25 April 2001.

further development of social and civil dialogue structures
in the Member States where necessary, by stepping up its
cooperation with existing Economic and Social Councils
and similar institutions. The Committee advocates and
supports the establishment of advisory institutions rep-
resenting organised civil society in those Member States
which do not yet have them.

5. Measures relating to enlargement:

the Committee is
supporting the applicant countries not just by developing
consultation mechanisms based on the Community mod-
el (2), but also by increasing the involvement of existing
civil society organisations in its discussions, or in its
information strategy. In this context it will also try to set
up more Joint Consultative Committees.

6. Dialogue with organised civil society in other regions
with which the EU maintains relations: the Committee
will step up this dialogue, or where necessary initiate
contacts (on behalf of the Commission) (3).

7.

Role and contribution of organised civil society to the
dialogue about the future of Europe: from the Com-
mittee’s point of view, it is evident that ‘good governance’
must also be the leitmotiv for all efforts in the framework
of the ‘post-Nice process’, and it will discuss this in detail
in a separate opinion.

The specific proposals set out above are examples and in no
sense exhaustive; they represent a first step towards enhancing
the Committee’s role in the context of
the governance
concept. The Committee believes that the long-term success of
governance depends on a medium-term consensus being
reached on certain key concepts and processes, e.g. in relation
to civil dialogue (participants, objectives and procedure) or the
ongoing shaping of European civil society. This will require
the development of criteria agreed with all those concerned,
procedural rules and ‘monitoring’. The Committee is willing to
make an active contribution and to take on specific tasks in
this area.

(2) See for example the Warsaw Conference, 7-8 December 2000.
(3) See the EU-India Civil Society Round Table (January 2001).

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS