Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on "Promoting the involvement of Civil Society Organisations in South-East Europe (SEE) — Past Experiences and Future challenges"
Date: 2003-05-15
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: Albania, European social policy, Yugoslavia, democratisation, social dialogue

C 208/82

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.9.2003

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Promoting the involvement of
Civil Society Organisations in South-East Europe (SEE) — Past Experiences and Future challenges’

(2003/C 208/20)

On 10 December 2002, the European Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 29(2) of its
Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up opinion entitled ‘Promoting the involvement of Civil Society
Organisations in South-East Europe (SEE) — Past experiences and future challenges’.

The Section for External Relations, which was responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the
subject, adopted its opinion on 30 April 2003. The rapporteur was Mr Wilkinson.

At its 399th plenary session on 14 and 15 May 2003 (meeting of 15 May), the European Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 77 votes in favour, with 1 against and 10 abstentions.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
The opinion will concentrate on the territory that
made up the former Yugoslavia (less Slovenia) and Albania
(the West Balkans) (1). Bulgaria and Romania are also part of
the SEE region but, as EU Candidate Countries, are considered
in the work done by EESC in this context and by the continuing
work of their Joint Consultative Committees (JCCs); they,
together with Slovenia (an accession country), are more
advanced in their development of participative democracy and
offer examples from which other SEE countries can profit.

1.2.
To date the main involvement of the European Econ-
omic and Social Committee (EESC) in South East Europe (SEE)
has been the preparation of an Information Report and an
Own Initiative Opinion (2), in addition to participation in the
Action Plan for The promotion of the culture and practice of
social dialogue and of the participation of civil society and
related networks in the SEE region (3).

This Action Plan started with a major conference held
1.3.
in Thessaloniki in January 2000 and its central work was the
drafting of a comparative report on Social Dialogue in

South-Eastern European countries (4). The EESC provided the
chairman and two members for the steering committee of the
Action Plan, which was managed by the European Training
Foundation (ETF) and which involved the International Labour
Organisation (ILO).

1.4.
At the conference that took stock of the results of the
Action Plan and of the progress made (held in Thessaloniki 2
and 3 September 2002), it was agreed that to obtain lasting
value from this work it was necessary to consider the current
situation and to recommend how it could be developed. The
aim would be to ensure a strengthening of the social dialogue
in the region and to start to develop the wider civil dialogue
necessary for participatory democracy, which so far barely
exists in most nations in the region.

This own initiative opinion by the EESC is a part of the
1.5.
effort to build on the work done to date, including the work
done under the Commission’s programme and the Stabilisation
and Association process. It will be submitted to the Greek
Presidency for the meeting due to be held in Thessaloniki on
21 June 2003 (Zagreb Process II meeting), which will be
attended by representatives of the SEE countries involved.

1.6.
The SEE countries all have differing situations, possi-
bilities and problems (5). While recognising this, in this opinion
we make no attempt to describe these differences, but we do
understand the need to identify and deal with targeted national

( 1) i.e. Croatia, Bosnia Herzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro, the
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Albania and Kosovo;
this last currently has the status of a UN protectorate, but is
included here as a separate jurisdiction.

( 2) Information report on ‘Relations between the European Union
and certain countries in SEE’ (September 1998) and own initiative
opinion on ‘Development of human resources in the Western
Balkans’ (April 2001).

( 3) This activity was part of the Stability Pact.

(4) The study ‘Social Dialogue in SEE countries — Possibilities,
limitations, perspectives — a comparative study’, author Darko
Marinkovic, available from ETF.

(5) For the situation of the social partners in each country, see the
study ‘Social Dialogue in SEE countries — Possibilities, limitations,
perspectives — a comparative study’, author Darko Marinkovic,
available from ETF.

3.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 208/83

problems within the regional framework. All the countries
concerned are now democratic, but their current situation now
needs to be underpinned by far more active ‘participatory
democracy’, including media involvement. This will be a long
term process and will require long term commitment by all
concerned.

necessary criteria for membership; thereafter there will be a
need for real continuity in providing this help so that progress
made is not then lost.

The aim of this opinion is to consider the current
1.10.
situation on civil and social dialogue in SEE (4) and to
recommend how to make necessary improvements, using the
experience and expertise that EESC has in this area as a formal
body representing organised civil society.

1.7.
The aim of all the countries concerned is to become
Member States of the European Union (EU) in due course and
the EU will welcome them when they have met the require-
ments for EU membership (1). The involvement of Civil Society
Organisations (CSOs) in civil dialogue, the benefits of, and the
need for, which have been described many times (2), is vital in
the preparations for accession (3) and must be in place on
accession.

2. Experiences to date

Suffice it

1.8.
to say here that the possibility for real
participation in the process leading to government decisions
by the widest possible number of truly representative CSOs
brings major advantages to both the citizen and the authorities,
most importantly by ensuring that there is a genuine under-
standing by both parties of decisions made and that the
resulting transparency helps significantly in strengthening
both representative and participatory democracy and in the
fight against corruption. Effective CSOs are important if public
opinion is to have meaning and it is vital that decision making
is a ‘bottom up’ process whenever possible.

1.9. With enlargement imminent, the gap between EU
Member States and aspirants for eventual membership is likely
to grow. The Committee considers that now is the time to
start increasing help for these aspirants towards meeting the

Thanks to the excellent work done during the ETF
2.1.
project (5),
for which the Committee wishes to record its
appreciation, there is now both a good understanding of the
current situation and a greatly improved readiness for co-
operation between the social dialogue organisations in the
countries of SEE, both nationally and regionally.

The results of this project, and other work, can be

2.2.
briefly summarized as follows:

— Social Partners. Organisations already exist to represent
employers and trade unions. While the situation varies
quite widely between the countries concerned, a majority
are adequately representative but need more support and
considerably better resourcing if they are to be fully
capable of playing a leading role in social dialogue, civil
dialogue and, more widely, participative democracy. At
present some are completely ineffective in producing
genuine social dialogue. They also need, in some cases,
improvement in the legal backing for their tasks (6). They
have started to network and to co-operate on a regional
basis in the South East Europe Employers’ Forum (SEEEF)

( 1) The EESC welcomes the clear statement in the Council Presidency
conclusions, Brussels, 20/21.3.2003 (paragraph 80-84) that EU
membership for SEE countries in due course is an expectation.
( 2) For example, ‘The role and contribution of civil society organis-
ations in the building of Europe’ (OJ C 329, 11.11.1999) and
‘Organised civil society and European governance: the Com-
mittee’s contribution to the drafting of the White Paper’ (OJ
C 193, 10.7.2001) cover this and include guidelines on the
requirements to be met to make a CSO representative.

( 3) The most recent communication from the Commission that
highlights the need to strengthen the culture of consultation and
dialogue is COM(2002) 704 final dated 11.12.2002.

(4) COM(2003) 139 final (Commission’s second annual report on
the Stabilisation and Association process for SEE) reports that ‘An
active civil society is slowly but surely emerging in the Western
Balkans although the level of development varies considerably
from country to country ...
(in) areas such as professional
organisations and trade unions (they) remain weak. The majority
... need to be strengthened to respond more effectively’.

(5) The ILO Central and Eastern Europe Team and the International
Organisation of Employers have also been involved in this work.
(6) Such legal basis must be fully compatible with international

standards of freedom of association.

C 208/84

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.9.2003

and the European Trades Union Confederation Balkans
Forum (ETUC BF). Even after the most helpful work
already done, there is a need for more training as well as
for more experience. In some cases real independence
from the authorities still has to be established.

3.

Future challenges

— Other CSOs. The intention was to include all types of
CSOs in the project, but it was not possible to find
significant numbers of ‘non social partner CSOs’ who
were capable enough to include in the work (1). This
deficiency must be rectified.

— Attitude of Governments and other authorities. This was
identified as the key deficiency hindering civil dialogue.
Few cases were found where the authorities were prepared
to include CSOs in real consultations or of authorities
who recognised the need to do this. In some cases a better
legal basis for CSOs is necessary.

At the ETF project conference held in Thessaloniki on
2.3.
2 and 3 September 2002, the participating social partner
representatives agreed the following as their needs in the near
future:

3.1.
Of course, tensions and suspicions remain in the region
after so many years of strife and warfare and this affects the
willingness to co-operate in some cases. For example, it is
likely to prove difficult to get agreement on the provision of
common services (such as any permanent forum for ESCs) as
to both location and responsibilities. There also remains much
work to be completed on rebuilding infrastructure, a key factor
in attracting foreign direct investment (FDI).

