- 1 -

European Economic and Social Committee

Letter No 1302/2006 / Brussels, 21 June 2006
MINUTES
of the 8th meeting
of the
Liaison Group with European civil society organisations and networks
held at the Committee building, Brussels
on 28 February 2006
______

CESE 807/2006 FR/SS/ET/nm/ht

- 1 -

The eighth meeting of the Liaison Group with European civil society organisations and networks was held in Brussels on 28 February 2006, under the chairmanship of Anne-Marie Sigmund, EESC president, and Giampiero Alhadeff, co-chair of the Liaison Group.

The meeting began at 9 a.m. and finished at approximately 12.30 p.m.

*

* *

ATTENDANCE LIST

  • Members of the Liaison Group present

EESC Representatives

Members

Ms Anne-Marie Sigmund
Mr Georgios Dassis
Mr Bernardo Hernández Bataller
Mr Henri Malosse
Mr Mario Sepi
Alternates
Mr Miklós Barabás
Mr Seppo Kallio / EESC President
President of the ECO section
President of the INT section
President of the SOC section
Group II President
Group III Vice-president
(for Mr Staffan Nilsson)
Vice-president of the REX section
(for Ms Ann Davison)

Representatives of European civil society organisations and networks

Members

Mr Giampiero Alhadeff / Board Member, European NGO Confederation for Relief and Development (CONCORD)
Mr Patrick De Bucquois / Vice-President, European Council for Non-Profit Organisations (CEDAG)
Ms Mary McPhail / Secretary-General, European Women's Lobby (EWL/LEF)
Mr Jean-Marc Roirant / Secretary-General, Ligue française de l'enseignement et de l'éducation permanente, President of the Education and civil society platform
Mr Daniel Spoel / Director, Permanent Forum of Civil Society

Alternates

Mr Patrice Collignon
Mr F. Frischenschlager
Mr Yves Roland-Gosselin
Mr Willy Palm / Director, Rurality-Environment-Development international association (RED) (for Mr Gérard Peltre)
Secretary-General, Union of European Federalists (UEF)
(for Mr Henrik Kröner)
Chairman, Confederation of Family Organisations in the EU (COFACE)
Director, Association Internationale de la Mutualité -International Association of Mutual Benefit Societies. (AIM) (for Mr Maurice Duranton)
  • Members of the Liaison Group absent

EESC representatives

Ms Ann Davison (apologies)
Mr José María Espuny Moyano
Mr Alexander Graf von Schwerin
Mr Staffan Nilsson (apologies)
Mr Giacomo Regaldo (apologies) / President of the REX Section
President of the NAT Section
President of the TEN Section
Group III President
Group I President

Representatives of European civil society organisations and networks

Members

Mr Maurice Duranton (apologies)
Ms Ilona Kish
Mr Henrik Kröner (apologies)
Mr William Lay
Mr Jim Murray
Mr Gérard Peltre (apologies)
Mr Étienne Pfimlin (apologies)
Mr Renaldas Vaisbrodas (apologies)
Mr Yannis Vardakastanis
(apologies)
Alternates
Ms Carlotta Besozzi (apologies)
Ms Sabine Frank
Mr Diogo Pinto (apologies)
Mr Gérard Leseul (apologies)
Ms Ariane Rodert (apologies) / President, Association Internationale de la Mutualité - International Association of Mutual Benefit Societies (AIM)
Secretary-General, European Forum for the Arts and Heritage (FEAP/EFAH)
Secretary-General, European Movement International (EMI)
Director, Confederation of Family Organisations in the EU (COFACE)
Director, European Consumers' Organisation (BEUC)
President, Rurality-Environment-Development international association
President, Coordinating Committee of European Cooperative Associations (CCACE)
President, European Youth Forum (FEJ/EYF)
President, European Disability Forum (FEPH/EDF)
Director, European Disability Forum (FEPH/EDF) (for MrYannis Vardakastanis)
EU Policy Advisor, European Forum for the Arts and Heritage (FEAP/EFAH) (for Ms Ilona Kish)
Secretary General, European Youth Forum (FEJ/EYF) (for MrRenaldas Vaisbrodas)
Deputy General Delegate, Coordinating Committee of European Cooperative Associations (CCACE) (for MrÉtienne Pfimlin)
Swedish Forum for Voluntary Social Work (on behalf of ETWelfare) (for Mr Patrick De Bucquois)
  • Observers

Mr Pierre Barge
Ms Patricia Garcia Anadon
Mr Alain Sagne
Mr Søren Winther Lundby
Mr Luc Zelderloo / Secretary-General, European Association for Human Rights (EAHR)
European Association for Human Rights (EAHR)
Secretary General, Architects' Council of Europe (ACE)
Managing Director, New Europe (Denmark)
President, European Association of Service Providers for Persons with Disabilities (EASPD)
  • Other EESC representatives

Mr Luca Jahier
Ms Lucia Fusco / Vice-president of the SOC section
(Alternate for Mr Henri Malosse)
Group III member
  • Other representatives of European civil society organisations and networks

Mr Olivier Consolo
Ms Emmanuelle Faure
Ms Élodie Fazi
Ms Lies Feron
Ms Katrin Hugendubel
Mr Ulrich Tiburcy / Director, European NGO Confederation for Relief and Development (CONCORD)
(Alternate for Mr Giampiero Alhadeff)
Director of European Affairs, European Foundation Centre (EFC)
Coordinator, Act4europe, EU Civil Society Contact Group
European Affairs Manager, European Forum for Freedom in Education (EFFE)
Coordinator – Social Affairs, SOLIDAR
Social Policy Officer, European Round Table of Charitable Social Welfare Associations (ETWelfare)
  • Expert

Mr Dirk Jarré / Expert for Ms Anne-Marie Sigmund, EESC President

European Commission

Ms Minna Gillberg
Mr Apostolos Ioakimidis
Ms Lea Vatanen / Spokespersons Group
DG Enterprise & Industry; Directorate - Promotion of SMEs' competitiveness; Crafts, small businesses, cooperatives and mutual societies
Secretariat-General; Directorate - Relations with civil society; Transparency and Civil Society
  • EESC Secretariat

Mr Patrick Fève
Ms Agota Bazsik / Head of the Unit for Relations with Civil Society Organisations, Constitutional Issues
Administrator, Unit for Relations with Civil Society Organisations, Constitutional Issues

*

* *

1.Adoption of the draft agenda

The draft agenda was adopted.

2.Approval of the minutes of the seventh meeting held on 6 December 2005 (CESE218/2006)

The minutes were approved.

3.Statement by the EESC President, Anne-Marie Sigmund, and the Co-chair of the Liaison Group, Giampiero Alhadeff

Statement by the EESC President

The President began by announcing that she had received a letter from the Platform of European Social NGOs, signed by its President, Anne-Sophie Parent, requesting Liaison Group membership. As a result, the Social Platform had been invited to participate as observers, in anticipation of a detailed examination of Liaison Group membership and criteria for broadening its membership. She noted that the matter would be discussed during the forthcoming assessment of the Liaison Group's first two years in existence.

The President believed that the Liaison Group had already demonstrated its relevance in objective terms as well as its added value for relations between the EESC and European civil society organisations and dialogue with the European Commission. The cooperation protocol signed between the EESC and the Commission on 7 November 2005 proved this by making explicit reference to the Liaison Group. She also pointed out that a preliminary draft assessment report would be submitted to the Liaison Group at a future meeting and that any relevant proposals could be put forward.

The President then informed the Liaison Group of a number of future events that several members would be attending, namely:

  • the joint conference of the EESC and the Hungarian ESC on Improving national ownership of the Lisbon Strategy: Is organised civil society sufficiently involved? - Budapest, 9 and 10 March;
  • the joint conference of the EESC and the Austrian Advisory Council for Economic and Social Affairs on The challenges facing participatory democracy in an enlarged Europe – Vienna, 15and 16 May;
  • the joint EESC-ILO conference on the European social model – Brussels, 26 and 27 June;
  • the biennial EESC conference on European values and the European identity – 18 and 19September 2006.

Statement by the Co-chair of the Liaison Group

Giampiero Alhadeff pointed out that the questions raised by the President regarding the Liaison Group's role had been thoroughly addressed at the meeting of representatives of European civil society organisations and networks on 17 February. He was certain that the forthcoming assessment would convince the Committee of the relevance of the Liaison Group, which he considered to be an essential instrument for establishing a more structured dialogue between European civil society organisations and the European institutions and among the organisations themselves. He also announced that the representatives of European civil society organisations and networks in the Liaison Group would contribute to the assessment and had set up a working group moderated by Mary McPhail (European Women's Lobby) for this purpose.

Giampiero Alhadeff then informed the Liaison Group that he had been appointed Secretary General of the UK Labour party delegation to the European Parliament and explained that he would therefore be resigning from his position as Secretary General of SOLIDAR and his co-chairmanship of the Liaison Group, which would have to appoint a new co-chair at its next meeting. He thanked the Liaison Group for the confidence they had placed in him during his 18 months of co-chairmanship.

The President then expressed her warm gratitude to Giampiero Alhadeff and congratulated him on his new appointment.

4.Exchange of views with Minna Gillberg, from the European Commission's Spokespersons Group, on the White Paper on a European Communication Policy (COM(2006) 35 final, 1 February 2006)

Giampiero Alhadeff informed the members of the Liaison Group that Minna Gillberg, whom he thanked for attending, was replacing Antonia Carparelli, a member of Margot Wallström's private office, who had been prevented from attending.

Minna Gillberg began by thanking the EESC President for the contribution the EESC had made to preparing the White Paper by holding the Stakeholders' Forum on "Bridging the Gap: how to bring Europe and its citizens closer together" on 7 and 8 November 2005.

Minna Gillberg then presented the key aspects of the Commission's communication strategy and the gist of the White Paper's proposals. She stressed that the main message the Commission wished to impart in its White Paper was that communication was primarily about democracy. This message was in itself the White Paper's main theme. Thus the objective was to make communication policy a policy in its own right with a view to creating a genuine democratic framework in Europe and, more specifically, an interactive European public sphere for debate and dialogue based on a number of principles.

The Commission proposed five common principles for EU communication policy: the right to information, freedom of speech, inclusion, diversity and participation. These five principles could be set out in a framework document, such as a charter or code of conduct, to which all stakeholders could subscribe. She intended to launch a broad consultation on the advisability of drafting such a document.

The Commission intended to use the White Paper to improve the way in which civil society was consulted beyond the minimum standards currently in place, mainly by extending the consultation period to six months and by launching a number of initiatives to enable civil society organisations, and citizens in general, to express their views more extensively than was currently possible. In practice, reactions to consultations launched by the Commission generally came from the business sector and other vested interests. Sources of feedback and input should therefore be re-adjusted to ensure a better representation of civil society and its organisations.

Minna Gillberg went on to say that the White Paper was based on an assessment of the reasons why EU information policy to date had been largely unsuccessful. This failure went a long way towards explaining the gulf that separated the EU from its citizens. The Commission believed that the absence of a shared vision and agreement on the principles underpinning communication policy was the main reason. "Communicating Europe" had largely remained the province of Brussels and was not perceived as being of general concern to all European institutions, Member States, and civil society at large. Communication was essentially restricted to providing information to citizens about the institutions and the technical aspects of EU activities and policies. It was not adapted to citizens' needs. In this context, the White Paper did not seek to define messages that should be communicated to citizens, but rather to promote the creation of information tools and channels that would enable citizens to access information and have their say.

Another aspect that had been neglected was the highly competitive and continually evolving nature of the media sector; this radically changed communication and information perspectives and made it necessary to adapt. For this reason today's generations communicated in a completely different way from previous generations, taking full advantage of the information revolution and the latest communication technologies available to them.

A third and equally crucial aspect was the fact that communication had not been adapted to the diverse and complex nature of public opinion in Europe. This was why all EU communication policies had to be underpinned by the previously mentioned principles of inclusion and diversity.

Participation was a decisive principle. The failure of communication strategies attempted thus far could also be explained by the fact that the gradual transfer of competences from the national to the EU level had not been accompanied by the parallel development of a European public sphere for debate where national views and needs could be aired, so that diversity within the EU could be taken into account. It was, however, equally imperative to take diversity into account in this area.

Minna Gillberg concluded by emphasising that the White Paper was a call for action within the framework of an open process for fostering deeper reflection. Thus the future of the White Paper relied heavily on the reactions it provoked. Ongoing consultations were therefore an excellent opportunity for civil society to influence the new policy that the Commission intended to develop. It should therefore be viewed in the broader context of making European institutions more attentive, open and accessible with regard to the citizens' needs.

From this perspective, the proposal to draw up a European charter or code of conduct on communication was of considerable importance because it was intended to increase the credibility and legitimacy of EU communication activities; above all, however, it was intended to provide EU citizens with the means to ensure that their interests were taken into full account and that they were aware of what they were entitled to expect from the European institutions and national political bodies. The Commission wished to add a new dimension to relations between the EU and civil society, especially through the ongoing consultation process, by transforming these relations into a genuine partnership. In this context, the contribution of civil society organisations was indispensable.

Giampiero Alhadeff then opened a general discussion.

Jean-Marc Roirant (Education and civil society platform) said that he wholeheartedly agreed with what he deemed to be the White Paper's clear and lucid analysis of why communication policies on Europe previously implemented by the Commission had failed. He also approved a number of its recommendations, even though it was clear that some of them demonstrated, irrespective of whether they were recommended common principles, a need for a better structured use of technological tools or a better coordinated interinstitutional approach, not to mention the need for a better understanding of European public opinion. However, there might be room for debate on the advantages of creating an Observatory for European Public Opinion.

Nevertheless, Jean-Marc Roirant identified two grounds for dissatisfaction with the White Paper. First of all, the Commission had based it on the premise that better communication would enable citizens to understand the European project better, thereby bringing them closer to it. He considered this to be unfounded. Beyond the undeniable communication problems, lay the fact that citizens were turning away from the European Union because they felt that it had failed to keep its promises regarding prosperity, solidarity and security. They also felt helpless to influence political choices made in Brussels. The best communication plan imaginable would still fail to appease this feeling of rejection, and lip-service references to civil society could not conceal the fact that ultimately the Commission was not proposing anything that would genuinely enable civil society to participate fully in explaining European citizens' aspirations and expectations to the institutions.

The second source of dissatisfaction was the section in the White Paper on citizen involvement, which also amounted to more lip service because there were no concrete proposals to establish links with citizens and set up fora for pan-European civic debate. Establishing an institutional framework for civil dialogue and a democratic infrastructure is key to developing a genuine strategy for listening to civil society.

Jean-Marc Roirant added that adopting a Statute for a European Association was also necessary to provide civil society organisations with a standardised framework for interacting with the European institutions and contributing to the development of a pan-European political culture.

Mary McPhail (European Women's Lobby) welcomed the Commission's White Paper but nevertheless shared Jean-Marc Roirant's concerns. Going beyond the "techniques" recommended in the communication from the Commission, she wondered what messages should be sent out and which stakeholders were responsible for their dissemination. The Commission itself remained silent on these issues, which was a real shortcoming in the White Paper. The latter did not broach the subject of how to tackle misinformation on EU issues by a number of governments or national media.

Mary McPhail, like the previous speaker, regretted that the Commission had under-estimated the importance of the role played by civil society organisations in applying a genuine European communication policy, and especially the fact that they were crucial vectors and information multipliers. She called for a qualitative leap forward in relations between the European institutions and organised civil society that could eventually result in a strategic partnership.

Daniel Spoel (Permanent Forum of Civil Society) was also dissatisfied with the White Paper, which seemed to be addressed to Member States and other institutions rather than to civil society. Indeed civil society would be hard pressed to feel implicated since the Commission did not address citizens' concerns, which in itself indicated a serious listening problem. Society was nevertheless willing to contribute. This was why the Permanent Forum of Civil Society had drafted a booklet entitled Citizens facing up to the European Union, which included concrete proposals for solving the problem and enabling civil society to have its say. Counter to the White Paper's proposals, which amounted to a catalogue of recipes, Daniel Spoel stressed the need to set up a speaking and listening process and endorsed Jean-Marc Roirant's comments.