Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the contribution of civil society to EU-Russia relations
Date: 2005-07-13
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU relations, Russia, associative movement, cooperation policy, social partners, trade union

25.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/33

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the contribution of civil society to
EU-Russia relations

(2005/C 294/07)

On 1 July 2004 the European Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 29 of its Rules of Proce-
dure, decided to draw up an opinion on ‘The contribution of civil society to EU-Russia relations’.

The Section for External Relations, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the
subject, adopted its opinion on 20 May 2005. The rapporteur was Filip Hamro-Drotz.

At its 419th plenary session (meeting of 13 July), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted
the following opinion by 109 votes to two, with six abstentions.

1. Reasons for issuing the opinion

1.1
The Russian Federation which plays an important inter-
national role is a strategic partner for the EU. EU enlargement
further highlights the importance of the cooperation between
the EU and Russia as neighbours and the establishment of the
best possible relations between the EU and Russia,
in the
context of the development of the common European values of
democracy and respect for both human rights and civil rights,
is of vital importance to both parties.

Social development and improvement of living condi-
1.2
tions, establishing the rule of law and ensuring greater predict-
ability in the conditions and environment for business, as well
as building a market economy, call
for determined action.
Although Russia's leadership formally subscribes to such objec-
tives, progress in achieving them and the realities of everyday
life fall far short of the expectations both of Russian and inter-
national society. The attitude displayed by the country's current
leadership towards,
for example, economic players and the
media does not, in the EESC's view, serve to confirm the state-
the authorities regarding promotion of
ment of
democracy and strengthening civil society. The current trend of
developments in Russia is worrying, and not just for its citi-
zens. Russia is clearly moving away from democracy, the State
is in control of the media, the Russian Army, despite interna-
tional commitments, is present in Moldavia and Georgia, and
the judiciary serves political ends. Building organised civil
society under such conditions is an extremely difficult task.

intent of

1.3
Deepening EU integration — the internal market, the
single currency and increasing cooperation in a growing
number of policy areas — is a fundamental objective of historic
significance, to which all Member States are committed, regard-
less of the recent setbacks in this process. However, the EU's
internal integration must not lead to a situation where the EU
draws away from Russia and the rest of Europe, which is not
developing in the same way, since this could result in the divi-
sion of Europe.

The declaration of 9 May 1950 by the French foreign
1.4
minister Robert Schuman on the building of a united Europe
draws its inspiration from the idea that European integration
must be based on the desire to work together on equal terms

to achieve stated goals, on shared values and reconciliation and
on people's vision of a common future. Robert Schuman also
stated that Europe cannot be built all at once, but rather
through practical achievements and, above all, by creating
genuine solidarity. The message of the Schuman Declaration is
also relevant
to
strengthen their cooperation.

to EU-Russia relations and the

efforts

2. Contribution of civil society to EU-Russia relations

2.1
Strengthening EU-Russian relations also requires solid
support from organised civil society in the EU. The efforts of
civil society in the EU are aimed at achieving improved coop-
eration between the EU and Russia and at supporting the
process of building civil society structures and democracy in
Russia.

2.2
The experience of the new EU Member States, which in
ten years have successfully completed the process of post-
Communist transition, is important and they can provide added
value in cooperation between the EU and Russia. In particular
in these countries can play an
civil society actors (NGOs)
important role in relation to democratisation and protection of
human and citizens' rights in Russia.

2.3
The union of EU countries' business confederations
(UNICE) has for many years presented proposals and opinions
on the development of economic relations and EU and Russian
business leaders regularly discuss this issue in the framework of
the so-called EU-Russia Industrialists' Round Table and present
their views to EU-Russia summits. The European Trade Union
Confederation (ETUC) also presents its position to summit
meetings, and in 2004 it forwarded a joint letter with the
to the European
Russian trade union confederation (FNPR)
Commission president and the Russian president in which they
proposed that the EU and Russian trade union confederations
should be given a similar role to that of the EU-Russia Industri-
alists' Round Table. Other civil society actors have on their
own initiative developed ways to express their views about the
development of EU-Russia relations in their specific sectors.
Russian society is still poorly organised,
the emergence of
NGOs is slow, and they do not yet play a significant role.

C 294/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.11.2005

2.4
For its part, the EESC has in recent years presented
several opinions on EU-Russia relations, in which it addressed
also the functioning of Russian civil society. The main opinions
are listed in footnote 1. The recommendations and findings
presented in these opinions have been taken into account in
the present opinion, without, however, making specific refer-
ence to them (1). This work led the EESC to establish direct
contacts with many of the main Russian civil society actors.

3. Recommendations

3.1 The EU must adopt a more integrated policy towards Russia and

implement it in a pragmatic fashion

3.1.1
The consistent development of cooperation between
the EU and Russia has been hampered by the fact that indivi-
dual Member States promote their own interests by working
bilaterally with Russia, even in matters whose management has
been entrusted to the EU. Of course, nothing should be done
to restrict the development of constructive and open bilateral
relations between individual Member States and Russia in areas
which do not fall within EU competence. On the contrary, this
kind of bilateral, regional and sectoral activity is highly impor-
tant, and each EU Member State must bear the responsibility
for it.

In order to achieve positive results in EU-Russia coop-
3.1.2
eration, EU countries should agree on an EU policy towards
Russia which is clearer and more focused than at present and
on the mechanisms for its implementation civil society in the
EU should take a more proactive stance in sharing practices of
self-organisation, and in supporting the revival of solidarity
networks in Russian civil society. The European Union can
place what constitutes its true wealth — namely its diversity,
the plurality of its forms of social organisation, and the demo-
cratic, social and cultural cross-fertilisation underpinning this
diversity and plurality — at the disposal of Russian civil society
and thus of Russia itself. All the Member States must work to
promote common goals, a task which has become even more
important following enlargement. It is equally evident that an
open and straightforward approach is the best way to achieve
results in developing cooperation between the EU and Russia.
The EU should also develop technical assistance to help Russia
become a stable, democratic and prosperous country. The
structure of existing technical assistance programmes should be
re-evaluated. Progress can best be made in small but deter-
mined steps.

(1) Relations between the EU and Russia, Ukraine and Belarus (1995);

TACIS – Technical Assistance to the Commonwealth of Independent States
and Mongolia (1998);
Relations between the European Union and the countries bordering the
Baltic sea (1998);
The northern dimension and relations with Russia (1999);
The Northern Dimension: Action Plan for the Northern Dimension in the
external and cross-border policies of
the EuropeanUnion 2000-2003
(2001;)
EU/Russia strategic partnership: What are the next steps? (2002);
Wider Europe – Neighbourhood: A New Framework for Relations with our
Eastern and Southern Neighbours (2003).

3.2 The Road Maps should stimulate the preparation of a dynamic

agreement between the EU and Russia

3.2.1
The EU and Russia are expanding and deepening their
relations on the basis of the Road Maps to achieve the four
the
Common Spaces. The four Common Spaces are: 1)
Common Economic Space, 2) the Common Space of Freedom,
Security and Justice, 3) the Common Space of Co-operation in
the Field of External Security, and 4) the Common Space on
Research, Education and Culture. The Road Maps set out some
400 measures to be taken over the few years. The EESC
considers this to be an excellent approach and would stress
that the EU must increase its efforts in order to create open
and wide-ranging political, economic and social
relations
between the EU and Russia.

3.2.2
There are several aspects of the Road Maps that are
relevant for civil society: for instance the prioritised sectors for
regulatory and economic dialogue;
facilitating competition,
investment and trade; interregional and cross-border coopera-
tion; environment; promotion of people-to-people links; move-
ment of persons; youth; cooperation in the field of civil protec-
tion; research and education; and gradual integration of trans-
port networks.

3.2.3
The EESC urges the EU and Russia to implement the
Road Maps without delay. Their content should be constantly
updated with a view to making them as practicable as possible,
and their implementation should be subject to annual review
by the two sides. Both the EU and Russia should also designate
bodies to be responsible for their implementation. The EESC
for its part is prepared to actively contribute — as a follow-up
to this opinion — to this process in spheres relevant to civil
society. It intends in this respect to present proposals on the
content and implementation of the Road Maps, and to step up
its direct contacts with the main Russian civil society actors
(see points 3.4.3. and 3.5.5.).

3.2.4
The initial ten-year period of the EU-Russia Partner-
ship and Cooperation Agreement, which was drawn up in the
first half of the 1990s, will expire in 2007 if either side so
wishes. The Road Maps for the four Common Spaces should
serve as the basis for a new, modern EU-Russia agreement
founded on strategic partnership. Russia should be encouraged
to remove persisting obstacles to trade in goods and services,
and to guarantee a well-functioning regulatory framework for
investment so that the EU and Russia can start to draw up a
free trade agreement based on Russia's market economy status
and membership of the WTO.

3.2.5
The EU and Russia should also work together to
revamp regional cooperation — the Northern Dimension
(including Baltic Sea cooperation and the Arctic cooperation)
and Black Sea cooperation — along similar lines. The EESC is
pleased to note that this aspect has also been duly taken into
account in the Road Maps and encourages further measures to
develop regional cooperation as part of EU-Russia relations.

25.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/35

3.3 The role of civil society must be enhanced in the context of the

Road Maps for the EU-Russia cooperation

3.3.1
Strengthening EU-Russia relations in a sustainable way
will be limited unless the activities of the parties are guided by
common values. These include individual responsibility, respect
for the rule of law, respect for the individual and property,
human rights (i.e. media freedom, organisation of free elections,
political pluralism, equal opportunities and minority rights),
transparency, integrity, human dignity, equality and freedom of
speech, the right to organise and basic workers' rights, sound
industrial relations and adequate social protection. There will
be no common ground for cooperation and mutual under-
standing unless these values can be permanently built into the
foundations of Russian socio-economic and political life.

3.3.2
The EESC considers the overall objectives of the Road
Maps to be relevant. It is pleased to note that the importance
of common values has been underscored as a fundamental
the Road Maps (the Common Space of
basis in three of
External Security, the Common Space of Freedom, Security and
Justice and the Common Space of Research and Education,
including Cultural Aspects).

3.3.3
Strengthening of cooperation between the EU and
Russia will be affected by what happens in these areas in
Russia. The EESC recommends that this issue should be under-
It strongly
lined in the implementation of the Road Maps.
believes that more concrete actions to achieve the common
values, which are fundamental to developing a functioning civil
society, should be added to the Road Maps.

3.3.4
It is important to develop an environment in Russia
where the social partners and other organised civil society
actors can operate independently and participate with confi-
dence in the preparation of social and economic decisions
having a bearing on them. This calls for open dialogue and
networking, which require
independent media. This also
requires that key international agreements such as the ILO core
labour standards should be implemented in practice.

3.3.5
Prerequisites for a functioning civil society are that
Russian economic and social actors should have a high degree
of representativeness, be independent and have the capacity to
engage in constructive and transparent expert dialogue with
authorities and other actors in society.

3.3.6
The EESC welcomes the launch in spring 2005 of
consultations between the EU and Russia in the framework of
the second Common Space, on human rights and related basic
rights, e.g. of minorities. Resolving national and local self-
determination issues and avoiding the use of conflictual
methods (Chechnya), which put people in Russia in danger and
also pose a threat
the EU, should be
for the citizens of
addressed in these consultations.

3.3.7
Over the years the EU has demonstrated its ability to
bring about essential changes in third countries on the basis of

dialogue, and this should also be the aim in dialogue with
Russia. The Council of Europe and the OSCE obviously play a
key role in these matters. The EESC notes with satisfaction that
the EU and Russia have agreed in the Road-Maps to strengthen
their cooperation within the framework of these forums.

Sufficient EU financial assistance is needed to develop
3.3.8
EU-Russia relations. More use should be made of TACIS, etc.
resources to develop civil society, education and independent
media, and this should also be taken into account in the Euro-
pean Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI). The
EESC recommends that the European Commission present a
proposal on how Russian civil society could derive greater
benefit from the EU's relevant instruments.

3.4 Civil society actors should be given an adequate role in imple-

menting the Road Maps for EU-Russia cooperation

The EU has emphasised that,

3.4.1
in building relations
between the EU and Russia, the aim is to find solutions and
ways forward that are qualitatively sustainable. This requires
that the views of different stakeholders in civil society be taken
on board, which is why it is so important to develop civil
society in Russia.

The EESC recommends that the role of credible civil
3.4.2
society actors be strengthened in EU-Russia cooperation
mechanisms by setting up a consultative committee under
Article 93 of the PCA. This would enable maximum benefit to
be derived from their expertise in cooperation between the EU
and Russia. There has been positive experience with similar
arrangements in EU relations with the Mediterranean countries,
India, Latin America and the ACP countries. The EESC's under-
standing is that Russia also has large numbers of actors who
have the necessary capacity to contribute to this end.

3.4.3
The EESC aims to play a significant role in the process
of finding the right way for civil society to be involved in EU-
Russia cooperation.. The EESC's intention to strengthen its
contacts with the main Russian civil society actors, mentioned
in points 3.2.3 and 3.5.5, should ideally be expanded in the
foreseeable future into an advisory forum in the context of
formal EU-Russia cooperation.

3.5 Cooperation between civil society in the EU and Russia should be

further strengthened

including the
3.5.1
Over the years, some interest groups,
farmers and
trade union movement, consumers, employers,
other civil society groups have established contacts with their
counterparts in Russia. This is the case both at EU and bilateral
level. Russian organisations are also often involved in interna-
tional cooperation in their respective fields. The aim is to
promote direct links, networking, interaction, and exchange of
experience and knowledge between ordinary citizens. The main
objectives of civil society cooperation should include expanding
relations of trust between the EU and Russia.

C 294/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.11.2005

3.5.2
However, these relations must be further diversified
and developed, since many Russian organisations do not have
adequate contacts with each other and with similar organisa-
tions in other countries. The EESC encourages all actors in
organised civil society to further strengthen and enlarge their
cooperation with Russian counterparts in their own field of
interest. The EU should for its part initiate actions to facilitate
this cooperation.

3.5.3
The EU Member States should step up efforts to
involve civil society organisations in the setting up of joint
projects, in promoting educational and exchange programmes
in this framework, and in initiating joint economic projects.
The governments of the EU Member States should also provide
more public information about the existence of such projects
and train the civil society sector to prepare projects.

3.5.4
It is important to find ways of establishing contacts
with all parts of Russia, including Kaliningrad. The Committee
of the Regions' proposals (1) for developing regional coopera-
tion between the EU and Russia are pertinent in this regard.
The EESC supports these proposals and recommends that the
Permanent Partnership Council upgrades this topic on its
agenda.

3.5.5
The EESC will use its position to promote the develop-
ment of links between EU and Russian organised civil society.
A first step in this direction would be to organise regular
contacts, joint workshops, etc. on specific topics with Russian
partners (e.g. economic reforms and employment, reform of
social security systems, development of social dialogue in
Russia, involvement of civil society actors in EU-Russia coop-
eration). The aim would be for this to lead to regular and more
intensive cooperation between both sides. This should in due
time develop into an advisory forum underpinning the EU-
Russia cooperation mechanism (see also points 3.2.3 and 3.4.2-
3.4.3).

3.6 Cooperation between Russia and its neighbours, and between

civil society actors in these countries, should be supported.

3.6.1
It is important for relations between Russia and its
neighbouring eastern European countries — e.g. Russia and

Brussels, 13 July 2005.

Ukraine — as well as Moldova and Belarus — to be consoli-
dated at the same time as the EU steps up its relations with its
eastern European neighbours. Closer relations and more inten-
sive interaction are needed on political, economic and social
issues, with the aim of improving European cooperation. The
EESC proposes that the EU should support such development
as part of its neighbourhood and partnership policy.

3.6.2
The EESC recommends that cross-border contacts
between civil society actors in these countries should also be
supported in this context. The EESC, for its part, has already
taken measures to develop dialogue and intends to report regu-
larly thereon to the Commission.

3.7 Cross-border mobility between the EU and Russia should be

promoted

3.7.1
Good transport links and easy travel are essential for
promoting cross-border mobility. The EESC supports efforts to
develop and integrate transport links, which require invest-
ments in improving infrastructure and logistics in both the EU
and Russia. Major international financing bodies, above all the
EIB and EBRD, should be more involved in this activity.

3.7.2
The EESC is pleased to note that the objective of facili-
tating people-to-people contacts and travel between the EU and
Russia — e.g. through integration of transport networks, legal
border-crossing and visa facilitation and principles for readmis-
sion — have been pinpointed in the Road Maps. Border agree-
ments are building blocks for smooth cross-border mobility.

3.7.3
The current visa procedure is slow and expensive and
represents a threshold — even an obstacle — to tourism and
closer cross-border interaction between civil society actors,
including young people and students. Visa and work permit
application procedures must be simplified; this would help to
promote cross-border mobility and relations. Therefore it is
important that the current negotiations between the EU and
Russia on visa facilitation lead as soon as possible to an
outcome that satisfies both parties.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

(1) CdR 105/2004

25.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/37

APPENDIX

to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee

A. The following amendment was rejected by the plenary session but received at least one-quarter of the votes cast:

Point 1.3.

Delete.

Reason

Point 1.1 of the opinion already states that the Russian Federation is a strategic partner of the European Union,
which adequately conveys the content of point 1.3.

Voting:

For: 33

Against: 64

Abstentions: 8