Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Role of civil society organisations in the implementation of EU cohesion and regional development policy
Date: 2006-07-06
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: citizens' Europe, company constituted under civil law, economic and social cohesion, regional development, social dialogue

C 309/126

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.12.2006

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Role of civil society organisa-
tions in the implementation of EU cohesion and regional development policy

(2006/C 309/26)

On 13 and 14 July 2005 the European Economic and Social Committee decided to draw up an opinion,
under Rule 29(2) of its Rules of Procedure, on the: Role of civil society organisations in the implementation of
EU cohesion and regional development policy.

The Section for Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion, which was responsible
for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 7 June 2006. The rapporteur
was Ms Mendza-Drozd.

At its 428th plenary session, held on 5 and 6 July 2006 (meeting of 6 July 2006), the European Economic
and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 47 votes to 36 with 6 abstentions.

1. Introduction

2. Civil society organisations

Cohesion policy has long been an area of particular
1.1
interest
for the European Economic and Social Committee,
which has repeatedly given its opinion on this matter, with
regard to the Structural and Cohesion Fund rules (1) and to one
of the main principles of the Funds'
implementation — the
partnership principle.

2.1
The Committee would prefer a broad definition of civil
society including ‘all organisational structures whose members have
objectives and responsibilities that are of general interest’ (3) and that
meet the representativeness criteria it has set out in earlier
opinions (4). The wording of this definition implies the inclu-
sion of such civil society organisations as:

1.2
The Committee's interest in the partnership principle
has always been based on the belief — shared by the European
Commission — that ‘the effectiveness of cohesion policy is closely
dependent on involvement of economic and social actors, and other
civil society organisations concerned (…)’ (2).

1.3
However, the EESC takes the view that much remains to
be done to include civil society organisations in the implemen-
tation of cohesion policy. The Committee, in drawing up this
opinion, would like to help ensure the better implementation
of the partnership principle in the coming period and hopes
that the Commission and the Council will still be able to intro-
duce the necessary changes and to take concrete action to
ensure the involvement of civil society organisations in the
implementation of cohesion policy. The Committee hopes that,
given the work currently underway on the Member States'
programming documents, this opinion will provide civil society
organisations with a useful instrument in their contacts with
national and regional authorities.

(1) Recent opinions: Opinion on the proposal for a Regulation of the
EP and of the Council establishing a European grouping of cross-
border cooperation (OJ C 255 of 14.10.2005, p. 76), General Struc-
tural Fund Regulation (OJ C 255 of 14.10.2005, p. 79), ERDF (OJ C
255 of 14.10.2005, p. 91) and ESF (OJ C 234 of 22.09.2005, p.
27), opinion on the Partnership for implementing the Structural Funds
(OJ C 10 of 14.01.2004, p. 21) and the opinion on the Third Cohe-
sion Report (OJ C 302 of 7.12.2004, p. 60)as well as the opinion
on Strategic guidelines cohesion policy 2007-2013.

(2) Opinion on the Proposal for a Council Regulation laying down general
provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European
Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund, OJ C 255 of 14.10.2005, p. 79.

— the social partners — trade unions and employers' organisa-

tions;

— NGOs whose official, legal statutes define the purpose of
their activities and mission: associations, socio-occupational
organisations, federations, forums, networks and founda-
tions (in many new Member States the latter differ from
associations only in their legal basis). These various types of
organisations are described as ‘non-governmental organisa-
tions’,
‘non-profit organisations’ or the ‘third sector’ and
their activity covers such areas as environmental protection,
protection of consumer rights, local development, human
rights, social assistance, combating social exclusion, enter-
prise development, the social economy and many other
fields.

2.2
The Committee is aware that the use of such a broad
definition of civil society can lead to practical difficulties, parti-
cularly as regards the issue of cohesion. The EESC is nonethe-
less of the opinion that a clear definition of representativeness
could give civil society organisations a better right than at
present to participate in the various phases of the implementa-
tion of cohesion policy. In its opinion on the representativeness
of European civil society organisations, the Committee outlined

(3) Opinion on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the
European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and
the Committee of the Regions on Civil Society Dialogue between the EU
and Candidate Countries, OJ C 28 of 3.02.2006, p. 97.

(4) Opinion on The representativeness of European civil society organisations

in civil dialogue, OJ C 88 of 11.04.2006, p.41.

16.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/127

certain basic criteria, inviting others to make use of its find-
ings (5), particularly in areas such as programming or moni-
toring at EU level. The Committee believes, however, that an
appropriate list of criteria can also be drawn up at Member
State or regional authority level, on the basis of the EESC's
proposals particularly when it comes
to participation in
programming and monitoring. In the Committee's opinion, this
list could include such criteria as:

— direct access to expertise;

— activity for the public good and in the general interest;

— having a sufficient number of members to ensure the effec-
tive and expert nature of its action as well as the exercise of
internal discussions
democracy (appointment of officials,
and information, transparency of decision-making proce-
dures, financial transparency …);

— having sufficient and independent

financing to enable

autonomy of action;

— possessing and demonstrating independence in the face of

outside bodies and pressures;

— transparency, especially financially and in decision-making

structures.

This issue of representativeness is absolutely funda-
2.3
mental. However,
it should also take into consideration the
qualitative criteria as set out in the above-mentioned EESC
opinion. It should also make a clear distinction between partici-
pation and consultation in policy-shaping and eligibility for
projects financed by the cohesion funds. All organisations that
can contribute to the objectives of the policy in a special field
shall be eligible for funding.

2.4
As regards the effective implementation of cohesion
policy, the Committee believes that all efforts should be made
to make greater use of the potential within civil society organi-
sations which, according to their purpose, may more often
than not have assets important for the implementation of cohe-
sion policy, namely:

— experience and competence in economic and social fields;

— good knowledge of local and regional needs;

(5) To be considered representative, a European organisation should

meet nine criteria, i.e. it should:
— exist permanently at Community level;
— provide direct access to expertise;
— represent general concerns that tally with the interests of Euro-

pean society;

— comprise bodies that are recognised at Member State level as

representative of particular interests;

— have member organisations in most of the EU Member States;
— provide for accountability 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.

— direct contact with citizens and their members and, hence,

the ability to speak on their behalf;

— direct contact with target groups and understanding of their

needs;

— ability to mobilise

local

communities

and volunteer

workers;

— great

effectiveness and readiness

to apply innovative

methods;

— monitoring role vis-à-vis government;

— good contacts with the media.

Furthermore,

2.5
in the Committee's opinion the involve-
ment of civil society organisations that have the support of the
public generally represents the closest point of contact between
the public and the EU and can help increase the transparency
of procedures for the use of available funds. Their involvement
could mean that decisions become more transparent and are
taken only on the basis of specific criteria. The involvement of
these organisations can also ensure that
the action imple-
mented does indeed reflect the needs of society. Lastly, civil
society organisations can be important partners in the debate
on the future of various areas of European policy, including
cohesion policy, by bringing the discussion to the local level,
closer to ordinary people.

2.6
The Committee also draws attention to the potential of
civil society organisations, according to their specific nature
and their statutory aims, in a number of specific fields, e.g.:

— the labour and employment market and enterprise —
where they can lead to a better identification of priorities
and action with an impact on economic development;

— in the field of economic change — where their compe-
tences can help combat negative, unintentional and unanti-
cipated consequences;

— in the environmental protection field, where they can
provide a guarantee that the strategic aims, priorities and
project selection criteria are determined in accordance with
the principles of sustainable development;

— in the field of social exclusion and gender equality issues,
where their practical knowledge can ensure that cohesion
policy is implemented with respect for the principle of
equal opportunity,
in compliance with the relevant laws,
and with due regard to the social aspect of the proposed
solutions;

— in the area of local development — where their knowledge
of the problems and needs represents the first step towards
their resolution;

— in the field of cross-border cooperation — where they can

be a very good partner for implementing projects;

— in the monitoring of the use of public funds, identifying

and publicising cases of corruption.

C 309/128

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.12.2006

3. Role of civil society organisations in the implementa-

tion of cohesion policy

3.1
The Committee agrees with the proposals of the Euro-
pean Commission and the Council that the partnership prin-
ciple must be applied throughout all stages of the implementa-
tion of cohesion policy, starting with planning, through imple-
mentation, right up to the impact assessment. The Committee
also stresses that the involvement of civil society organisations
can help ensure a better quality of implementation and achieve-
ment of the anticipated results. In the Committee's view, the
involvement of civil society organisations should be assured in
the following areas:

— programming at Community level;

— programming at national level (creation of National Stra-
tegic Reference Frameworks and operational programmes);

— promotion of the Structural Funds and information on fund

utilisation opportunities;

— implementation of the Structural Funds;

— monitoring and assessment of fund utilisation.

3.2
Lastly, the Committee draws attention to the fact that
civil society organisations can fulfil a threefold role during the
process of the implementation of cohesion policy: an advisory
role — by identifying objectives and priorities; a monitoring
role — over action taken by public administration; and, lastly,
an executive role — as the bodies responsible for implementing
and partners of projects jointly financed via the Structural
Funds.

3.3
The Committee wishes to reiterate that it was critical of
the handling of the partnership principle in its opinion on the
the Structural Funds (6), although it
general provisions of
welcomes the fact that the Commission's proposal (7) contains
the first ever reference to civil society and NGOs. However, the
removal of this clause during the course of the legislative work
at the Council, the new text being simply limited to the phrase
‘any other appropriate body’, was noted with concern by the
Committee. It is therefore all the more pleasing that the latest
version of the document (April 2006) has reinstated the clause
listing civil society organisations, environmental protection
partners, NGOs and organisations working for gender equality
among the organisations covered by the partnership principle.
The Committee hopes that its comments contributed to these
changes.

4. Fund programming at Community level

4.1
Conscious of the fact that programming at Community
level is the first step in the implementation of the Structural
Funds, the Committee would like to stress the importance of all
consultations conducted at this level. The consultation on the
draft Strategic Guidelines for Cohesion 2007-2013, recently

(6) Opinion on the Proposal for a Council Regulation laying down general
provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European
Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund, OJ C 255of 14.10.2005, p. 79.

(7) COM(2004) 492 final.

carried out by the Commission, confirms the interest shown in
this issue by civil society organisations (8). The Committee,
which is itself making efforts to involve civil society organisa-
tions in its work, believes that such active involvement should
be used to maximum possible effect in the drawing-up of stra-
tegic documents.

4.2
The Committee also believes that the active involvement
of civil society organisations could be extremely valuable for all
advisory bodies active at European level. The Committee is
aware that the issue of representativeness and the need to
establish appropriate criteria are clearly relevant to such invol-
vement. The criteria for European NGOs recently outlined by
the Committee could be very successfully applied here (9).

5. Structural Fund programming at national level

5.1
Although the simplifications planned by the Commis-
sion may well make cohesion policy more transparent, the
EESC once again draws attention to the dangers inherent in
these proposals. The EESC fears above all that civil society
organisations may be ignored by national and regional authori-
ties, which are not always open to the inclusion of such organi-
sations in procedures for the use of the Structural and Cohesion
Funds (as confirmed by the report prepared by environmental
groups (10) and the ETUC (11), and, as a result, of restricting
social monitoring of fund use.

5.2
The experiences of drawing up key programming docu-
ments for the years 2004-2006, as described in the report
drawn up for the European Citizen Action Service by Brian
Harvey (12), although referring only to new Member State
NGOs,
sadly do not provide much scope for optimism.
Frequent changes in consultation dates, far-reaching modifica-
tions to programming documents after consultation (e.g.
in
environmental impact forecasts), delays in starting the consulta-
tion process and, as a result, a short timeframe for raising
comments are just some of the shortcomings in the process
which have been raised by representatives of civil society. In
cases where the preparation of documents was outsourced to
consulting agencies, which had no contacts with civil society
organisations, the situation was even worse.

(8) Working document of Directorate General Regional Policy summar-
ising the results of the public consultation on the Community Stra-
tegic Guidelines for Cohesion, 2007-2013, 7 October 2005.

(9) Opinion on The representativeness of European civil society organisations

in civil dialogue, OJ C 88 of 11.04.2006, p.41.

(10) ‘Examples of Best Practice. Social participation in programming
and monitoring of EU funds.’ Institute of Environmental Economy,
CEE Bankwatch Network, Friends of the Earth Europe, report from
September 2004.

(11) Partnership in the 2000-2006 programming period — Analysis of
the partnership principle — Discussion

the implementation of
paper of DG REGIO November 2005.
(12) Brian Harvey, ‘Illusion of inclusion’ ECAS.

16.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/129

5.3
This not only leads to waning interest in the consulta-
tion process, but, more significantly, also represents a wasted
opportunity to introduce significant changes to programming
documents. At this point, the Committee would like to particu-
larly stress that the consultation process, appropriately imple-
mented, must not only provide all organisations concerned
with access to the documents under discussion but also allow
enough time for raising comments (not so much as to affect
the work timetable but enough for familiarisation with the
documents).

Positive experiences — such as, for instance, the method
5.4
used for holding consultations on the 2005 National Develop-
ment Plan in Poland, where the national authorities adopted
detailed rules for holding consultations, documenting their
progress, maintaining registers of comments and for providing
justifications for acceptance or rejection — represent examples
of good practice and are proof that it is possible to carry out
the whole process in a thorough and effective manner.

5.5
Information from various countries also shows that civil
society organisations do not usually take part in the work of
working groups involved in the preparation of programming
documents, which already significantly limits their ability to
raise comments from the very beginning.

5.6
Accordingly, the Commission takes the view that the
definition by the Commission of a minimum set of require-
ments (or at least guidelines) to be complied with by Member
States in the field of consultation and the need to present infor-
mation on progress made could have a positive impact on
changing the situation. Such action on the part of the Commis-
sion could at least help reduce the risk of situations arising
where a good plan for including civil society organisations in
the preparation of a National Development Plan in one of the
Member States turns out to be little more than just a piece of
paper.

6. Promotion of the Structural Funds

6.1
The Committee notes that whilst there has been some
improvement in recent years in access to information on the
Structural Funds, e.g. as far as its publication on official
websites is concerned, it would point out that not all countries
make use of other forms of promotion and information, such
as the press, television, seminars or conferences, which are
addressed specifically to target groups. It appears that this situa-
tion could be significantly improved by taking advantage of the
opportunities offered by civil society organisations in this area.

In the Committee's view, the promotion of the Struc-
6.2
tural Funds is, unfortunately, no better at regional level. Promo-
tion and information plans are drawn up with no consultation
of these organisations at all except, on occasion, such consulta-
tion as is required for the purposes of maintaining a good
image, even though the involvement of civil society organisa-
tions in this process, by making use of their knowledge of the
various groups and problems, could lead to the preparation of
more realistic promotional-information strategies.

6.3
Taking into account the fact that Structural Funds are
allocated for specific socio-economic objectives, and that funds
for promotion and information activities are only a method
leading to their implementation, one should approach the issue
of the effectiveness of promotional and information activities
with particular caution.

6.4
Naturally, it is difficult to establish conclusively which
mechanism for utilising promotional and information resources
is the most effective way of reaching beneficiaries. It is possible
to find both good examples of promotional and information
activities carried out independently by implementing institu-
tions, as well as of activities outsourced to advertising agencies
or PR firms. However, one can also point to cases where none
of
these options is effective in reaching the beneficiaries
concerned, or where the product on offer is not adapted to the
needs of the end users.

6.5
Consequently, this often leads to an absurd situation
where, given the unavailability of funds allocated for promo-
tion, civil society organisations are often forced to carry out
their own information initiatives, at their own expense.

It would therefore appear that guaranteeing civil society
6.6
organisations, able to conduct
information activities well
adapted to the needs of end users and prepared to carry out
given activities, often for a smaller budget, access to promotion
and information resources is one of the conditions for their
effective utilisation.

6.7
The Committee is aware that the issue of promoting the
Structural and Cohesion Funds involves more than just deciding
who is responsible for the process and its organisation; the
objectives behind the use of
the Structural Funds and the
problems they help resolve are also of key importance. The
Committee believes that this issue must be examined in more
detail through a public discussion ahead of the process for
Structural and Cohesion Fund use.

7. Implementation of the Structural Funds

the ten new Member States,

In its previous opinions, the EESC has drawn attention
7.1
to the significance of global grants. It notes with concern that,
of
the only country to have
adopted a system of global grants is the Czech Republic, and
that even here the significance of this mechanism has been
limited by the introduction of a whole range of formal barriers
by the public authorities. The Committee, wary of such situa-
tions recurring in subsequent programming periods, would like
to highlight the very positive experience of those countries that
have adopted this mechanism, particularly where there was a
need to reach particularly disadvantaged groups e.g. the long-
term unemployed.

Another issue, which the Committee has already drawn
7.2
attention to, is the availability of technical assistance for civil
society organisations. The United Kingdom is an example of a
country where the budget allocated for technical assistance

C 309/130

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.12.2006

(including the European Regional Development Fund) has, to a
large extent, been used to get these types of organisation more
involved in the implementation of the Structural Funds. Such
technical assistance has been used, for example, to finance the
activities of umbrella organisations providing advisory and
training services
to NGOs, enabling them to carry out
programmes and projects using Structural Fund resources.
However,
this is not a common situation. The Committee
therefore believes that where no such situation has previously
occurred, civil society organisations should be specifically
recognised as eligible to apply for technical assistance
resources (13).

7.3
The Committee would like to draw attention to the fact
that the requirement for co-financing to be realised from public
funds can place civil society organisations at a disadvantage. As
a result, this restricts their access to Structural Fund financing,
and, consequently,
limits their opportunities to implement
projects. The Committee wishes to state very clearly that, in its
view, civil society organisations' own (private) funds should be
allowed to constitute part of the co-financing (at Member State
level) for Structural Fund projects. The Committee calls for
NGOs to be added to this clause as, in many cases, they imple-
ment projects financed from the Structural Funds.

7.4
The Committee would also like to draw attention to the
need to ensure that civil society organisations are explicitly
defined as final beneficiaries under operating programmes,
which is, sadly, not usually the case. And yet the experiences of
those countries in which civil society organisations have been
able to benefit from the funds available — e.g. from Spain —
bear witness to just how effective they can be for, among other
things, tourism, local development and combating social exclu-
sion. The Committee believes that, in the context of achieving
the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy and the Strategic Guide-
lines for 2007-2013, it is particularly important to ensure that
civil society organisations are able to implement projects with
financing from the Structural Funds.

7.5
The Committee is aware that, ultimately, it is the type of
projects to which additional financing is allocated which is of
key importance for the implementation of cohesion policy. It is
in reality, contribute — or not, as the
these projects which,
case may be — to ensuring greater economic and social cohe-
sion. The EESC takes the view that the institutions involved in
the project selection process may make use of the competences
of civil society organisations, which have an excellent under-
standing of local and regional needs, focusing in particular on
potential conflicts of interest.

all efforts should be made to allow civil society organisations to
put forward their opinion on the implementation process and
its results where this is not yet standard practice, and for these
views to be taken into account during the decision-making
process. For this to be possible, it is necessary for monitoring
committees for
the implementation of National Reference
Frameworks and individual operating programmes to include
representatives of civil
society organisations among their
members.

8.2
In its 2003 opinion on partnership in the Structural
Funds (14), the EESC drew attention to the fact that the informa-
tion on the membership of monitoring committees varied
significantly from country to country. And whilst it is not the
it
Committee's intention to standardise the solutions used,
would like to ensure that all Member States apply certain
minimum standards.

Of

8.3
the new Member States, Poland and the Czech
Republic, for example, have ensured the participation of civil
society organisations on virtually all monitoring committees.
With regard to non-governmental organisations,
it was the
NGOs themselves that proposed the recruitment procedure,
which involved calling for applications from candidates with
appropriate qualifications, voting via the Internet, and the
appointment of those candidates who received the most votes.
The EESC is conscious that this is not the case in all Member
States. Moreover, even such positive experiences (which are
often the result of protests) do not necessarily guarantee similar
results in future programming periods. Accordingly, the extent
and effectiveness of the involvement of representatives of civil
society in the process currently depends to a very high degree
on the goodwill of the various governments, and not on the
need to observe any clearly defined principles. The EESC
believes that,
in the future, the recognition, by national and
regional authorities, of the role of civil society will, on the one
hand, arise from the need to comply with specific rules (or
guidelines) and, on the other hand, from the ability of civil
society organisations (primarily NGOs) to organise themselves
and appoint their own representatives. The EESC emphasises
that the place of civil society actors and national authorities'
respect for their role can only be achieved through incontest-
able representativeness, which confers legitimacy and thus elig-
ibility for Structural Fund programmes allocated to their activ-
ities.

8. Monitoring and assessment of use of resources

The EESC firmly believes that monitoring and assess-
8.1
ment are very important elements of the implementation of the
Structural Funds; they not only ensure the efficient manage-
ment of resources but also make it possible to achieve the
planned objectives and results of cohesion policy. Accordingly,

The Committee also believes that all efforts should be
8.4
undertaken to increase the effectiveness of
the monitoring
committees to ensure that they are not simply formal bodies or
— as is often the case — arenas for presenting decisions that
have already been taken by the public authorities. It would also
be worth ensuring that they represent a real forum for discus-
sion and for identifying the most effective solutions possible. In
the Committee's view, one way in which this could be achieved
would be to involve civil society organisations, which can
introduce a new point of view to such a debate.

(13) Opinion on the Proposal for a Council Regulation laying down general
provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European
Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund, OJ C 255 of 14.10.2005, p. 79.

(14) EESC opinion on Partnership for implementing the Structural Funds OJ

C 10 of 14.1.2004, p. 21.

16.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/131

8.5
The Committee draws attention to the fact that among
the most frequently encountered problems of involvement in
Structural Fund monitoring are also:
limited access to docu-
ments; the lack of funds required to carry out such functions as
well as the non-transparent system for appointing representa-
tives from civil society organisations. In the Committee's view,
these observations are an important signal that efforts should
be made to change the situation in the coming programming
period. It believes that national and/or regional economic and
social councils, where they exist, could be an advisory resource
for civil society organisations that ask them for help in this
area.

8.6
The EESC also believes that the representatives of civil
society organisations in monitoring committees should have
access to training (and be reimbursed for costs incurred e.g.
travel expenses) to ensure that they are able to fulfil their role
effectively.

9. The Committee's proposals

9.1
The Committee has repeatedly issued opinions on cohe-
sion policy and the Structural Funds, drawing attention to the
vital role of civil society organisations. Many other institutions
have also commented on this. Given the objective set out in
the Third Cohesion Report: ‘to promote better governance, the
social partners and representatives from civil society should
become increasingly involved, through appropriate mechan-
isms, in the design, implementation and follow-up of the inter-
ventions’, the Committee hopes that this view will be reflected
in the rules that are ultimately adopted and in the next
programming period. The EESC also hopes that the European
Union will draw up guidelines for the Member States based on
the comments contained in this opinion.

The Committee believes that it would be very useful to
9.2
carry out a review of
the solutions currently used in the
Member States guaranteeing the effective implementation of
the partnership principle. The EESC is also considering the
possibility of setting up a partnership observatory within its
framework.

9.3
The Committee is, however, conscious that whether its
recommendations and proposals are taken into account or not
will be largely dependent on the Member States. It therefore
calls on both national and regional authorities to ensure the
greater involvement of civil society organisations in the imple-
mentation of cohesion policy, whatever form the rules adopted
take.

10. Taking the above into account,

the Committee
addresses
to the
the following recommendations
Commission and the Council, and appeals to the
Member States (national and regional authorities) as
well as to civil society organisations:

10.1 Programming at Community level

— The Committee, which has performed an advisory role for
for
the European Commission, Parliament and Council

many years, would like to emphasise that
it strives to
include other organisations in its work, so that its opinions
take maximum possible account of the views and opinions
of representatives of civil society.

— In its opinion on the representativeness of civil society
organisations, the Committee outlined certain basic criteria
inviting others to make use of its
for representativeness,
findings (15). A clear definition of representativeness could
give civil society organisations a better right than at present
to participate in the implementation of cohesion policy.

— The Committee proposes

supplementing the Strategic
Guidelines for 2007-2013 with details of a framework for
the involvement of civil society organisations.

— The Committee hopes that the clause in the general Struc-
tural Fund regulation (of April 2006) on consultations at
Community level will guarantee other representative Euro-
pean organisations the right to participation.

— The Committee requests that

the Commission and the
Council clearly specify in the rules concerning cross-border
cooperation that civil society organisations may be partners
in the activities undertaken.

— The Committee requests that the Commission promote and
observe minimum standards for consultation on cohesion
policy issues, and make wider use of electronic media.

10.2 Programming at national level

— The Committee requests that the Commission formulate
guidelines for the process of consultation on strategic and
programme documents drawn up in the Member States.
The Committee believes that not only is the presentation of
plans for social consultation of major importance, but also
the provision of feedback on its implementation.

— The Committee wishes to encourage the Member States and
the national and regional authorities responsible for the
preparation of programming documents to undertake to
conduct the consultation process in an appropriate manner,
by taking into account such factors as: establishing an
appropriate time frame within which the civil society orga-
nisations concerned can raise comments, ensuring the avail-
ability of documents which are the subject of consultation,
documenting the consultation process or keeping records
of comments put forward.

(15) that,

to be considered representative, a European organisation

should meet nine criteria, i.e. it should:
— exist permanently at Community level;
— provide direct access to expertise;
— represent general concerns that tally with the interests of Euro-

pean society;

— comprise bodies that are recognised at Member State level as

representative of particular interests;

— have member organisations in most of the EU Member States;
— provide for accountability 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.

C 309/132

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.12.2006

— The Committee wishes to encourage civil society organisa-
tions to take active part particularly in the consultation
process.

— The Committee wishes to encourage the Member States and
the national and regional authorities responsible for the
preparation of programming documents to listen carefully
to the views and comments of civil society organisations
and to take them into account in the documents produced.

10.3 Promotion of the Structural Funds

— The Committee believes

the Member States and
that
regional authorities should make greater use of the poten-
tial existing within civil society organisations by involving
them in the preparation of promotion plans; grass-roots
initiatives should also be supported by allocating adequate
financial resources for this purpose from the funds available
for the promotion of and information about the Structural
Funds.

— The Committee calls on civil society organisations operating
at national or regional level to become actively involved in
informing their circles about the objectives of cohesion
policy and the opportunities provided by the Structural
Funds.

10.4 Implementation of the Structural Funds

— The Committee believes that efforts should be made to
encourage Member States
the global grants
mechanism. The European Commission is most suited to
this task but civil society organisations operating in the
various countries could also take part in this process.

to use

— The Committee calls on the Member States, particularly
those that have, to date, opted not to introduce the global
grants mechanism, to benefit from the valuable experience
of others and to apply the mechanism during the period
2007-2013.

— The EESC believes that all efforts should be made to ensure
that eligible civil society organisations within the meaning
of point 2.2 of this opinion have access to technical assis-
tance resources.

— The Committee, given the positive role that eligible civil
society organisations within the meaning of point 2.2 of
this opinion can play, calls on national and regional autho-
rities in the Member States to simplify the procedures of
the application process for technical assistance funds.

Brussels, 6 July 2006.

— The Committee also calls on the Member States to take
account in the budgets drawn up of the own funds of
eligible civil society organisations within the meaning of
point 2.2 of this opinion (social partners and NGOs), as
part of project co-financing.

— The Committee calls on the Member States to clearly define
eligible civil society organisations within the meaning of
point 2.2 of this opinion as final beneficiaries in operating
programmes. At the same time, the Committee requests
that
the documents
submitted by Member States guarantee civil society organi-
sations access to Structural Fund resources.

the Commission make sure that

— The Committee calls on the Member States to use the
knowledge and experience of eligible civil society organisa-
tions within the meaning of point 2.2 of this opinion in the
project selection process, and draws attention to the need
to undertake efforts to avoid potential conflicts of interest.

— The Committee also draws attention to the need to remove
or reduce certain formal or technical barriers that make it
difficult for eligible civil society organisations within the
meaning of point 2.2 of this opinion to use the Structural
Funds.

10.5 Monitoring and assessment of use of resources

— The Committee takes the view that the Commission should
set out guidelines for involving civil society organisations in
the monitoring and assessment process and, in particular,
including them in monitoring committees with full rights,
taking into account the need to ensure the objectivity and
impartiality of the individuals and organisations taking part.

— The Committee expects

the reports presented by the
Member States to include information on how the partner-
ship principle is implemented in the context of the moni-
toring committees.

— The Committee calls on the Member States to provide
representatives of civil society organisations with access to
training to ensure that they can effectively fulfil the role of
monitoring committee members.

The Committee calls on civil society organisations to remain in
constant contact with their representatives on the monitoring
committees and to ensure a mutual exchange of information.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND