Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on "European Governance — a White Paper" (COM(2001) 428 final)
Date: 2002-04-20
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU institution, central government, citizens' Europe, institutional reform, member country, operation of the Institutions

27.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 125/61

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on ‘European Governance — a White Paper’

(COM(2001) 428 final)

(2002/C 125/13)

On 30 July 2001, the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on ‘European Governance — a White
Paper’.

At its Plenary Session on 12 and 13 September 2001, 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 12 March 2002. The rapporteur was Ms Engelen-Kefer
and the co-rapporteur Ms Pari.

At its 389th Plenary Session (meeting of 20 March 2002), the Committee adopted the following opinion
by 75 votes with four abstentions.

1. Shaping the future of Europe with improved modes
of governance: two reform processes — one objective

quick action is being taken to correct deficiencies in policy
development and delivery and to better involve people in its
work.

1.1.
In the framework of a wide and structured debate, the
European Commission submitted its White Paper on European
Governance on 25 July 2001. It thus set in motion one of the
major reforms announced by Commission President Romano
Prodi at the beginning of 2000. The thorough overhaul of the
shape of the EU and the simplification and improvement of
the European institutions’ policymaking and working methods
— on the basis of the present Treaty — are the aims of this
reform in order to make the European Union more efficient,
better understood, and to bring it closer to its citizens in a
more open, coherent, transparent and responsible way.

1.2.
At present the two reform processes — the debate on
the European Union’s future and the debate on governance —
are moving forward in parallel. The European summit held in
Laeken on 14-15 December 2001 fixed the composition of,
and agenda for, the Convention, which is preparing the next
intergovernmental conference. In setting up this Convention,
the heads of state and government have given a major boost
to the further development of democracy in Europe as for the
first time citizens and their representatives will participate in
the decision-making on the future shape of the European
system of government,
in the spirit of a more open and
participative governance. The European Economic and Social
Committee, the European social partners and the Committee
of the Regions have observer status in the Convention. This is
in accordance with the Committee’s role as the institutionalised
representative of organised civil society.

1.4.
Furthermore, there is an urgency for reforms in view
of the next enlargement — the magnitude of which has no
precedent in the EU’s history — and of the deepening of the
European Union. Valuable time would be lost if the Com-
mission and the other institutions were not to improve their
working structures and methods before the next intergovern-
mental conference in 2004.

The European Economic and Social Committee actively
1.5.
pursues the issues of European governance, according to
the Nice Treaty, as the institutionalised (1) representative of
organised civil society. It does so under the double perspective
of establishing new synergies between the institutions of the
European Union and developing its role as a fundamental
intermediary between the EU institutions and organised civil
society. In that context, The EESC welcomes the Protocol
between the Committee and the Commission of 24 September
governing arrangements for cooperation in the spirit of a
better European governance.

1.6.

Over the past three years the Committee has organised

1.3.
The European Economic and Social Committee wel-
comes the White Paper. It urges the Commission to implement
the necessary reforms for good governance identified in the
White Paper as this offers the chance to show the public that

(1) Article 257 of the EC Treaty ‘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, pro-
fessional occupations, consumers and the general interest’.

C 125/62

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.5.2002

debates (1) and has issued a number of opinions (2) focusing
more specifically on the way to ensure an effective partici-
pation of organised civil society. In previous opinions, the
Committee has made a number of concrete proposals in this
area. It is regrettable that several of these proposals have not
been taken into account in the Commission White Paper.

common values shared by its citizens are translated into
effective Community policies and tangible benefits across-the-
board. The euro provides a clear illustration of the above
argument. It is interesting to note how enthusiastically citizens
embraced the new currency and participated actively in its
successful introduction.

1.7.
In this opinion on the White Paper, the Committee
will concentrate on the issues that concern it most and where
it can bring added value. It focuses around three axes: the
reasons and principles of better governance, the proposals for
better involvement of civil society and for better regulation,
and finally the role of the EESC.

2. Why reform European Governance?

The European Union has certainly made enormous
2.1.
strides yet many Europeans feel remote from its work for all
the reasons very rightly mentioned in the White Paper —
wrong perceptions, bad communication, inadequate involve-
ment, and poor knowledge

2.2.
Deficits in the EU’s political objectives and measures
have also been responsible for people’s scepticism. The EU
should avoid creating too high expectations, which it is not
able to meet,
thus generating mistrust and harming its
credibility. A European identity will not emerge unless the

(1) For example:

— Social economy and the single market – 12 October 1999
— First Convention of civil society organised at European level

— 15 and 16 October 1999

— Choosing our future: shaping the 6th EU Environment Action

programme Views from civil society — 7 March 2001
— The Euro: can we anticipate all reactions? – 14 May 2001
— Shaping the strategy for a sustainable European Union: views
from civil society and public authorities – 26 and 27 April
2001

— Conference on the role of organised civil society in European

governance – 8 and 9 November 2001

(2) See for instance:

— ‘The role and contribution of civil society organisations in the

building of Europe’ — OJ C 329, 17.11.1999

— ‘The 2000 Intergovernmental Conference — The role of the
European economic and Social Committee’ — OJ C 117,
26.4.2000

— ‘The Commission and non-governmental organisations: build-

ing a stronger partnership’ — OJ C 268, 19.9.2000
— ‘Strategic objectives 2000-2005’ — OJ C 14, 16.1.2001
— ‘Organised civil society and European governance: the Com-
mittee’s contribution to the White paper’ — OJ C 193,
10.7.2001.

2.3.
Europeans wish for a Europe that is secure, stable, with
a social profile, a sound economic performance, which respects
the environment, creating healthy living and working con-
ditions and which ensures that basic goods and services are
available to all members of society at a fair price. These
comprehensive objectives, which also include respect for the
Member States’ cultures, must be recognised as common
values, defined — and, if need be, extended — and pursued as
such. Only then will it be possible for Europe’s citizens to
recognise the benefit of a common European identity and
declare their support for it. The Committee will step up its
efforts — especially in the light of enlargement and globalisa-
tion — to make the general public more aware of
the
importance of the European Union as a community of values.

2.4.
Furthermore, the language used by the EU does not
contribute to the understanding of the Union’s work. The
Committee would suggest that further publications of the
Commission and Community legislation should be written in
a more comprehensible language.

3. Principles of governance in the European Union

3.1.
The Committee fully supports the five principles of
good governance proposed by the Commission — openness,
participation, accountability, effectiveness and coherence — as
well as the analysis made. It is important that these principles
are implemented in an efficient and responsible way. However,
the Committee would stress that the White Paper’s definition
is not complete. Accountability means not only making clear
the roles and responsibilities, but also to clarify to whom and
in which way a person or body is accountable.

In addition to the five principles mentioned,

3.2.
the
Committee would like to underline subsidiarity as the basic
and the most important principle of good governance. It
would like to reiterate that subsidiarity is not merely a principle
of administrative technique and distribution of powers but the
expression of a certain conception of
its
freedom, its responsibilities and the society it lives in. Society
would work better if citizens had the feeling that the decisions
concerning them are taken at the most appropriate level. The

the individual,

27.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 125/63

appropriate level is not only determined by territorial criteria
(European, national, regional and local) but also by functional
criteria according to specific expertise (public authorities,
economic community, social partners and other civil society
organisations). When deciding who is to be involved in
decision-making ‘functional (horizontal) subsidiarity’ must be
taken into account alongside ‘territorial (vertical) subsidiarity’,
which both in their own right guarantee greater responsiveness
to people’s concerns and greater efficiency. These two levels of
subsidiarity should function in tandem complementing each
other. The Economic and Social Committee forms an interface
between territorial and functional subsidiarity, thus adding
value to better European governance.

4. Proposals for change

4.1. Transparency and communication

4.1.1.
The Committee welcomes the White Paper’s proposal
that measures be taken to make the working methods of the
European institutions more transparent and better communi-
cated. The more open policymaking is at EU level, the easier it
will be for the general public and political stakeholders in the
Member States to help shape and deliver Community objectives
and measures and to understand them in their entirety and
assess them fairly. The Committee naturally welcomes all
efforts by the Commission and other European Institutions to
make every stage in policy-making and delivery clear and
understandable.

4.1.2.
The Committee would like to point out that both the
European Commission and the European Parliament have
taken this principle on board to a large extent. Both institutions
are fully willing to engage in transparent and constructive
cooperation. However, the Council’s lack of transparency gives
cause for concern.

4.1.3.
The Committee for its part has taken measures to
make its working process more transparent and will develop
even further its communications not only at European level
but also at the level of Member States and candidate countries.
The Committee will do so in collaboration with the Com-
mission as indicated in their Protocol for cooperation.

Therefore the Committee strongly supports the White Paper’s
request to the Member States to make an effort to promote the
exchange of information and views between the European
and the national, regional and local authorities and the
organisations of the civil society. Here again members of the
EESC can help to promote understanding in their own
countries at different levels for EU matters in which they are
involved.

This will require the use of all modern information
4.1.5.
media and the development of communication channels
within the framework of an interactive dialogue with civil
society and their organisations. As to the means of communi-
cation, it has to be taken into account that the use of new
information technologies differs from one Member State to
another. The White Paper contains a number of proposals on
this matter which have the Committee’s support and which
should be implemented urgently.

4.1.6.
In informing citizens, the Committee would like to
stress the importance of education, which has not be taken
into account by the White Paper. Both formal (e.g. schools,
universities and vocational training centres) and non-formal
(e.g. civil society organisations, the workplace or trade unions)
educational institutions have particularly important tasks to
perform in this context. The use of participatory educational
methods and organisations of informal learning is of great
value. There is a need to educate all citizens, from children to
adults, on the basic, elementary facts of the EU — why it
exists, who are the members, how it takes decisions, which
subjects are the responsibility of the European Union and
which are not, how the Member States participate in the
decisions. This will help European citizens not only in better
understanding but also in being able to better judge the
information they get.

4.2.

Involvement of civil society

4.2.1.
Grassroots involvement in all stages of policymaking
is one of the main concerns of the White Paper. This influence
is to be exercised, according to the White Paper, via civil society
‘structured
organisations acting within the framework of
consultation procedures’. The Committee strongly supports
this plan.

4.1.4.
Accurate information, openness and proper com-
munication of European policies are not the task of the
European institutions alone. Both political and civil society
stakeholders in the Member States must also be involved.

4.2.2.
The White Paper lists a number of organisations,
which occupy a ‘special place’ within civil society. It emphasises
the important role played worldwide by NGOs in development
policy, but omits to mention organisations active in the fields
of environment, social and consumer protection, human rights
and culture in the widest sense. In the Committee’s view, this

C 125/64

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.5.2002

seemingly arbitrary and incomplete list of a few civil society
organisations does not reflect reality. It is all the more urgent
to define the civil dialogue, the qualitative and quantitative
criteria for representativeness and to make a clear distinction
between ‘civil dialogue’ and ‘social dialogue’. The Committee is
disappointed to note that the White Paper has not taken into
account its previous proposal on the subject.

clearly defined in terms of participants, powers and procedures
and has quasi-constitutional status (1). It derives its distinc-
tiveness from the special powers and responsibilities of its
participants playing their role in an autonomous way. For this
reason, their role and responsibilities cannot be transferred to
other policy areas or actors. Hence the Committee’s repeated
reminder (2) that it is vital to make a clear distinction between
‘Social Dialogue’ and ‘Civil Dialogue’.

4.2.3.
Concerning the criteria of representativeness for the
selection of organisations to take part in the civil dialogue,
they should be defined in order to ensure transparency and a
the
democratic selection procedure.
Commission decided not to propose criteria as was suggested
by the Committee in its opinion of 25 April 2001.

In the White Paper,

In that opinion,

the Committee identifies eight
4.2.4.
criteria, to which it would now like to add a further criterion
on transparency. In order to be eligible, a European organis-
ation 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;

— be transparent especially financially and in its decision-

making structures.

4.2.5.
The Committee proposes again to discuss these
criteria with the institutions and civil society organisations as
a basis for future cooperation.

4.2.6.
The Committee attaches great importance to the fact
that the special role of the social partners within the framework
of organised civil society is made crystal-clear. It therefore
welcomes the White Paper’s express reference to this special
role and the special influence of the social partners. The task
of the social partners within the framework of the Social
Dialogue is an excellent example of the effective implemen-
tation of the governance principle at European level. The
European Social Dialogue is a mechanism with quasi-legislative
powers according to articles 137 and 138 of the Treaty. It is

4.2.7.
In this context, the Committee thinks that it is of
fundamental importance to make it clear that the EESC is not
the forum for Social Dialogue. It is in no way the task of the
Committee to provide an alternative to the social partners. The
Committee as the institutionalised representative of organised
civil society derives its legitimacy from the fact that all its
members, by virtue of their expertise, have been instructed by
representative organisations from the Member States to play a
constructive part in the European opinion-forming process in
general. The Committee’s added value is that opinion-forming
within its four walls involves all civil society players, including
those organisations which are not social partners.

4.2.8.
However, because of its composition and the rep-
resentative role which it is empowered to play under the
Treaty of Nice, the Committee is very much predestined to
play a key role in the definition and structuring of the civil
dialogue. The Committee has been campaigning for years for
a public democratic discourse at European level between the
representatives of organised civil society and has — as an
initial contribution to the discussion — described the essential
features of this civil dialogue (3). The Committee considers the
establishment of such a civil dialogue to be an essential
instrument for applying the governance principles (openness,
participation, accountability, effectiveness, coherence).
In
addition, the civil dialogue would, as a result of its principle of
providing a public arena, make a vital contribution towards
enhancing transparency and creating a European public arena
as a sine qua non for a European identity.

(1) Art. 137 and 138 TEC.
(2) See for instance:

— ‘The role and contribution of civil society organisations in the

building of Europe’ — OJ C 329, 17.11.1999

— ‘The 2000 Intergovernmental Conference — The role of the
European economic and Social Committee’ — OJ C 117,
26.4.2000

— ‘The Commission and non-governmental organisations: build-

ing a stronger partnership’ — OJ C 268, 19.9.2000
— ‘Strategic objectives 2000-2005’ — OJ C 14, 16.1.2001
— ‘Organised civil society and European governance: the Com-
mittee’s contribution to the White paper’ — OJ C 193,
10.7.2001.

(3) Quote opinion OJ C 268, 19.9.2000, point 5.13.

27.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 125/65

4.2.9.
The Committee would also point out that the White
Paper presumes that European civil society is homogeneous,
despite this not being the case even within the different
Member States. The situation will get even more complicated
with the future enlargement. The role of Member States in
appointing EESC members, therefore, is crucial to ensuring
that their particular interests and their model of society are
adequately represented in order to have a representative and
balanced body of the economic and social components of
organised civil society in Europe.

4.2.10.
The Committee supports the Commission’s pro-
posal to set up an on-line database with details of civil society
organisations in order to increase openness and structure their
dialogue with the institutions.

4.2.11.
Even though civil society is to have a considerably
greater say in future in the influencing of Community policies,
it is clear that responsibility for drawing up legislation must
remain with the official
in the framework of
representative democracy. The legislative and regulatory auth-
orities have the ultimate responsibility for reconciling the
general
the various
civil society organisations and ensuring that this balance is
preserved.

interest with the special

interests of

institutions,

In the context of increasing modes and fora for
4.2.12.
consultation, clear rules and principles are needed to ensure
proper coordination and to increase the coherence of EU
consultation policy. This will be even more important in the
context of the future enlargement. To that end, the Committee,
in the interest of transparency, efficiency and accountability,
insists that the Commission fulfils its promise to publish the
list of the 700 ad hoc consultation bodies and fully supports
the intention of the Commission to rationalise the existing
consultative system based on the above bodies mentioned.

Furthermore, the Committee welcomes the pro-
4.2.13.
posal of the Commission to adopt a code of conduct with
minimum standards for consultation. The principle of trans-
parency should be extended also to the consultation process:
the outcome of consultations should be made public. It also
supports the intention of the Commission to make the expert
advice taken available to the public.

4.3. Better policies, regulation and delivery

4.3.1.
The Committee supports the proposals of the White
Paper to simplify and speed up the European legislative
process, as Community rules are increasingly complex and
sometimes tend to add to existing national regulations rather
than actually simplifying and harmonising them.

4.3.2.
On the other hand, the White Paper has overlooked
the contradiction between greater involvement of players —
including civil society — at all levels and the desire for faster
and more effective policymaking. More democracy requires
more time. Faster legislation could involve risks. A balance
should be struck between appropriate consultation and
efficiency of legislation.

to the preparation of

The Committee is disappointed by the White Paper’s
4.3.3.
insufficient regard for the opinions which it has delivered in
several stages since October 2000 on simplifying single market
legislation (1). At the Commission’s request, the Committee has
also prepared an exploratory opinion (2) on the subject as an
input
the ‘Action Plan for Better
Regulation’ announced in the White Paper. The Committee
supports a well-structured programme for simplification, with
clear priorities, concrete timetables and means of monitoring
and control. This programme should rely on a code of conduct
for EU institutions. To date only the European Economic and
Social Committee has adopted such a simplification code of
conduct.

4.3.4.
Concerning the ways to improve regulation and
combine the different policy instruments the Committee
believes that the necessity of EU legislation should be assessed
on a case-by-case basis, based on the principles of pro-
portionality and subsidiarity. Regulation should only be used
if there is no a better alternative. The main stakeholders
affected by the measure should be consulted when the
appropriate model is assessed.

4.2.14. When consulting on-line, the problem of represen-
tativeness and of the weight the opinions expressed should
carry in the decision making process is even more acute. The
Committee believes the criteria of a representative organisation
should be equally applied and the conditions of transparency
respected.

(1) Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on simplifying
rules in the single market — own-initiative opinion, Brussels,
19 October 2000 (OJ C 14, 16.1.2001), and opinion of the
Economic and Social Committee on simplification (additional
opinion) — Single Market Observatory, Brussels, 29 November
2001 (OJ C 48, 21.2. 2002).

(2) Opinion on the Communication from the Commission — simpli-
fying and improving the regulatory environment (COM(2001)
726 final) of 21 March 2002.

C 125/66

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.5.2002

A systematic and independent

4.3.5.
impact and cost-
benefit analysis is necessary prior to any proposal of legislation.
The Commission has been carrying out impact studies for the
last fifteen years, but their effectiveness remains limited as
there is no guarantee that they are prepared independently,
they do not include possible alternatives to the adoption of
legislative acts, and often they remain internal while they
should be systematically made public together with the
relevant draft piece of legislation.

4.3.10.
The Committee also notes that the open method of
coordination should be used on a case by case basis and the
instruments — common guidelines, national action plans,
exchange of best practices — should vary according to the
particularities of the issue treated and the objectives set.
However, the Committee believes that essential for the success-
ful use of the tool is public and systematic evaluation of the
progress made in the Member States.

4.3.6.
In addition to the analysis prior to any new legislative
measure and when amending an existing one, an impact
analysis should be carried out on the final amended legislative
act. Often the final result, as decided by the legislators, is very
different from the Commission’s initial proposal, sometimes
ending up with complicated, over-rigid and costly legislation.

The Committee must also adapt

4.3.11.
its working
methods to this new institutional development and play a
more important role in it. The work to be done in relation to
the Council of Ministers and the European Council must be
upgraded. The Committee must be given more opportunities
to be heard on documents presented to the European Council
and should be invited to informal Council meetings, in the
framework of its competences.

4.3.7.
The Committee welcomes the suggestions in the
White Paper concerning the increased use of alternative
regulatory instruments to legislation. Nonetheless, the White
Paper focuses mainly on co-regulation as one of the leading
approaches to future regulation. The Committee advocates
that all alternatives to legislative action be assessed on an equal
footing and based on objective criteria of their pros and cons.
A given model should not be granted greater attention unless
it is the most suitable response to the policy issue concerned,
to the expertise and fora available, and to the stakeholders
represented.

4.3.8.
The Committee wants to highlight the usefulness of
instruments like self-regulation or voluntary agreements,
which have proved to be effective mechanisms providing
assessment, decisions and implementation. However, self-
regulation should never impinge neither on fundamental rights
nor on the basic principles underlying the building of the
European Union.

4.3.9.
The European Economic and Social Committee wel-
comes a greater use of the open method of coordination. This
method though must not be confused with the legislative
procedure and it should be made very clear that it is used in
the areas where the primary responsibility rests with the
Member States. Member States will rely upon commonly
agreed policies implemented through national actions plans,
peer reviews, exchange of best practice, benchmarking etc.
This method is already being used in the area of social
exclusion, employment, immigration and asylum policy as
well as social security. The method, whilst fully respecting
subsidiarity, means a new balance between legislative and non-
legislative measures. The Committee warns, however, against
any inflationary use of it and the risk of creating overlapping
procedures and excessive bureaucracy.

The Committee would like to strike a note of
4.3.12.
prudence in the proliferation of autonomous European regulat-
ory agencies. Before setting up a new agency, it should be
proved that it would bring a clear added value and would not
increase red tape and unjustified costs. These agencies should
not add an extra layer to existing administrative structures
but should become integrated into networks of expertise,
exploiting the synergies between regional, national and Euro-
pean bodies. Furthermore, the organisation and activities of
these agencies should be carefully supervised as important
policies risk being shaped by them without being subject to
democratic control and hence not repairing the ‘democratic
deficit’.

5. Role of the European Economic and Social Com-

mittee in better involving citizens

5.1.
Each institution has a role to play in ensuring that
Europe’s citizens are really involved in the European construc-
tion. The European Economic and Social Committee, as
confirmed by the Nice Treaty, is the formal consultative body
composed of representatives of
the economic and social
elements of organised civil society. It has a key role to play in
the framing of Community legislation and is an essential link
between Europe and organised civil society in the Member
States as it provides for a permanent and structured forum for
dialogue and consultation.

27.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 125/67

5.2.
The Committee would like to emphasise three charac-
terising elements that bring real added value to a better
governance of Europe:

— Firstly, the Committee is used to working in a process
that promotes consensus and aims at finding the common
interest within the different interests of civil society
organisations represented in it, even when these some-
times conflict initially. It is a fact that each organisation
involved in the consultation process has the tendency to
refer to its particular interests as a general interest. The
Committee opinions, based on a ‘bottom-up’ method of
working, reflect a synthesis of views and a consensus that
can help the Commission, the European Parliament and
the Council in their task of ensuring the general interest
whilst preparing and adopting their legislative acts.

— Secondly, the appointment of EESC members by the
Member States selected for their experience and know-
ledge in a wide variety of relevant fields, guarantees that
they have not only adequate expertise but also a strong
knowledge of what
is happening in their countries.
This means that they are able to provide well-founded,
practical and balanced opinions and estimate whether
Community measures are acceptable in their countries.

— Thirdly, EESC members are able also to promote under-
standing for these measures in their countries and in an
the
interactive dialogue explain to the members of
organisations they represent the relevance of the EU
to their everyday lives, thus facilitating the necessary
acceptance.

5.3.
The Committee is the forum where civil dialogue is
put on an official footing. It is willing to develop, with the
cooperation of the Commission (1), its role as a forum for
dialogue and consultation, as this is an efficient way of
involving in its work those parts of organised civil society that
are not currently represented by its members. The Committee
already does so by organising public events and hearings as
mentioned in the previous opinion.

5.4.
The EESC, as a practical contribution to European
governance, will pursue better synergies between European
Institutions. It will:

— increase its efforts to implement

the arrangements
decided under the Protocol for cooperation with the
European Commission;

— aim at creating similar mechanisms for closer cooperation
with the Council, as indicated by the Spanish Minister
for European Affairs during in his intervention at the
Committee’s Plenary Session on 17 January 2002;

(1) As mentioned in the Protocol.

— actively pursue the development of its relations with the
European Parliament in accordance with the Action Plan
for EESC/EP relations which the Committee’s Bureau,
adopted in October 2001 (2), and the European Parlia-
ment’s resolution on European governance of 29 Novem-
ber 2001 (3).

6. Summary

6.1.
The European Economic and Social Committee wel-
comes the White Paper on European governance. It urges the
Commission to implement in due course the reforms for
good governance necessary to strengthen European citizens’
confidence in the European project, as well as to prepare for
the future enlargement and deepening of the European Union.

6.2.
The EESC as the institutionalised representative of
organised civil society actively pursues the issues of European
governance. Over the past three years, it has organised debates
and has issued several opinions making a number of concrete
proposals in the area. Disappointingly, a great number of these
have not been taken into account in the Commission White
Paper.

The EESC fully supports the five principles of good
6.3.
governance proposed by the Commission. In addition to these
principles, the Committee would like to underline subsidiarity
— both functional (horizontal) and territorial (vertical) — as
the basic and the most important principle of good govern-
ance. The Committee forms an interface between territorial and
functional subsidiarity, thus adding value to better European
governance.

6.4.
The Committee emphasises the need to make the
working methods of the European Institutions, especially those
of the Council, more transparent. The Institutions, together
with the political and civil society stakeholders in the Member
States, should offer accurate and extensive information on
European policies. Here the EESC has a role to play. To do this
efficiently, the use of modern communication channels and
interactive dialogue are needed.

(2) DI 149/2001.
(3) Point 12 of that resolution states that the European Parliament
‘proposes, following on from suggestions made by the Com-
mission and the Economic and Social Committee, that an inter-
institutional agreement on democratic consultation be concluded
committing all three Institutions to commonly agreed consul-
tation standards and practices at Union level.’

C 125/68

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.5.2002

6.5.
The Committee would like to stress the importance of
the thorough education of European citizens on the basic
elements of the European construction by formal and non-
formal educational institutes.

6.6.
The Committee strongly supports the Commission’s
plan to involve civil society organisations in all stages of
policy-making within ‘structured consultation procedures’, and
welcomes the proposal
for
consultation. However, there is an urgent need to make a clear
distinction between ‘civil dialogue’ and ‘social dialogue’ and to
establish criteria of representativeness for the selection of civil
society organisations to take part in civil dialogue. To that
end, the Committee re-iterates its proposal for criteria of
representative organisation.

to adopt a code of conduct

ism and objective assessment of alternative modes of legis-
lation. It welcomes a greater use of the open method of
coordination in the areas where the primary responsibility
rests with the Member States. The Committee must adapt its
working methods to this new institutional development and
play an important role in it.

Concerning the value added by the EESC to European
6.8.
governance, the Committee would like to make the following
points: the Committee offers a synthesis view of the opinions
of European society to help the Institutions in their decision-
making; the members of the EESC, nominated by the Member
States, represent a pool of expertise of their respective fields
and of their home country; the EESC members promote
understanding of European policies in a two-way interactive
dialogue both at European and national level.

6.7.
As to better regulation, the EESC supports the proposal
of the White Paper to simplify European legislation. However,
the White Paper does not come up with concrete proposals in
this area and fails to take into account the different opinions
delivered by the Committee on the simplification of single
market legislation. In addition to simplification, the Committee
calls for a systematic and independent impact analysis mechan-

6.9.
The Committee is willing to develop, in cooperation
with the Commission, its role as a forum for dialogue and
consultation. The EESC will increase its efforts to implement
the arrangements included in the Protocol for Cooperation
signed with the Commission and will strive to create similar
mechanisms of closer cooperation also with the Council and
the European Parliament.

Brussels, 20 March 2002.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS