Staffan Nilsson`s end of mandate speech

Committee members, ladies and gentlemen,

I'd like to start by thanking you all. First of all, thank you to the members of Group III, who nominated me for the presidency in 2010, and to all the Committee members who put their faith in me as EESC president from October 2010 to today. The time has come to look back on and review the past two and a half years. It is also a formal requirement under our Rules of Procedure for the president to present both a work programme at the start of his term of office and a review at the end – you should all have been given a USB stick with a comprehensive report on our work and some other material, but I'd just like to mention a few things from my report here.

Let me stress that the president can by no means take all the credit for our work and the progress we have made: our work very much belongs to all of you members and all of our staff. We have a shared mission.

Introduction

I can hardly give a review of achievements without first of all discussing the current situation within the European Union: a crisis that is still ongoing in some Member States and that threatens many individuals, with Although many political decisions have been taken, it has sometimes been too little, and sometimes too late, to bring us out of the crisis – or perhaps I should say crises – and we do not know what the outcome will be. The problem of extremely high unemployment in general, and particularly among young people, is socially unacceptable and needs to be dealt with, as we have highlighted in our opinions and resolutions, and in our debates.

There is also the issue that many of our fellow citizens are losing confidence in this joint project to build cooperation; but that makes it all the more important to stand up for what we believe in and the role we have, and to take an active part in debates within our organisations and at home.

During the crisis, the Member States agreed in the European Council on a new long-term budget for the EU for 2014-2020. I have repeatedly criticised the national governments in the strongest terms for their unwillingness to give the EU a robust budget for the future. If we did not have some so-called "net contributors" – I really don't like that term – we would not need to go all the way to Brussels for an EU budget. An EU budget is also an expression of solidarity between Member States.

The European Union won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2012. It is worth remembering that this project, now fully 50 years old, was a courageous initiative to rebuild Europe after the devastation and destruction of the Second World War. From the original aim of developing joint control over coal and steel production, the project has developed into the European Union of today – a Union with 27, soon to be 28, Member States.

During my presidency, we have boosted our role and our visibility to other EU institutions. I have seen the evidence of this on many occasions, and heard many positive comments both from commissioners and from other EU institutions. We have a new cooperation protocol with the Commission, enabling us for the first time to exert a political influence on the Commission's work programme. In my meetings with Martin Schulz, we have also been discussing how we can work together better to ensure that our opinions to the European Parliament can be produced within the necessary timeframe.

The motto for my presidency was "engaging people for a sustainable Europe", or in other words "together we can create a sustainable Europe", referring to all aspects of sustainability, including from the perspective of Europe's history.

During my presidency, we have based our consultative work on three pillars:

  • Dialogue and participation,
  • Sustainability and growth, and
  • Solidarity and development.

I built my presidency on consultations with you Committee members, and in particular with the sections where our work takes place. We were helped by a study produced by a think tank, and we held a policy debate in the EESC Bureau in December 2010, all of which led to the development of a joint work programme for my presidency.


Dialogue and participation

We have developed our role as a consultative committee to the institutions. I have had a good relationship with the president of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, and have cooperated effectively with the Commission president, José Manuel Barroso, and all of the commissioners.

As the institutional representative of organised civil society at EU level, we have a particular responsibility to bridge the divide between the EU's political ambitions and the public's attitude towards them.

We have pursued the efforts initiated by Mario Sepi to strengthen contact and cooperation with national economic and social councils and similar institutions. We have increased contact with these institutions, and their involvement in our work on the Europe 2020 strategy has been decisive. In the first year of my presidency, I was able to visit pretty much all the national councils, to exchange experiences and learn about their work and role in society. It was very useful and extremely enlightening.

I had planned to relaunch our work in the Liaison Group with European civil society organisations and networks. Our contacts in this respect started back in Roger Briesch's time as president, as an intentionally strategic and necessary initiative to expand our role and make the most of the knowledge and commitment to be found at EU level outside our committee.

We organised the "Civil Society Day", a key initiative for cooperation between the EESC and civil society organisations at EU level. This year, Civil Society Day was held on 6 March, under the heading "As European as we can get! Bringing economy, solidarity and democracy together". The day was concluded by Commissioner Reding, and was an opportunity to build opinion and have an impact. We also showed that we are an open committee, that we can act as a meeting place, that we all live in the real world and that we can influence the EU's institutions.

When Anne-Marie Sigmund was president, she took the initiative to establish the "civil society prize". In 2011, the theme for the prize was "Dialogue and participation fostering EU values: integration, diversity, solidarity, tolerance". With this prize, we were responding to a need to show how civil society can make a positive difference. We awarded the prize to three organisations, all working to minimise xenophobia, combat discrimination and promote fair treatment of migrants, minorities and marginalised citizens. Last year, 2012, the theme was "Innovate for a sustainable Europe", with prizes going to another three deserving organisations.

The Lisbon Treaty introduced the "citizens' initiative": collect one million signatures, and the Commission is required to assess whether the issue can be included on the EU's agenda. This was introduced into legislation on 1 April last year, and both in 2012 and this year, 2013, we organised conferences jointly with the Committee of the Regions and Commissioner ŠefÄŤoviÄŤ to review and draw lessons from most, if not all, of the initiatives launched.

We have enjoyed good cooperation between the private offices of the EESC and CoR presidents, and in my view we have been successful in finding ways of cooperating politically with civil society organisations from a local and regional perspective.


Sustainability and growth

are, to my mind, two sides of the same coin. We need growth, of course, but it needs to be sustainable. It is absurd that even a catastrophic accident can contribute to statistics that indicate growth. We need to develop new key data, parameters and indicators that describe economic growth in green, sustainable terms and also include social values.

Many of our opinions have included recommendations to the EU institutions concerning the crisis and the actions we think the EU and Member States need to take.

Over the years, we have issued opinions on all the major issues, including:

The EESC's steering committee for monitoring the Europe 2020 strategy (smart, sustainable and inclusive growth), set up at the start of my term, has been a key focus. The membership of this committee, including presidents of sections, groups and observatories, meant that it could work horizontally. Europe 2020 is a horizontal strategy, and the EESC needs to take – and indeed has taken – an approach consistent with that.

Our work on the Europe 2020 strategy has been undertaken in cooperation with the national economic and social councils, which was absolutely vital, as it allowed us to provide the view of civil society on implementation by the Member States – a viewpoint that the Commission could not get anywhere else. Our role in this was confirmed to me on many occasions at my bilateral meetings with the Commission president, Mr Barroso.

And don't forget that expanding economies with businesses providing job opportunities and employment are at the heart of the strategy.

The EESC has advocated reviewing the EU's sustainable development strategy, and we welcomed the Council Presidency's conclusions urging the Commission to undertake such a review, but the mid-term review of the Europe 2020 strategy also needs to include the sustainability perspective.

Last September, we held a huge and well-organised conference on all aspects of the Europe 2020 strategy, which concluded with 30 targeted recommendations for the EU's leaders. It involved good cooperation between all the sections, focusing on the opinions the Committee had issued regarding the content of the strategy.

Last June, we had the opportunity to join a delegation to the UN's major summit on sustainable development, with the world's political leaders. We were able to combine this with various other meetings and conferences over a number of days, and we held a side event in the EU pavilion – the only one that President Barroso took part in.

Was the Rio+20 summit important? Yes, it was. Admittedly, we were not satisfied with the summit's outcome document, but the world's leaders focused on the future and on how to tackle climate change, eradicate global poverty and safeguard social justice.

We had spent a long time preparing for this conference. We had spent nearly a year building up a network of civil society organisations involved in environmental issues, to secure joint input. We undertook – and are continuing to undertake – reviews together with the think tank EPC and other organisations, and we have had a number of meetings with Commissioner PotoÄŤnik. Opinion-forming is particularly important here, not only through opinions but also through active debates and commitment.

I would even dare to say that our work on Rio+20 put us on the international stage as a European contact point for expertise and as a stakeholder forum on sustainability issues.

Some may be wondering why we are highlighting "sustainability" at a time when Europe is suffering a profound economic and social crisis, but this is exactly the time when we should be focusing on sustainability, in social, economic and environmental terms.

Another element from both a sustainability and growth perspective is the rapid response and priority we gave to Commissioner Barnier and his initiative to complete the internal market, something that is important, not least, for all small and medium-sized businesses in Europe.


Solidarity and development

I'd like, if I may, to present a cross-section of the activities we have undertaken. Migration issues are closely linked to both solidarity and development. A significant proportion of unregulated immigration is caused by people looking for a better life, even though life as a migrant is, to say the least, hard and precarious, often involving undeclared work and squalid conditions. The EU therefore needs to contribute in various ways to global social development, in part through development aid but also by facilitating trade.

On 15 March we held an important conference in Brussels on integration and human rights, jointly with the Council of Europe and the French Economic, Social and Environmental Council. One thing that really stuck in my mind was the description by Peter Bossman, mayor of Piran in Slovenia, of his path from his country in Africa to integration in Slovenian society, in elected office.

One issue that has garnered global attention from governments, the FAO and the World Bank is access to food, price fluctuations and feeding a growing population, a problem that is also seen as a contributing factor to the Arab Spring. We held a conference on food security, entitled "Food for everyone – towards a global deal", and we were able to deliver a message and conclusions to the then French agriculture minister on the day he convened the first G20 meeting of agriculture ministers. We subsequently set up a permanent study group for food security issues.

We have a number of different mandates when it comes to our external relations, the European Parliament and ACP countries, the EU's Barcelona process and Euromed, EU summits, and China-Brazil-Latin America. We are heavily involved with our near neighbours in the Western Balkans and the Eastern Partnership, which grew out of a Swedish-Polish initiative.

Our consultative committees are also carefully monitoring the candidate countries, as for previous enlargements. Croatia is done, so to speak, but we are still working with Iceland and have started with Montenegro. This is, of course, a priority for the EESC.

I would also like to underline the work we have been doing in our immediate neighbourhood, which is a particular priority for us. Commissioner Stefan Füle has highlighted our work in the Western Balkans, and he is certainly aware of what many of our members have achieved with regard to the Eastern Partnership, namely dialogue between the social partners – trade unions and employers. This was something he highlighted at a Euromed meeting as recently as 6 April, when he stressed that we should avoid making the same mistakes in this regard if we have a civil society contact forum in Euromed, and that we must include representatives of the social dialogue.

I have been invited to both formal and informal ministerial meetings with the Eastern Partnership and the Northern Dimension. I must admit that it was interesting to listen to various EU foreign ministers and their comments on both Ukraine and Belarus. And perhaps I made a small contribution by managing to get the Swedish foreign minister, who was on his iPad the whole time, to tweet about how important it was for civil society to be involved in building democratic structures.

I'm sure you all also understand and agree that we at the EESC have every reason to continue our efforts when it come to holding our summits with civil society organisations in the Euromed area. We have managed to hold workshops in which representatives of both Israel and Palestine took part. We have managed, to an extent, to find our feet in the new organisational landscape following the Arab Spring. Our recent meetings in Ankara and Amman were both very successful.

We must also acknowledge that trade issues play a key role in development policy. The EESC's view is that multinational agreements would be the best option, but the Doha Round is getting nowhere, and in the meantime bilateral agreements have been negotiated between many countries and regions. The EESC has been charged with monitoring and chairing the civil society group regarding the agreement with Korea. I particularly welcomed this mandate, as it also gives us a role in relation to the social partners and European organisations.


How we work

Ladies and gentlemen, before I finish I'd like to say a few words about how we work.

Each new president gives new impetus. I wanted to engage you, the members, but also the people around us – civil society in broad terms. I wanted to open up the Committee and try out new ways of working.

Our main task according to the Treaty is to issue opinions on the Commission's communications, within the legislative process. Several articles in the Treaty require the Commission to consult us, but if we are to actually have an influence and achieve results, it is not enough just to submit a document. I have therefore been active out in the field, taking part in conferences and working with EU institutions and civil society organisations, just as you do in your daily work as EESC members.

I'd like to give one example where we were successful: before an informal ministerial meeting during the Cyprus presidency, two members came to me and said "you have to go!".

The EESC had presented a strong opinion and conclusions on the partnership principle in cohesion policy. The Council, though, did not want to follow the rules and recommendations proposed by the Commission. Then I, along with the ministers, had a few minutes to speak at the meeting, after which several government representatives agreed with my contribution. Partnership was subsequently included as a principle in the proposal. I am not claiming, and do not believe, that we did it alone, but we contributed, and we were successful.

Another good example is that we were given a role in the European Semester in the Council conclusions, thanks to our meeting with and letter to the Council president, Herman Van Rompuy.

Finally

Many thanks to all of you for your support, feedback and friendship.

Particular thanks go to my vice-presidents Anna Maria and Jacek, to the group presidents Luca, Georgios and Henri, and to the section and observatory presidents and all of you with special tasks.

Many thanks to everyone working within the EESC and the joint services, to all staff: you are doing a great job.

Thank you Martin and your colleagues for all your support.

And last but not least, thank you to all the interpreters.

And that's it!

Downloads

Staffan Nilsson`s end of mandate speech