A first consultation for this
document took place in Brussels on 30 September,
attended by approximately twenty representatives of the
Commission and 40 representatives from various nongovernmental
organisations (from the Human Rights,
development, humanitarian, environment, social and
consumer sectors). FIDH participated in this meeting.
Through the initiative, the Commission is aiming to
implement a democratic process in European
institutions and reinforce its credibility with the
population of the European Union. Indeed, the
complexity of European institutions and their
procedures, as well as the technicality of documents
adopted, seems to widen the gap between European
institutions and the people living in Europe. A sign of
this was the low turnout at the last European elections.
The document drawn up by the Commission is in three
parts: an introduction describing relations as they
currently stand between the Commission and the NGOs,
as well as the advantages in these two bodies cooperating
more closely; a chapter on dialogue and
consultation with NGOs; and finally a section on the
Commission’s financing of NGOs.
The working document developed by the Commission
does not have an official status yet, as it still needs to
be approved by the commissioners. We can however
already summarise its main points.
According to the planned document, there are many
reasons for cooperation between the Commission and
NGOs, mainly as a result of the key role NGOs play in
reinforcing participative democracy. NGOs are one of
the channels through which citizens can express their
opinions and influence decision-making processes. As
NGOs are generally also present in the field, they have
access to marginilised, excluded or disadvantaged
people. They represent a counterbalance to the
activities of other interest groups. By influencing
political decisions and taking part in their
implementation, NGOs help to reinforce the legitimacy
of these decisions in the eyes of the public. Finally,
NGOs have specialist knowledge which can enlighten
European decision - makers.
However, the current mechanisms for consultation
between the Commission and NGOs are totally lacking
in consistency: the type and degree of consultation
varies considerably from one area to the next and from
one field to another. Furthermore, the Commission
faces some difficulties nowadays in knowing which
NGOs to contact, due to the lack of a clear definition at
European level of what an NGO is, and the lack of
criteria for representativity.
In its working document, the Commission suggests the
idea of NGOs having consultative status with the
European Commission. It also suggests that treaties
include clauses on civil dialogue. This means that during
the next review of Treaties, specific clause requiring
European institutions to consult NGOs when developing
their policies.
Finally, this working document deals with the issue of
financing NGOs, outlining all the difficulties within the
framework of the current system. However, the
document is not exhaustive in terms of the difficulties
detailed, nor does it outline actual solutions, but merely
states that proposals will be prepared after the first
consultation with NGOs (the meeting of 30 September).
The FIDH welcomes the Commission’s intention to
reinforce and systemise its dialogue with NGOs. It feels
that the meeting of 30 September proves the
Commission’s willingness to effectively implement such
a policy. This meeting offered NGOs the opportunity to
voice some of their concerns.
The only way to close the gap between European
institutions and the general public is a real exchange of
information and in-depth consultation. The danger is
that the Commission will be satisfied with merely formal
consultation that does not take into consideration the
proposals and demands of NGOs. This danger is
increased by the fact that the Commission could be
tempted to use a so-called consultation with the general
public to try to legitimise its own decisions. This risk
was stressed on numerous occasions during the
meeting of 30 September. NGOs value their
independence and want to avoid being used as tools.
They want assurances that their views will be taken into
consideration. Their involvement cannot be a mere
formality or be used to legitimise European policies.
The Commission has expressed its wish to finish drafting
the communications document on reinforcing relations with
NGOs as soon as possible. NGOs have expressed their
opinion that an in-depth consultation with the sector should
not be rushed. NGOs themselves have thousands if not
hundreds of thousands of members and they must be
allowed time to consult with them. It is just this democratic
way of working which makes them legitimate and the
Commission must therefore respect the NGOs internal
procedures. The Commission seems to have listened to
the NGOs on this point.European Commission et NGOs: genesis of new relations?
Finally, the issue was raised regarding the role of
NGOs in European institution/NGO relations where
NGOs are based outside of the European Union. This
questions concerns not only countries of Eastern and
Central Europe, but also countries of the South.
FIDH and several other Human Rights organisations that
took part in the Brussels consultation produced a short
working document on 30 September to fuel discussion
on relations between the European Union and NGOs
active in the field of Human Rights. This document,
which aims to raise issues for consideration, proposes
the creation of a liaison structure to ensure interaction
between European institutions and Human Rights NGOs.
It is proposed that the liaison structure operate
independently of individual relations between specific
NGOs and European institutions. This structure would
not represent members, but would facilitate exchange
between European institutions and Human Rights NGOs.
This document also recommends a system of
accreditation of NGOs by the European Union. Such a
mechanism would allow Union institutions to systemise
NGO consultation and information. This would also help
ensure that the NGOs consulted by European
institutions are truly representative, transparent and
independent. It seems that a regrettable tendency has
developed recently: European institutions claim to be
consulting the general public when in actual fact they
are approaching a few select NGOs, and doing so
without any consistency or objective criteria, and without
any guarantees of how representative the NGOs are.
Consultation with NGOs regarding the communication
should not end with the meeting of 30 September. The
FIDH is planning to follow closely, the work carried out in
this field, as it considers it to be fundamental to the
future functioning of European institutions. The
Commission seems to be at a turning point in its
relationship with NGOs. We need to ensure that it
decides to go in the right direction, and there will be
equality between the parties engaged in the dialogue.
Isabelle Brachet