3.2.
The EESC has previously recognised that a regional
approach is likely to be the most effective means of overcoming
the many challenges faced in SEE. This view is supported
by the Commission (Stabilisation and Association process).
Despite the differing circumstances in various parts of the
region, we here attempt to analyse what should be done based
on the regional approach; in most cases the same requirements
will apply on a national basis.

— To consolidate CSOs and to reinforce their role at the
national level. This will include considering the need for
some restructuring to use resources more efficiently.

For long term stability and prosperity it is vital that
3.3.
CSOs become strong and that participatory democracy should
become part of the culture. In the first instance social dialogue
will remain of the utmost importance; much still needs to be
done to strengthen this.

— To develop the capacity and expertise of national organis-
ations to play an active role in the social dialogue process.

— To network between organisations at the regional level
by consolidating networks of socio-professional organis-
ations and by establishing a network for Economic and
Social Committees and similar organisations.

2.4.
The full conclusions and recommendations agreed
upon by the social partners at the end of the project were
adopted at a meeting in Zagreb on 3 to 5 March 2003. The
Committee fully supports this statement and emphasises the
need for full support from the appropriate national authorities
in working towards these objectives.

3.4.
Also of great importance is the development of more
widespread civil dialogue. Areas such as building the awareness
of citizens of the need to preserve the environment and to
expect fair treatment as consumers are vital, but this work will
is starting from such a low level of
take longer since it
knowledge and experience and since resources are even more
scarce.

Among the requirements to achieve effective civil

3.5.
dialogue in SEE are:

— recognition by all national, regional and local authorities
that CSOs have an essential role in democracy and in the
development of a culture that welcomes the contribution
that CSOs can make;

( 1) A number of NGOs are, however, much involved in the region
and are both experienced and adequately funded. Also many
women’s organisations working in the social sphere exist and
have a network.

— recognition that the increased transparency and owner-
ship that result from more involvement of CSOs is a
powerful tool in the fight against corruption;

3.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 208/85

— it is vital that the CSOs do all in their power to improve
their potential and their performance, including their
representativeness and their ability to add value, both in
the context of civil and social dialogue and for the benefit
of their members. Better organisation and management
are necessary;

— adequate resources (funds, people, research, physical
facilities, etc.) and education and training to give the
social partner organisations the necessary capabilities,
skills and expertise;

— help for other CSOs to develop a real potential for taking
part in the wider civil dialogue. In the first instance this
will
involve identifying these other CSOs, and then
checking how representative they are and their needs.
This will be a long term process;

— a legal basis for the recognition of CSOs that is respected

in its implementation;

— dependence of CSOs from the authorities;

— cooperation and the exchange of best practice nationally,
regionally and with third parties (such as EU Member
State organisations and international organisations).

3.6.
In all this the financing possibilities and other types of
aid that are offered will be crucial. Funding is likely to remain
rather restricted, largely because of the many other calls on EU
funds following enlargement. The real need is for SEE countries
to become economically independent, although this is likely
to take many years. Some discussion of this is included below,
but it is clear that social dialogue is vital towards improving
the economic situation;
the wider civil dialogue is also
extremely important. CSOs need to be involved in the way in
which financial resources allocated are used.

4. The requirements to improve the current situation

4.1.

Political aspects

States when they meet all the criteria for accession; and by the
SEE countries concerned to have the political will necessary to
introduce and to implement the necessary reforms so that the
criteria can be met in full.

4.1.2.
All practical indications are that the countries of SEE
do not yet support, and certainly do not encourage, civil
dialogue and are not prepared to allow social dialogue without
their own active participation. This applies at national, regional
levels. However, the EESC welcomes the clear
and local
statement by the Croatian authorities in the context of this
opinion that civil society development is a key priority for the
government. Overall there is little understanding of the need
for CSOs to be autonomous in a participatory democracy.
Until these attitudes change and are reflected in the working
of democracy it is most unlikely that the criteria for EU
membership will be achieved. Changed attitudes are as
important at regional and local levels as they are at the national
level, because these levels are crucial in developing economic
growth.

4.1.3.
A prerequisite is a legal basis for the existence and
the activities of CSOs; this will enable a culture of consultation
to be developed over time.

4.1.4.
The most effective means of encouraging acceptance
of the need for civil dialogue are to ensure that CSOs are
strong and expert enough to show the value of the contribution
that they can make to a country’s economic and social
development and to have an active, strong and independent
media.

4.2.

Economic aspects

4.2.1.
A major task in all the SEE countries is to build their
economic strength, thus creating more employment, greater
stability and real social progress. The latest report from the
Director General for Economic and Financial Affairs on the
economy in the area (1) gives cause for some optimism. It
concludes that from a macro economic point of view inflation
is steadily declining, the increases in current account deficits
were limited and the continuation of the stabilisation and

The starting point for real improvement is political.
4.1.1.
This includes a clear and strong political commitment by the
EU to help the SEE countries and to accept them as Member

(1) European Economy Occasional Paper No 1 ‘The Western Balkans

in transition’, January 2003.

C 208/86

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.9.2003

reform process has improved the economic climate. However,
it also points to the challenges ahead, notably the fight against
corruption and criminality, the completion of the privatisation
process and the necessary reform of the public sector. These
challenges continue to hinder efforts to attract more Foreign
Direct Investment (FDI), which remains low at about 5 % of
GDP.

must be generated by the CSO itself from its membership fees
and from other sources (such as selling its publications and
research, running conferences, and so on). In the short term
CSOs will need at least some help in cash or in kind.

The report also makes clear the gap between the SEE
4.2.2.
countries and current Member States. For example, the GDP
of the whole region (with 25 million people, about 6,5 % of
the current EU’s population) is equivalent to about 0,6 % of
that of the EU or 40 % of Portugal’s (with about 11 million
people).

4.3.3.
The problem of resources for CSOs will, in most
cases, be notably difficult. They are likely to have to rely
heavily on help and expertise from similar organisations
elsewhere (most importantly from EU Member States), but
must use every opportunity to provide added benefits to their
members and services to others for payment; this will help
them in maintaining their independence and autonomy.

Attracting more FDI is clearly important and the
4.2.3.
increasing stability in the area, coupled with some necessary
reform and restructuring of economies and trade liberalisation
are helping. There has been some progress in small and
medium enterprises (SMEs), but far more needs to be done in
a sector that is so crucial to growth.

4.4. Media and Communications

4.2.4.
In tackling the remaining major difficulties that affect
FDI, it is necessary to establish a healthy, efficient and business
friendly environment that includes full respect of the rule of
law and of
the adequacy and transparency of the legal
framework. Subjects such as health and safety at work will
also be important. CSOs and the media have a key role in the
fight against corruption that is also essential. The participation
of the social partners can provide the practical experience and
expertise needed in such development. The involvement of
other CSOs would also be very important.

Independent,

4.4.1.
free and strong media are among
the most important prerequisites for a healthy and stable
democracy, with a public well informed enough to play an
active and appropriate role in the governance of their country.

4.4.2.
As well as informing the public they provide a way
for CSOs to make their views known to a wide audience,
nationally and internationally if necessary, and they should be
encouraged to take an interest in the work that CSOs do.
Public opinion can hardly exist without CSOs.

4.3. Resources

5. Recommendations

Apart

from the political

factors above, the key
4.3.1.
deficiencies that do not allow CSOs to play a more important
role at present have to do with resources, experience and
training. These are all connected, with resources at the heart of
the matter.

4.3.2.
For any CSO to be effective it needs to have adequate
to
funding,
ideally totally independent of
employ suitable people with suitable support and to ensure
their training and proficiency. In due course these resources

the authorities,

5.1.
In making the following recommendations, the Com-
mittee is mindful of the need to avoid asking for unrealistic
financial commitments. However, the Committee urges the EU
to increase the present very limited funds made available
to developing civil society organisations and participatory
democracy in SEE, despite the pressures on EU budgets. The
likely return on this funding is very considerable, not least in
improving the economic conditions on which real progress
can be made to improve the life of citizens; and without it
progress will at best be very slow.

3.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 208/87

5.2.

The Committee recommends that:

5.2.1.
concerned:

For the EU and for authorities in the SEE countries

— Efforts to promote, develop and strengthen the Stability

Pact must continue (1).

training programmes in this area, as well as in manage-
ment generally. This could include co-operation between
the Commission and the ILO.

— Social partner organisations need training in management
and organisational skills, strategic development, funding
and project management (including EU funding pro-
grammes).

— The EU should continue to encourage them to strive to
meet the criteria for EU membership, focusing on practi-
cal implementation.

— The EESC is ready to seek to facilitate ‘twinning’ arrange-
ments with similar organisations from Member States as
well as inviting appropriate EU level organisations to
inform, involve and help them to the extent possible.

— The EU should sustain funding their development towards

this aim so that continuity is assured.

— EESC recommends

that

it

should be involved in

developing a 3 year programme towards these ends (2).

— EESC calls on all the authorities concerned to work
towards the achievement of the recommendations made
by the SEE social partners in Zagreb in March 2003.

— Foreign owned companies should be encouraged to play

an active role in relevant national organisations.

— The EESC is ready to offer, as far as possible, any help
that the authorities may seek on the development of
CSOs and of social and civil dialogue.

5.2.3.

For other CSOs:

— Since business growth is vital for the economy and for
employment, the EESC should consider organising an
event (or events) to bring SEE officials (separately or on a
regional basis) together with social partners to discuss the
problems that they face and, in particular those faced by
SMEs and the environment necessary for SMEs to flourish.

— The EESC will suggest to the Committee of the Regions
the need to involve regional and local authorities in
improving social dialogue in the region.

5.2.2.
union organisations):

For the SEE social partners (employers and trade

— Appropriate bodies should build on the excellent work
done so far to build mutual confidence and to train social
partners from SEE in social dialogue matters by further

It is absolutely clear that for meaningful civil dialogue the
participation of both the social partners and other types of
CSOs is vital and the improvement of these deserves special
attention.

— The EESC is ready, through its many contacts and in very
close co-operation with relevant EU level organisations,
to continue to work on identifying where these organis-
ations are able to match the norms for EU CSOs and to
help to develop them where deficiencies exist.

— The EESC is ready to follow this up by facilitating the
same arrangements as for social partner organisations
(above) and by helping other appropriate organisations
to carry out work to develop their capabilities and
expertise.

— All involved should support the establishment of appro-
priate networks of organisations in the region covering
relevant aspects of activity, especially where these concern
young people.

( 1) The EESC is pleased to note that in the Stability Pact’s Initiative
for Social Cohesion, the first priority of the Action Plan for 2003
is to ‘Strengthen the social partners and ministries for labour and
social affairs’, brochure on ‘Improving Social Policy in South
Eastern Europe’, Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe, December
2002.

(2) EESC recognises that such work needs funding.

C 208/88

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.9.2003

5.2.4.

In the field of media and communications:

— The EU should consider funding an event at which CSOs
from the region could meet with officials from national
authorities, and under the EU Presidency at the time, to
inform people of their progress and to discuss the
development of civil dialogue. The media would be
encouraged to attend this event and, by reporting on it,
to raise the profile of civil dialogue in SEE. Given EU (or
other)
funding, the EESC would be pleased to help
organise such an event.

— The EU should include in its communications work the
need for, and value of, civil dialogue in general and in
SEE in particular.

— The EU should continue its work to strengthen the

independent media in SEE.

5.2.5. O t h e r p r o p o s a l s

— The World Bank and the IMF should also participate in
strengthening the organisations of social partners and

civil society in cooperation with the EESC and other EU
institutions as well as the ILO.

— SEE Economic and Social Committees (and similar bodies)
should work together to establish an IT based network to
exchange their ideas and experiences so that best practice
can be established and shared.

— As the SEE ESCs develop, they should be encouraged to

cooperate with EU ESCs.

— The EESC is ready to help, on request, in all the above.

— Finally, the EESC should consider, at an appropriate time,
establishing and participating in a body, with membership
from SEE CSOs and the EESC. This body would discuss
matters of common concern, allow networking on a
regular basis and act as a point of contact between CSOs
in SEE and the EU.

Brussels, 15 May 2003.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH