Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on European neighbourhood policy
Date: 2006-07-05
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: Central and Eastern Europe, EU relations, Mediterranean third countries, cooperation policy

C 309/96

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.12.2006

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on European neighbourhood policy

(2006/C 309/20)

In a letter of 22 April 2005 from Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner, the Commission formally consulted the
European Economic and Social Committee under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Com-
munity on the European Neighbourhood Policy.

The Section for External Relations, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the
subject, adopted its opinion on 4 May 2006. The rapporteur was Ms Cassina.

At its 428th plenary session, held on 5-6 July 2006 (meeting of 5 July 2006) the European Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 160 votes to two with nine abstentions.

Preamble

The EESC has already produced two partial assessments of
European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP): one deals with central
and eastern European and the other with Mediterranean coun-
tries (1). This opinion will
therefore only touch briefly on
certain aspects of these two documents; nevertheless, they will
be submitted, together with this opinion, to the relevant EU
and state authorities for information purposes.

0. Summary and conclusions

0.1
The EESC considers that the ENP is a policy of immense
strategic importance, and that its potential for peace, stability,
the sharing of values and policies and the promotion of
exchanges at all levels with neighbouring countries should be
enhanced through consistent and responsible implementation.

In particular,
0.2
consistency between:

the EESC stresses the need to ensure

— application of the principle of differentiation (which can
bring about positive competitiveness between countries and
areas) and the opportunity to create synergies both within
the area itself and between different areas (which promotes
cooperation and greater understanding);

— those concrete measures which have been identified as prio-

rities and the main objectives pursued.

The EESC urges all the institutional players to recognise
0.3
in practice that the principle of
joint ownership implies a
strong reference to democratic values, which must be respected
and promoted and not merely formally shared: joint ownership
must be the guiding principle of relations not only between the
EU and the partner countries but within the EU itself, and
between national administrations and civil society representa-
tives in the partner countries. An effective and adequate repre-
sentation of the ENP can only be achieved by systematically
involving civil society organisations, and social and socio-occu-
pational players in particular, whose consultative role and
negotiation skills need to be
explicitly recognised and
promoted. Thus, it is necessary to ensure:

— the Member States' foreign policies and the ENP;

— clear, transparent, documented and timely information on

decisions relating to implementation of the ENP;

— other actions related to the EU's external actions and the

ENP;

— the foreign and domestic policies of the partner countries

and the ENP;

— consultation areas, instruments and mechanisms and parti-
cipation in developing these decisions, in order to pursue
an effective civil dialogue;

— the actions of the various Commission DGs involved in

implementing the ENP;

— information, instruments and harmonised data to evaluate
least by resolving to develop

the implementations, not
regular initiatives with a view to achieving this goal;

— the EU'S budget choices and the strategic importance of the

ENP;

(1) The first is on Wider Europe — Neighbourhood: A new framework for
relations with our eastern and southern neighbours (Opinion, rapporteur:
Ms Alleweldt (OJ C 80 of 30/3/2004 p. 148 — 0155); the second is
on The role of consultative bodies and socio-occupational organisations in
implementing the Association Agreements and in the context of the Euro-
pean Neighbourhood Policy (providing a thematic contribution to the
Euro-Mediterranean socio-occupational summit to be held in Jordan
on 16 and 17 November 2005 (rapporteur: Ms Cassina), drawn up
in cooperation with the consultative bodies in Greece, Israel and
Tunisia and Moroccan socio-professional representatives).

— training opportunities which would enable these organisa-
tions to contribute to the implementation of the ENP and
to maximise their contribution, not least through access to
Community resources and programmes;

— opportunities to set up networks for dialogue, cooperation
and the monitoring of ENP implementation among organi-
sations in the various countries and areas.

16.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/97

0.4.
The EESC undertakes to build, maintain and develop
relations with consultative bodies and/or socio-occupational
organisations in the partner countries, to consider their views
and the
and cooperate with the European Parliament
Committee of the Regions with a view to contributing towards
a joint, effective and consistent implementation of the ENP and
achieving the objectives of peace, stability, security and shared
and sustainable development.

the neighbouring area of

Between the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the
1.4
1990s,
the southern and eastern
Mediterranean basin gained increasing importance in the eyes
of the European Community, culminating in the 1995 Barce-
lona Interministerial Conference. This established a strategic
partnership that would be structured through association agree-
ments and regional projects, the objective being to create an
area of free trade, peace, security and shared prosperity by
2010.

1. Introduction

1.1
Throughout the integration process, the EU authorities
have taken account of the circumstances of bordering countries
for at least two pertinent reasons:

— the first, which is related to the main political

impetus
which led European countries to form a community, was
the need for peace, freedom and stability both within and
outside the integration area;

— the second reason is related to the process of economic and
market integration, which prompted the need for a trade
area that extended beyond the territory of the Member
in which they would be dealing with countries
States,
whose economic growth and human development were or
became comparable to their own, so that trade would be
mutually beneficial and would not be liable to distortions,
dumping and/or protectionist measures on either side.

1.2
During the long period when the world was split into
two blocs, the heterogeneous economies of eastern and western
Europe, but particularly their different political systems, unfor-
tunately reduced exchanges (not just economic, but human,
cultural and social exchanges too) to a minimum; moreover,
for over four decades, contact between the people of the two
parts of Europe was limited to diplomatic and superficial rela-
tions between organisations and local government authorities.
This had the dual negative effect of entrenching the stereotypes
produced by the cold war and giving the Soviet regime's
government systems an aura of international democratic legiti-
macy, which they did not have and could not have had.

1.5
The event which radically changed the geopolitical
condition of the Community — which, by now, had established
market
integration and was preparing to create the single
currency — was the liberation of central and eastern European
countries from the Soviet system and their transition to democ-
racy and a market economy.

1.6
The reunification of the European continent as a result
of the enlargement of 1 May 2004, represents Europe's most
important post-war political achievement. It has made the EU
richer in terms of human, cultural, historical, economic and
social resources and provided it with a totally new outlook.
This major quantitative and qualitative change calls for an in-
depth understanding of the new situation, which we must
uphold and promote by adapting all EU policies, including that
on relations with neighbouring countries. The European Neigh-
bourhood Policy has grown out of this conviction and the
EESC, which has contributed towards
these achievements
through its broad commitment to cooperation and dialogue
with civil society organisations in the candidate countries, fully
supports it.

2. The initial phase of

the European Neighbourhood

Policy (ENP)

that year;

2.1
The need for a neighbourhood policy was first put
forward by the General Affairs and External Relations Council
in November 2002 and by the Copenhagen European Council
in December of
the latter called on the EU to
strengthen relations with its neighbouring countries on the
basis of common values in order to avoid further divisions in
Europe and to promote stability and prosperity both within
and outside its borders. Initially, the major focus was on rela-
tions with Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova, as well as on
the Mediterranean partner countries.

1.3
However, during this time, the European Community
improved its relations with neighbouring democratic European
countries (or countries that had moved from a dictatorship to a
democracy, such as Greece, Spain and Portugal) and had four
enlargements (2). Through agreements, stable relations were
created with those countries which had no prospect of joining
or did not intend to join the Community: for example, the
European Free Trade Association (EFTA), set up in 1960, the
European Economic Area (EEA), set up in 1994, and a wide
range of bilateral agreements (in particular with countries
bordering the Mediterranean).

(2) Denmark, the United Kingdom and Ireland joined the EU in 1973;
Greece in 1981; Spain and Portugal in 1986; and Austria, Sweden
and Finland in 1995.

2.2
The Commission published two Communications in
2003 and 2004 and, also in 2004, a proposal for a regulation
to establish a European neighbourhood and partnership instru-
ment (3).

(3) COM(2003) 104 final — Communication from the Commission to
the Council and the European Parliament: Wider Europe — Neigh-
bourhood: A New Framework for Relations with our Eastern and
Southern Neighbours — Brussels, 11.3.2003.
COM(2004) 373 final — Communication from the Commission:
European Neighbourhood Policy — strategy paper — Brussels,
12.5.2004.
COM(2004) 628 final — Proposal for a Regulation of the European
Parliament and of the Council laying down general provisions estab-
lishing a European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument —
Brussels, 29.9.2004.

C 309/98

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.12.2006

2.3
In addition to the countries mentioned above, in 2004,
upon a formal request from the three countries of the Southern
Caucasus, the ENP was extended to include Armenia, Azer-
baijan and Georgia. Russia had previously stated that it would
not take part in the ENP but it would continue relations with
the EU within the framework of the ‘strategic partnership’. The
ENP does not even apply to the Balkan countries which form
part of the Balkan Stability Pact and/or have applied for EU
membership such as Croatia or Turkey (previously incorporated
in the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership policy and an applicant
country which began its accession negotiations on 3 October
2005).

2.4
Under the ENP, the EU and its neighbouring countries
are to share a substantial set of policies, which implies a strong
commitment on the part of the EU and partner countries to
promote common values (the principle of joint ownership): the
rule of law, good governance, respect for human and minority
rights and the principle of gender equality, a market economy
and sustainable development. The partner countries are also
called upon to make a particular commitment
to combat
terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction
and to promote respect
law and peaceful
conflict resolution.

for international

2.5
National Action Plans (NAPs) are drawn up in coopera-
tion with the partner countries, in line with the specific circum-
stances and needs of the various countries involved (principle
of differentiation), but
they are essentially geared towards
promoting the values mentioned in the previous paragraph.
Each NAP is then approved by the respective Association
Council and applied in cooperation between the partner
country concerned and the EU. The implementation of the
NAPs will be monitored by the EU through periodic reports
drawn up by the Commission so that the strategy can be fine-
tuned in line with the results obtained by each country.

Until the current financial budget comes to an end (end
2.6
2006), the resources will be those allocated to the TACIS and
MEDA programmes. However, in the financial perspective for
2007–2013, there should only be one ENP financing instru-
ment (European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument).
Its budget has not yet been decided, but according to the
Commission's proposal it should be double the current amount
allocated to the two programmes mentioned above.

2.7
However, the EESC considers that, so far, the Commis-
sion has not proposed any elements, either in its documents, or
in its negotiations for setting up NAPs, which actually underpin
Community development and which have supported the inte-
gration process and made it more democratic and dynamic: in
particular, the concepts of ‘social dialogue’ and ‘consultative
role’ are missing. The EESC has already, on several occasions,
pointed out these shortcomings to the Commission and trusts
that all Community authorities will take the necessary steps to
ensure that these concepts become the general rule in the
implementation of NAPs.

3. The concept of ‘neighbourhood’ and general issues

3.1
Though the concept of ‘neighbourhood’ would intui-
tively seem to be clear, it is less clear how a highly ambitious
policy based on this intuition could have the necessary strategic
rigour. The EU, as such, has in fact developed a foreign policy
that is still limited, given that many competences in the area
are jealously guarded and exercised by the Member States.
Developing an EU external relations policy is not a matter of
it can in
taking over Member States'
fact consolidate them and bring added value if the Member
States develop the will to act together and acquire instruments
for coordinating their foreign policy actions, so as to ensure
that the action taken by all the players operating in a given
area is consistent and efficient. In the case of the ENP, this goal
can be achieved only if the Member States and the EU ensure
consistence with the European framework and present them-
selves to their partners as an entity having the same shared
objectives and proposals.

international strategies:

the concept of

In the EESC's view,

3.2
‘neighbourhood
policy’ cannot be seen merely in geographic terms. On the
contrary, the very formulation of the ENP — in the various
documents mentioned in the third footnote — lends the term a
markedly strong sense of a community (or search for a com-
munity) of values, cultures and intent (4). Thus, although the
principle of neighbourhood also has geographical connotations,
it is underpinned by policies and values. It is therefore possible
that other countries may be included in the ENP in the future.

3.3
A difficulty that may arise in connection with the prin-
ciple of joint ownership of the action to be undertaken is the
fact that the partner countries in the ENP are not viewed as
prospective Member States. The prospect of EU membership
would certainly be more motivating but it is true to say that
the content, methodology and, proportionately, the resources
made available for the NAPs are similar to — if not the same
as — those used during the recent enlargement. Even the
mechanism for implementing policies for the development of
the partner countries should have as its model the experience
of structural policies and be based on a very close partnership
between the EU and the partner countries. One of the metho-
dological characteristics of the ENP is to proceed on a step-by-
step basis which allows ample room for the identification of
the methods and instruments used, but above all for the assess-
ment of significant developments that could possibly change
the objectives identified so far. The ‘new phase’ of the ENP
would allow for even more significant relations with those
partner countries which make optimal use of the NAPs: it is a
sort of ‘reward’ which should make economic and political rela-
tions even closer, and, one hopes, also relations between socie-
ties, thereby meeting the, at times, enthusiastic expectations of
the populations of the partner countries. The EESC therefore
believes that it would be a mistake to have in place a rigid
framework that would exclude any possibility of EU member-
ship or raise false hopes.

(4) The fact that Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia (which are not adja-
cent to the EU) have asked to be involved in the ENP is a practical
demonstration of this statement.

16.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/99

3.4
In March 2005 the Commission published a Communi-
cation containing the recommendations for countries with
which NAPs have not yet been approved (5):
it concerns 3
the Southern Caucasus, as well as Egypt and
countries of
Lebanon. The European Council of 25 April 2005 supported
the document and expressed the hope that the definition of the
NAPs could be completed shortly so that the relevant bodies
(Association Councils) could rapidly approve them and the
plans could be implemented. The Council also drew attention
to the need to apply the principle of differentiation but, at the
same time, emphasised the declaration by the three Southern
Caucasus countries, which intend to make the best possible use
of the ENP instruments to strengthen regional cooperation (see
also point 4).

4. Problems facing the various areas

4.1
The ENP focuses on bilateral relations between the EU
and the individual partner countries. However, each of the
main areas covered by the ENP (which can be roughly defined
as central and eastern Europe,
the Mediterranean and the
Southern Caucasus) presents specific issues; the implementation
of the ENP should thus aim to promote local synergies and
relations within the area itself: this objective can be achieved
through targeted actions and incentives which make it suitable
and desirable to develop relations and cooperation within each
area, but also between areas. What counts is that the imple-
mentation of the ENP should always pursue a balance between
bilateral actions and those to be promoted between the coun-
tries of a region and between the regions themselves. As well
as benefiting the countries in the three areas, which often expli-
citly call for this, it would promote stability, security and peace
across the EU and even in countries outside the ENP area. It is
nonetheless important to remain both flexible and pragmatic in
order to ensure the right balance between bilateralism and the
development of local and interregional cooperation.

4.2
The ENP implementation arrangements imply a certain
degree of competition between the various partner countries.
Thus, as a country moves further towards the objectives that
have been jointly established with the EU, its status as an EU
partner can improve (more favourable terms, greater support
for key actions, greater market access, easier movement of
people, etc.). This competitiveness may also emerge at regional
level and, in this case, care will be needed in order to ensure
that the areas facing major difficulties — or the countries
within such an area — do not suffer frustration and entertain
thoughts of quitting.
to encourage contacts
is crucial
between different countries and areas because, if ENP players
firmly believe that the work would not only be to their benefit
but would also further a major shared undertaking, it would
help develop mutual understanding and identify possible coop-
eration arrangements which, perhaps, have not yet been

It

(5) COM(2005) 72 final, Communication from the Commission to the
Council: European Neighbourhood Policy, recommendations for
Armenia, Azerbaidjan and Georgia, and for Egypt and Lebanon,
Brussels, 2 March 2005.

contemplated. The contribution of civil society can be a strong
driving force in this scenario.

4.3
At the same time it is right to point out that in all three
of the large areas covered by the ENP there are explicit, latent
or potential conflicts. Some partner countries, particularly
where democracy is not well established, face other conflicts.
The concern about the possible repercussions of these within
the EU is legitimate, but even more important must be the
concern for the security and stability of the partner countries
and their populations. Special, continuous attention must there-
fore be given to targeted actions which, in applying the NAPs,
are explicitly intended to defuse sources of tension and conflict,
create conditions for overcoming difficulties and promote
cooperation between countries, economies and peoples. It is
obvious that these measures must involve civil society organisa-
tions as players in the economic, social and cultural coopera-
tion which is an essential instrument of peaceful co-existence.

4.3.1
It is also important that the various EU external rela-
tions initiatives are developed in such a way as to ensure
consistency with the different aspects of
In this
connection, relations with Russia within the framework of the
strategic partnership and the northern dimension, are particu-
larly delicate, as the recent gas crisis has shown. Moreover, it is
useful (and not only in the case of the Ukraine) to thoroughly
examine all
least of a social and
economic order — of recognition of market economy status,
both for the country concerned and the EU.

the implications — not

the ENP.

4.3.2
It is also important that the various EU external rela-
tions initiatives are developed in such a way as to ensure
consistency with the different aspects of
In this
connection, relations with Russia within the framework of the
strategic partnership and the northern dimension, are particu-
larly delicate, as the recent gas crisis has shown. Moreover, it is
useful (and not only in the case of the Ukraine) to thoroughly
examine all
least of a social and
economic order — of recognition of market economy status,
both for the country concerned and the EU.

the implications — not

the ENP.

4.4
In line with these ideas and objectives, cross-border
cooperation between Member States of the EU and partner
countries has a central role to play. Most of the new Member
States directly border on countries of the ENP area and are
therefore exposed both to the difficulties and to the opportu-
nities of this proximity. Implementation of the ENP must there-
fore seek to reduce the risks of instability to the minimum (in
political, economic and social terms) but above all to encourage
the transition from potential positive opportunities to practical
policies and mutually useful results. This will have a positive
effect throughout the Community territory — now to a large
extent open and homogenous — in terms of greater and better
trade,
increased security and better understanding between
peoples.

C 309/100

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.12.2006

4.5
This opinion does not set out to evaluate the particular
circumstances of the various countries or areas, given that, as
mentioned at the beginning, the EESC has already produced
some specific contributions on the Mediterranean and its new
neighbours to the east. The EESC's initiative, launched in Kiev
in February 2006 with the Ukrainian civil society organisations,
has shed light on the vigorous interest of these organisations
— which show enthusiasm for the EU and have high expecta-
tions with regard to the ENP — and has shown that the work
carried out
through the above-mentioned opinion on the
eastern neighbours has begun producing concrete results. The
EESC is resolved to set itself more structured and longer-term
objectives of dialogue and cooperation with the Ukrainian civil
society organisations.

The EESC is deeply concerned about recent events in
4.5.1
Belarus and condemns the repressive and anti-democratic
measures and persecution which are damaging civil and social
rights. The EESC, which will continue forging even closer rela-
tions with Belarusian civil society organisations, is drawing up
an opinion on this subject (6).

However,

the truth is that

the EESC has neither
4.5.2
conducted a direct analysis nor developed stable contacts with
civil society organisations in the countries of the southern
Caucasus. These shortcomings could be overcome in the short
term through in-depth work in the form of an information
report and a specific opinion on the subject, if necessary.

on condition that it also applies to the implementation meth-
odologies, ensuring that these systematically and consistently
reflect the economic and social circumstances of the various
countries, thereby being comprehensible by the various sectors
of society.

5.1.1
Often the difficulties which civil society organisations
have in accessing programmes and related resources arise at
least in part from inadequate knowledge of the regulations and
procedures. Access to a Community programme or to the
measures of a policy promoted by the EU cannot be regarded
in the same way as a tendering procedure in which the compe-
titors must provide themselves with the knowledge and organi-
sation needed for participating. The Community institutions
must take on a precise responsibility and support the social
and socio-occupational organisations in their efforts to develop
adequate capability and professionalism. Such action was
carried out up to a few years ago by the Commission which
held courses for ‘planners’ at an accessible cost. Recently these
costs have tripled and are becoming prohibitive for most of the
people who need this sort of help. In the EESC's view, the
spread of this type of know-how among civil society organisa-
tions is as essential as the capacity building of the ENP partner
countries' administrations; it must therefore be regarded as an
essential service to be provided free of charge if civil society is
to contribute to implementing the ENP.

5. Methodological and financial instruments

5.2
Since the NAPs contain all the policies dealt with by the
various Commissioners, it is essential for the ENP to become a
project understood and supported by all the DGs, which will
need to network in a responsible way to contribute to its
success.

5.1
The methodology for implementing the NAPs involves
an ongoing process of dialogue and negotiations between the
authorities of the EU and the countries concerned. In imple-
menting the actions, all parties are to follow the procedures in
use within the Community framework. The EESC has already
signalled its concern — in the context of
the MEDA
programme — with regard to the difficulties faced by the bene-
ficiaries, and civil society organisations (7)
in
accessing the relevant funds. Rigorous allocation and control
procedures are needed to avoid any illicit use of resources, but
these procedures must also be clear-cut, transparent (e.g. by
translating forms into the beneficiaries' languages), simple and
in keeping with the political goals of the ENP. Entangling the
procedures for accessing funds in a surfeit of red tape does not
achieve priorities any more effectively or make the action taken
any more efficient. It also fosters the ‘professional cooperation’
provided by consultancy undertakings which ultimately stifles
the richness of individualism and the partners' capacity for
initiatives. EU authorities
the ENP must be
insist
approached as a tailor-made policy: this is very important, but

in particular,

that

(6) See the working document by Mr Stulik (REX/220).
(7) See the Dimitriadis report submitted to the Malta Euromed Summit

— REX 113, points 35 and 36.1 in particular.

For the periodic evaluation mechanism to be effective, it
5.3
too must be reduced to the essential, avoid being repetitive and
focus on the priorities. This can help make the participation of
organised civil society — which remains an irreplaceable player
in ensuring the success of this and any other policy (see point
6) — in the implementation and evaluation of the ENP more
effective and fruitful. A priority of merit must be the criteria
for assessing the democratic progress made by the partner
country involved and the respect for values and fundamental
rights. A priority of method must be the construction of a
networked system for surveying data and statistics which
makes it possible to assess the achievements of each country
involved in a reliable and if possible comparable way. It would
also be desirable for the assessment reports to cover roughly
the same period of time, as this would be useful both for the
process of assessing the best achievements and for identifying
the priorities which need more support or support of a
different kind.

16.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/101

5.4
Notwithstanding the fact that the EU is the main trading
partner of the partner countries/ENP, the EU's budget for coop-
eration are, at times, and in some countries, less than those of
other international players, but our partners have shown on
several occasions that the Union's involvement has great quali-
tative importance for their development, as it can consolidate
certain achievements, provide significant capacity building and
create a partnership that looks upon each party as a fully
responsible player with equal dignity and never as an aid reci-
pient who is more or less obliged to accept the objectives
imposed upon them by others.

5.5
Our partners' expectations must not be thwarted. All the
Community actors must assume their responsibilities, and the
Member States in particular, since they have the prime respon-
sibility for budgetary matters. The current uncertainty about
the EU's future financial
framework clouds the conditions
which, in the future, could lead to a successful ENP. It is impor-
tant that the 2007-20013 financial perspectives promote this
policy, which is crucial both for the EU's internal development
and security and for the development of its role as a partner on
the international stage. Alongside the coordination of foreign
policies within the ENP framework, the EU should scrutinise
the use of current and future resources to be allocated to this
policy. This will also make it easier to mobilise funds from
private resources, given that the investors will be able to move
forward in a climate of stability and certainty.

6. The contribution of civil society to the ENP

6.1
The EESC is convinced that the success of the ENP is
closely linked to the capacity of all the institutional players to
involve civil society organisations in the implementation of the
NAPs, and has fully explained this view in its earlier opinions
and, by analogy, in all the opinions relating to the enlargement
process (8). It is to be hoped that the Commission may give a
clearer pointer in this direction, by proposing criteria, proce-
dures and instruments with a view to involving civil society
organisations in the implementation of the NAPS. Without
prejudice to point 3.3, the experience of enlargement is an
important reference point, both in terms of the involvement of
the social and socio-occupational players of the applicant coun-
tries in the negotiating process and in terms of dialogue
between the civil society organisations of the EU countries and
those of the applicant countries. If the first of these dynamic
processes has been achieved, especially in certain applicant
countries which are now members, the second has been left to
the voluntary initiative of organisations,
foundations and
consultative bodies, particularly the EESC. Implementation of

(8) See, among the most recent, the REX Opinion on the subject REX/

208 (rapporteur Mr Pezzini).

the ENP, however, requires that this involvement be structured
and guaranteed.

6.2
On the basis of the EESC's experience and work, and of
the proposals contained in the opinions listed in footnote 1, we
shall simply list here the actions which the EESC regards as
essential for achieving the objective of effective implementation
of the ENP with social participation.

6.3

The EESC calls upon the Commission to:

— ensure internal consistency between the different DGs
dealing with the various aspects of the ENP, by stimulating
synergies, networking and promoting best practice;

— impress on the governments of the ENP partner countries
the need to involve civil society organisations in the imple-
mentation of the NAPs, not least by, to this end, estab-
lishing a criterion on the involvement of civil society orga-
nisations in evaluating the results obtained by the various
ENP partner countries;

— provide social and socio-occupational players with the
know-how needed to make the best, and correct, use of the
resources intended for the ENP, not least to enable people
to monitor the application of the NAPs in their countries
and to make proposals for the follow-up;

— provide clear-cut and effective criteria for assessing shared
values, which is the main discriminating factor when imple-
menting the ENP;

— provide information and documentation on the meetings
planned under the Association Agreements to discuss the
the NAPs (in particular, publish the
implementation of
timetable and agendas of such meetings), and promote the
holding of
information and consultation sessions before
and after these meetings;

— propose an instrument to facilitate the granting of visas to
citizens of ENP partner countries intending to visit the EU
for the purposes of study, training and research initiatives,
contacts with corresponding organisations, business etc.;

and

civil

bodies

society

— support the EESC's efforts to ensure the coordination of the
organisations
consultative
committed to participating in the implementation of the
NAPs, in particular by financing the holding of an annual
socio-occupational summit (similar to that which the EESC
has been organising for 10 years in the Euro-Mediterranean
context) which would assess the overall implementation of
the ENP and enable the organisations involved to compare
notes on a general basis and not just at bilateral or area
level.

C 309/102

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.12.2006

The EESC calls upon the governments of

6.4
Member States to:

the EU

provide access to documentation relating to developments
in the application of the NAPs;

— devise a method for systematic comparison in order to
consistency and efficiency between individual
ensure
national
foreign policies and the ENP, with a view to
creating a critical mass of resources, but mostly of initia-
tives that can help to achieve results that benefit all the
stakeholders;

— orientate their foreign policies towards an application of
the ENP which would make the most of organised civil
society's contribution both in ENP partner countries in
general and at national level, partly through the contribu-
tion of cooperation policies to the development and crea-
tion of partnerships and networks with the civil society
organisations involved;

— ensure consistency between the commitments undertaken
within the framework of the ENP and the initiative of multi-
lateral international organisations;

— provide all information on national government positions
on the agenda points for the meetings to be held under the
Association Agreements;

— commit themselves to promoting and facilitating access to
the national universities for students from the ENP partner
countries;

— organise, at national level, information days at regular inter-
vals (about two a year) on the results of ENP implementa-
tion and on the assessments which the government itself
makes of the implementation of this important policy.

The EESC calls upon the governments of

6.5
partner countries to:

the ENP

— ensure a high degree of consistency between their bilateral
and multilateral foreign policies and the ENP commitments;

— guarantee clear and constant information on progress in
applying the NAPs to the social partners' organisations and
the socio-occupational organisations of their countries, and

Brussels, 5 July 2006.

— consult systematically the consultative bodies — where they
exist — on decisions in preparation, whether on the appli-
cation of the NAPs or on the assessments and any further
stages which would lead to progress in relations between
the country concerned and the EU;

— set up, in ENP partner countries where consultative bodies
do not yet exist, an instrument to encourage and coordinate
the participation of civil society organisations in formu-
lating decisions on the implementation of the NAPs and the
monitoring of the actions undertaken;

— coordinate consultation and the participation of civil
society at various territorial levels so that the ENP can work
as an instrument for developing the economic and social
system in a balanced way throughout the national.

The EESC calls on civil society organisations in the ENP

6.6
partner countries to:

— undertake to familiarise themselves with the ENP, evaluate
it and contribute towards its implementation in their
country, by pressing for information and opportunities for
participation from their government and by cooperating
with the EESC in order to identify priorities and bring them
to the attention of the Community authorities;

— be open to structured dialogue with both the EESC and
consultative bodies in the EU Member States and other ENP
partner countries, with a view to creating a wide network
for monitoring implementation of the ENP, and promoting
mutual understanding between organisations and the disse-
mination of participatory best practice.

6.7
The EESC undertakes to follow closely the implementa-
tion of the ENP in the different areas and to develop more
effective forms of cooperation with the European Parliament
and the Committee of the Regions in order to contribute to the
involvement of civil society organisations in this important
policy.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND