Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on The representativeness of European civil society organisations in civil dialogue
Date: 2006-02-14
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU institution, EU policy, European Economic and Social Committee, European citizenship, European organisation, cooperation policy, social dialogue

11.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/41

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on The representativeness of European
civil society organisations in civil dialogue

(2006/C 88/11)

On 25 September 2003, The European Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 29 of its Rules
of Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on The representativeness of European civil society organisations in
civil dialogue

and, under Rule 19, paragraph 1, of its Rules of Procedure, the Committee decided to establish a subcom-
mittee to prepare its work on the matter.

The subcommittee adopted its draft opinion on 12 January 2006. The rapporteur was Mr Jan Olsson.

At its 424th plenary session, held on 14 and 15 February 2006 (meeting of 14 February), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 103 votes to one with six abstentions.

1. Preamble

1.1
Over the last ten to fifteen years, the interest of the
European institutions in holding a dialogue with civil society,
in particular organised civil society at European level, has
continued to grow. They have recognised in fact that there
cannot be any good policies unless there are at least three
things: an effort to listen to the public, participation and the
approval of the people concerned by EU decisions.

1.2
The experience and expertise of civil society players, the
dialogue between them and with public authorities and institu-
tions, at all levels, combined with negotiation and the quest for
that convergence or even consensus, enable proposals to be
made in the general
interest. This enhances the quality and
credibility of political decision-making, which becomes easier
for the public to grasp and accept.

1.2.1
By giving citizens the chance to engage individually
and collectively in managing public affairs via a specific contri-
bution from organised civil society, participatory democracy
enhances representative democracy,
thus strengthening the
democratic legitimacy of the European Union.

1.3
By virtue of its membership and the role and mandate
entrusted to it by the Treaties, the European Economic and
Social Committee (EESC) has been fully involved in European
participatory democracy from the outset, and is its oldest
component.

1.4
The ‘right to participate’, which has been claimed by
civil society and organisations active at European level for a
long time, but is now of particular relevance. The issues and
challenges facing the European Union are such that
they
require the mobilisation of all those on the ground and their
representatives.

1.5
This need was recognised by the European Council,
among others, at its meeting in Lisbon on 23 and 24 March
2000 in connection with the implementation of the Lisbon
Strategy (1) and was highlighted by it once again at its meeting
on 22 and 23 March 2005, in connection with the re-launch
of this Strategy (2).

In its White Paper of July 2001 on European govern-
1.6
ance (3),
the Commission makes the participation of civil
society in the development and implementation of EU policies
one of the basic principles of good governance and one of the
priority areas for action to renovate the Community method
and make the institutions operate in a more democratic
manner.

1.7
also
The principle of participatory democracy is
enshrined in Article I-47 of the Treaty establishing a Constitu-
tion for Europe (4). In this respect and despite the peregrina-
tions of the ratification process, the EU institutions must follow
this reasoning and establish a genuine participative democracy.
If the latter is to satisfy the demands of modern European
governance, however, there remains a need to set up the instru-
ments which will allow the citizens of Europe, and particularly
the organisations in which they are active, to discuss, to be
consulted and actually to influence the development of the
Union and its policies within the framework of a genuine struc-
tured civil dialogue with organised civil society.

(1) In point 38 of its conclusions (doc. SN 100/00), the European

Council declares that:
‘The Union, the Member States, the regional and local levels, as well as the
social partners and civil society, will be actively involved, using variable
forms of partnership’.

(2) In point 6 of its conclusions (doc. 7619/05), the European Council

stresses that:
‘Alongside the governments, all the other players concerned – parliaments,
regional and local bodies, social partners and civil society – should be
stakeholders in the Strategy and take an active part in attaining its objec-
tives’.

(3) COM(2001) 428 final of 25 July 2001 - OJ C 287 of 12 October

2001.

(4) Article I-47(2) of the Constitutional Treaty states that ‘the institu-
tions shall maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with
representative associations and civil society’, while paragraph 1 asks
the institutions, by appropriate means, to give ‘representative asso-
ciations’ in particular the opportunity to make known and publicly
exchange their views on all areas of Union action.

C 88/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.4.2006

For its part, the EESC is working actively to develop
in partnership with the other EU

1.8
participatory democracy,
institutions and civil society organisations.

1.8.1
In October 1999, the EESC held the first Convention
on The role and contribution of civil society organisations in
the building of Europe. Since then, it has issued a number of
opinions with a view to further developing and structuring the
dialogue between civil society organisations and the European
institutions (5) (6).

2. The players in the civil dialogue at European level (7)

2.1
The players in the civil dialogue at European level are
organisations which represent the specific and/or general inter-
ests of citizens. European social partner organisations are there-
fore by their very nature a party to civil dialogue. Social
dialogue is, in this context, an excellent example of the prac-
tical
implementation of participatory democracy. However, a
fundamental distinction must be made between social dialogue
and civil dialogue. European social dialogue is clearly defined
both in terms of its participants and its purpose and proce-
dures, and the European social partners have quasi-legislative
powers (8). What characterises it are the special powers and
responsibilities of its participants, who act independently.

At European level,

these organisations have many
2.2
different forms and appellations: associations, federations, foun-
dations, forums and networks are some of the most common
titles (9). There are also foundations with a European scope.
Often, these different types of organisation are grouped under
the heading ‘non-governmental organisations’ (NGOs), which is
types of autonomous non-profit-
in fact used to cover all
making structures. Many of
these European organisations
operate on an international scale.

2.3
These European organisations coordinate the activities
of their members and associates in the various Member States
and often beyond them.
In addition, and more and more
frequently, they are grouped together in European networks, as
is the case in the fields of social and environmental affairs,

(5) See the documentation concerning the ‘First Convention of civil
society organised at European level’ of 15 and 16 October 1999
(CES-2000-012-EN), and the relevant opinions: ‘The role and contri-
bution of civil society organisations in the building of Europe’, 23
September 1999 (CES 851/1999 - OJ C 329 of 17 November
1999),
‘The Commission and non-governmental organisations:
building a stronger partnership’, 13 July 2000 (CES 811/2000 - OJ
C 268 of 19 September 2000), ‘Organised civil society and Euro-
pean governance – the Committee's contribution to the drafting of
the White Paper’, 26 April 2001 (CES 535/2001 - OJ C 193 of 10
July 2001),
‘European Governance – a White Paper’, 21 March
2002 (CES 357/2002 – OJ C 125 of 27 May 2002).

(6) The EESC has organised two other conferences on the topic, the
first on ‘The role of organised civil society in European governance’,
on 8 and 9 November 2001, and the second on Participatory
democracy: current situation and opportunities provided by the
European Constitution, on 8 and 9 March 2004.

(7) For the European Economic and Social Committee, civil dialogue

takes three forms:
firstly, dialogue between European civil society organisations on the
EU's development, future and policies;
secondly, structured, regular dialogue between these organisation
and the EU;
thirdly, daily sectoral dialogue between civil society organisations
and their contacts within the legislative and executive authorities.

(8) See Articles 137 and 138 of the Treaty.
(9) The directory of non-profit-making civil society organisations orga-
nised at European level, drawn up on a voluntary basis by the
Commission (CONECCS database),
lists more than 800 organisa-
tions, some of which can be placed in the socio-occupational cate-
gory.

human rights, consumer affairs, development or the social
economy.

2.4
In order to illustrate the breadth acquired by the Euro-
pean civil society organisations and the way in which they fit
together, an appendix to this opinion gives an outline of the
most significant organisations, federations and networks in the
various sectors of civil society organised at European level,
apart
twenty
from socio-professional organisations. About
specific sectors are identified in this document.

This

survey shows

2.4.1
that European organised civil
society is becoming increasingly structured and that there is
diversity in the very structuring of the organisations concerned:
they can be composed simply of national organisations (or
even regional and local organisations,
in some cases) repre-
senting a given sector: their members can be European organi-
sations and national organisations, and legal and natural
persons at all levels. Grouping into a network generally follows
one of two patterns: either the network is made up of Euro-
pean organisations in a given sector or it associates national
and European organisations.

Obviously, a number of European civil society organisa-
2.5
tions, not
to mention certain national organisations or
networks, generally have an experience and expertise that
enables them to claim a right to take part in the consultative
processes within the framework for formulating EU policies.
However, it is equally clear that, in the absence of objective
assessment criteria,
the representativeness of European civil
society organisations, other than the organisations of the social
partners,
is often called into question. The voluntary field is
seen as being too fragmented, as it is often split into a multi-
tude of organisations and often representing the individual
interests of their members rather than the general interest, and
lacking transparency; it is also seen by many as being incapable
of exerting a real influence on the process of formulating poli-
cies and preparing decisions.

3. The requirement of representativeness

The EESC has already emphasised on several occasions
3.1
that only clearly established representativeness can give civil
society players the right to participate effectively in the process
of shaping policies and preparing Community decisions.

11.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/43

3.1.1
In addition to being a fundamental democratic prin-
ciple, the need for civil society organisations to be representa-
tive is consistent with the aim of giving them greater visibility
and influence at European level.

consultation, the aim is to hear points of view and collect the
expertise of civil society players, without imposing prior condi-
tions. Consultation nevertheless remains a very important
component of civil dialogue.

3.1.2 With this in mind, the Committee has worked out
representativeness criteria, which it set out most recently in its
opinion of 20 March 2002 on the White Paper on European
governance (10).
In order to be considered representative, a
European organisation must meet nine criteria. It should:

— exist permanently at Community level;

— provide direct access to expertise;

3.3
In its White Paper on European governance, referred to
the Commission proposed establishing partnership
above,
arrangements going beyond the minimum consultation stan-
dards applied to all
its departments in some areas where
consultations are already well established. The Commission
made the conclusion of these agreements subject to the civil
society organisations providing guarantees with regard to their
openness and representativeness, but it did not deal with the
criteria to be applied.

— 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;

The Communication of 11 December 2002 (12) estab-
3.4
lishing the general principles and minimum standards for
consultation of interested parties by the Commission distin-
guishes between open consultations, within the framework of a
global and non-exclusive approach, and focused consultations,
where relevant interested parties (target groups) are defined on
the basis of clear and transparent selection criteria. However, it
does not identify these criteria either.

— provide for accountability of its members;

— have authority to represent and act at European level;

— be independent, not bound by instructions from outside

bodies;

— be transparent, especially financially and in its decision-

making structures.

In this opinion,

3.1.3
‘to
discuss these criteria with the institutions and civil society organisa-
tions as a basis for future cooperation’.

the EESC proposed, however,

3.2
In order to avoid any misunderstandings over the scope
of the representativeness criteria established in this opinion,
there seems to be a need to draw a clear distinction between
‘consultation’, open in theory to all the organisations having
expertise in a given field, and ‘participation’, which is an oppor-
tunity for an organisation to intervene formally and actively in
the collective decision-making process, in the general interest
of the Union and its citizens. This process, which is under-
pinned by democratic principles, enables civil society organisa-
tions to be part and parcel of policy framing and preparing
decisions on the development and future of the Union and its
policies (11).

3.2.1
Even if this distinction may seem to be of a largely
academic nature, it is relevant: representativeness is a precondi-
tion for participation as it confers legitimacy. In a process of

(10) See footnote on page 5. Point 4.2.5 in the opinion (CES

357/2002).

(11) See in particular the EESC opinion of 26 April 2001 on Organised
civil society and European governance: the Committee's contribu-
tion to the drafting of the White Paper (CES 535/2001 - OJ C 193
of 10 July 2001 – point 3.4.).

3.4.1
In this same communication, the Commission also
highlights the importance it attaches to the contributions of
European representative organisations but refers to the work
already carried out by the EESC on the matter of the criteria
for the selection of representative organisations to take part in
the civil dialogue.

3.5
The Nice Treaty consolidated the EESC in its role of
privileged intermediary between organised civil society and the
EU's decision-makers and gave it increased responsibility for:

— organising discussions between representatives of civil
society with different motivations and defending divergent
interests; and

— facilitating a structured and continuous dialogue between
the European organisations and networks of organised civil
society and the EU institutions.

However, it should be stressed that the present opinion

3.6
does not apply to:

— the daily dialogue at sector level between civil society orga-
nisations and between such bodies and their interlocutors
within the EU's legislature and executive, particularly the
Commission (13); or

(12) COM(2002) 704 final.
(13) The issue of representativeness remains, in this context, crucial to
giving civil society organisations a genuine right, not just to be
consulted but to participate in framing EU sectoral policies and
preparing related decisions,
in addition to their implementation
and follow-up. It does however raise some issues which in many
ways are of a different nature and scope to those addressed in this
opinion. They therefore warrant a specific discussion, when the
time comes.

C 88/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.4.2006

representativeness

— the European social dialogue and European social partner
organisations, whose
established
clearly on the basis of criteria specific to these organisa-
tions. The same is true of the socio-professional organisa-
tions involved in social dialogue at sector level. However,
these organisations are qualified to be fully-fledged players
in the civil dialogue.

is

3.7
The drawing-up of this opinion thus takes place, first
and foremost, in the context of clarification and rationalisation
of the EESC's own relations with European organisations and
networks. This opinion thus aims to give the dialogue with
organised civil society greater credibility by enhancing the
legitimacy of these organisations and networks.

3.7.1
structured dialogue with European organised civil society:

This itself is part of the drive to implement reinforced,

— on a general

i.e. for all topics of common interest
linked particularly to the development and future of the
European Union;

level,

— within the context of the EESC's consultative role as regards

the definition and implementation of EU policies.

3.8

This opinion could also:

— form a point of reference and material for consideration by
the other institutions, especially with a view to consoli-
dating democratic participation at European level and the
establishment of a genuine European civil dialogue;

— open up a field of inter-institutional cooperation, including
the exchange of good practice, particularly with the
Commission and the European Parliament, without there
being any question of interfering with their way of orga-
nising the dialogue with European organised civil society.

3.9
For its part, the EESC stresses, here, that there are pros
and cons to the establishment of a system for accrediting civil
society organisations to the European institutions. However,
the EESC does not consider this opinion to be an appropriate
platform for discussing the merits of such a system. Nonethe-
less, it believes that this issue is closely linked to representative-
ness and that the two should therefore be discussed together as

part of a wide-ranging debate involving all stakeholders, the
European institutions and civil society organisations.

4. The EESC and European civil society organisations: a

pragmatic and open approach

4.1
The EESC is aware that it only partially reflects the
diversity and developments covered by the term ‘organised civil
society’, and so it has taken initiatives and implemented
reforms to ensure as broad a representation as possible of orga-
nised civil society.

4.2
European organisations and networks of civil society
which are not yet represented on the EESC — or not directly
— are thus associated with the EESC's structures and its work
in various ways, but that association is not based on representa-
tiveness criteria.

Thus each of the EESC's three Groups (14) recognises
4.2.1
European organisations by giving them the status of approved
organisation.
In principle, EESC members have direct or
indirect links with these organisations, but that is not essential.

At section (15) level, the European organisations which
4.2.2
have an effective contribution to make when an opinion is
drawn up are often involved in the work. They are informed of
the work in progress, send their comments, can be represented
by experts and can participate in hearings or conferences
which are organised.

The EESC organises events (conferences, seminars,
4.2.3
hearings, etc.) on cross-sectoral subjects, such as the Lisbon
Strategy, sustainable development and the financial outlook for
2007-2013; also worthy of mention are the meetings to follow
up the work of the European Convention (16).

4.2.3.1
The participants from organised civil society are
chosen in a pragmatic way on the basis of proposals from the
groups, EESC members, sections or the secretariat. These events
are generally open to representatives of organised civil society
who have freely expressed an interest in taking part.

(14) The EESC is divided into three Groups, representing employers
(Group I), employees (Group II), and the other economic and social
sectors of organised civil society (Group III).

(15) The EESC comprises six sections that deal with all the areas of EU

activity in which it plays an advisory role.

(16) In accordance with the declaration of the Laeken European Council
of 15 December 2001, the European Convention had a mandate to
engage in dialogue with civil society. This task was undertaken by
Jean-Luc Dehaene, vice-president of the Convention, with whom
the EESC organised eight information and dialogue meetings with
European civil society organisations and networks; among those
taking part in these meetings were members of the Convention
and, more particularly, its Presidium. The success of these meetings
was confirmed by the fruitful cooperation between the European
Parliament and the EESC during the preparation and running of the
hearings of these organisations and networks that preceded the
adoption by the EP's constitutional affairs committee of its parlia-
mentary report on the Constitutional Treaty in November 2004.
Initially, the EESC had organised a hearing of all the organisations
concerned, in the presence of the first vice-chairman of the consti-
tutional affairs committee and the two EP rapporteurs. Later, the
spokesmen for the representative networks were invited to address
the parliamentary committee directly.

11.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/45

4.3
A Liaison Group between the EESC and the representa-
tives of the main sectors of European organised civil society
has also been recently set up by the Committee. At present, in
addition to the ten EESC representatives (the EESC president,
the three Group presidents and six section presidents), it has
14 members from the main organisations and networks active
in the sectors represented within the Liaison Group. The orga-
nisations concerned may or may not already have the status of
an approved organisation.

The job of this Liaison Group is to ensure that the
4.3.1
EESC adopts a coordinated approach towards European civil
society networks and organisations and that initiatives decided
on together are followed through.

The above survey shows

4.4
the pragmatic approach
adopted so far by the EESC, which in general means an open,
non-exclusive approach, while gradually structuring its relations
with European organised civil society. However, as regards the
granting of approved organisation status or the sectoral consul-
tations carried out by the sections,
the approach is more
targeted.

The procedure should therefore be based on the

5.4
following principles:

— openness;

— objectivity;

— non-discrimination;

— verifiability;

— participation (by European organisations).

The Committee suggests the procedure should cover

5.5
three assessment criteria, viz.:

— the provisions in the organisation's statute and their imple-

mentation;

— the organisation's support base in the Member States;

4.5
In this respect, the final report of the ad hoc group on
structured cooperation with European civil society organisa-
tions and networks, dated 10 February 2004, stresses that ‘the
question of representativeness obviously requires serious consideration’
but that ‘this issue must not, however, prevent any headway at all
being made’ and recommends an approach that ‘obviously includes
a degree of prudence, but also requires openness and pragmatism’.

— qualitative criteria.

The two first assessment criteria are clear and relate to
5.5.1
each organisation's individual structure. They thus provide a
good basis for a relatively objective assessment of the organisa-
tion's representativeness, whilst preserving the dynamics of civil
society. The third dimension is more complex.

5. A three dimensional procedure to assess representative-

ness

5.1
The criteria defined by the EESC in its opinion on the
White paper on European governance are, clearly, worded to
the meaning and
different degrees of precision. Therefore,
scope of these criteria should be more precisely defined and
thereby made measurable and applicable.

5.2
Against this background, the EESC considers that it is
more important to establish a clear, uniform and simple proce-
dure to assess the representativeness of European civil society
organisations, and thereby avoid complex, controversial issues.

5.3
The procedure must provide for a criteria review that is
tailored to the European organisations' existing structure and
operating methods. It must also be based on the principle that
the organisations are part of the assessment process. The EESC
has no designs on their autonomy.

5.6
The EESC considers that the suggested procedure does
not involve any particular burden or constraint on the organi-
sations concerned, but that it does require openness in terms of
the organisations' structure and procedures. Openness is a basic
democratic principle of general
that can enable
different public interests and individual citizens, as well as
public authorities, to gain an insight into the organisations'
structure and activities in order to make their own assessment.

interest,

the
Based on the principles and assessment criteria,
5.7
EESC should be able to develop a procedure enabling it to
gauge the representativeness of European civil society organisa-
tions. This procedure could be implemented by setting up a
special evaluation instrument, initially with the Liaison Group
for European Civil Society Organisations and Networks.

6. The statute and its implementation

The EESC believes that

6.1
link
between the criteria already proposed and the statutes of Euro-
pean civil society organisations.

there is a clear, direct

C 88/46

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.4.2006

6.2
In principle, all organisations — whether de jure or de
facto — active at European level should have statutory regula-
tions (17).

dures, that the statute is monitored and implemented as part of
the organisation's internal democratic decision-making process

Given the criteria already defined by the EESC (18), and
6.3
with a view to making these fully operational, the Statute for a
European Organisation should contain the following provi-
sions:

— on the association's areas of activity and purpose;

— on membership criteria;

— on the operating procedures, which must be democratic,
transparent, and include the accountability of the Board vis-
à-vis its member organisations;

In order to ensure proper openness in the way European
6.6
civil society organisations operate,
the annual
economic and activity reports, and information about member
organisations' financial obligations and funding sources should
be made public, possibly by also publishing them on the
websites of the organisations in question.

the statute,

— the financial obligations of the member organisations;

7. The organisations' support base in the Member States

— that an economic audit and an activity report must be

submitted annually and be available to the public.

In the absence of European legislation, each organisation
6.4
independently adopts its statute under the relevant national
legislation (19).

7.1
The criteria proposed by the EESC suggest that a Euro-
pean organisation must have member organisations in the vast
majority of Member States and that they should be recognised
as being representative of the interests they represent.

In this context,

it should be remembered that

in
6.4.1
1991 (20)
the European Commission had already proposed
legislation to enable the creation of ‘European Associations’.
The aim was to create a form of association for associations
with members in several Member States, along the lines of the
existing one for limited companies and cooperatives. The mate-
rial provisions of the proposal are consistent with the above
proposals on the content of the statute.

The proposal,

for which the EESC expressed its
6.4.2
support (21), was blocked because of opposition from a number
of Member States and has now even been withdrawn by the
Commission. The EESC still firmly believes that such a statute
is an essential instrument in order to consolidate the right of
association as a fundamental freedom, enshrined in the EU's
Charter of Fundamental Rights, and an expression of European
citizenship. The principles contained in Article I-47 of the
Constitutional Treaty should, in the Committee's view, provide
an incentive to re-examine the issue.

6.4.3
Consequently, the EESC reiterates its call to set up a
European statute of transnational associations, by analogy with
the statute of European political parties that came into force in
November 2003 (22). This is consistent with the proposals made
in this opinion.

6.5
Nonetheless, member organisations should be respon-
sible for ensuring, through appropriate mechanisms and proce-

(17) It appears that some of the larger networks mentioned earlier have
statutes (e.g. the Social Platform and Concord) while others are
informal associations comprising a number of European organisa-
tions without a statute. This applies at least to Green 9, a group of
environmental NGOs, and the Human Rights Network that incor-
porates NGOs active in the human rights field.

(18) See point 3.1.2. above.
(19) For example, Belgian law allows for the statute of non-profit-

making international association (AISBL).

(20) COM(91) 273/1 and 2.
(21) Opinion CES 642/92 of 26 May 1992 – OJ C 223, 31 August

1992.

(22) OJ L 297, 15 November 2003.

7.2
In order to apply this criterion the EESC considers that,
if a European organisation is to be considered representative, it
must be represented in more than half of EU Member States.
This requirement should stand even though the recent EU
enlargement has made the situation more complex.

In order to allow for the appraisal of this support base,
7.3
every European organisation should systematically make public
its list of member organisations, whether they are organisations
(legal persons) that are independent of outside interests repre-
senting civil society in the Member States and/or European
associations of such organisations.

Assessing the degree to which a European organisation
7.4
or its national member organisations can be seen as established
and representative is always difficult. Such an assessment
should take into account the following points.

7.5
The guiding principle should be that, whether it be
national or transnational, an organisation's membership of a
European organisation should not only meet the membership
criteria provided for in that European organisation's statute, but
should also meet the criteria stipulated in the member organisa-
tion's statute.

7.6
Consequently, a national member organisation should
adopt the same practice as the European organisation to which
it belongs, making public its statute and activity report, which
mirrors the organisation's structure and operating methods. It
would also be desirable, as required by the Council of Europe,
to know the number of individual members who are directly
and indirectly connected with the organisation.

11.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/47

8. Qualitative criteria

8.1
By their very nature, the above criteria can be assessed
fairly simply and objectively. However, qualitative criteria are
trickier to apply and assess, although the statute of an organisa-
tion, particularly its purpose and means of action, along with
its geographical coverage, do provide some basis for assess-
ment. Although they may prove insufficient when it comes to
assessing the representativeness of an organisation, qualitative
criteria do provide a means of appraising the organisations'
ability to contribute.

8.2
In this context, it should be reiterated, that this opinion
is not referring to organisations that have the expertise needed
to take part in open consultation procedures (see above), but
rather those which are required to participate effectively and
formally in the policy framing procedure. This therefore justi-
fies a more in-depth analysis.

8.3
Qualitative criteria thus refer to an organisation's experi-
ence and ability to represent citizens' interests in its dealings

Brussels, 14 February 2006.

with the European institutions, and the confidence and reputa-
tion it enjoys with these institutions on the one hand, and with
other sections of European organised civil society on the other.

8.4
Consequently, a European organisation's ability to
contribute must be assessed, based on its qualitative representa-
tiveness, in light of the extent to which the organisation can
demonstrate, through its activity,
its level of involvement in
consultative processes implemented by the European institu-
tions.

It

that

is essential, here,

the European organisations
8.5
concerned should openly present
their activity reports and
other relevant information. ‘Benchmarks’ could also be used, as
is the case in the academic and research fields; these would
need to be defined in cooperation with European civil society
organisations.

In all events, the EESC intends to act on this matter in a
8.6
transparent, objective, pragmatic way, as part of an open,
dynamic process.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND