Civil dialogue: new EESC study published

The European institutions should jointly develop unified guidelines for civil dialogue. An interinstitutional agreement could help, for example by assigning different roles and objectives to the different institutions based on their competences. The European institutions must also address capacity issues that hinder civil society organisations and institutions from engaging in dialogue.

These are some of the main recommendations of a new EESC study on Mapping civil dialogue practices in the EU institutions that was released on 16 July. The study was requested by the Civil Society Organisations’ Group of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) and carried out by the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS). Two of its co-authors, Berta Mizsei and Timothy Yeung, presented the study’s key findings and recommendations at the launch event.

Séamus Boland, President of the Civil Society Organisations’ Group, explained that his group had requested the study because it considered an inventory of current practice a prerequisite for efficiently, sustainably and inclusively boosting civil dialogue at EU level. The study identifies an increase in civil dialogue over the past 10 years, but also remaining challenges: The study on current civil dialogue practice in the EU institutions found that they and their departments still have different understandings of what structured engagement between them and civil society means. They organise civil dialogue differently and, in some cases, there is perceived competition between civil dialogue, direct democratic initiatives and elected representation. 

Ms Mizsei explained that civil society is mainly involved in EU policymaking via the European Commission. The Commission’s expert groups in particular create multiple opportunities for civil society organisations to participate alongside other experts. However, there continue to be obstacles to meaningful engagement. She said: Even when there is dialogue, it may occur late in the policy process, be understaffed or not entail any formal feedback mechanisms. One thing that surprised us was how rare it was for civil society to know how their input actually had an impact on EU decision-making.

The study not only takes stock of civil dialogue practice, it also provides concrete recommendations for next steps.

Mr Yeung said: We agree with existing requests that the EU, including the EESC, settle on a definition of civil dialogue and provide guidelines on how to implement it, and that this should lead to an interinstitutional agreement on civil dialogue. The guidelines could be integrated into the better regulation toolbox to reflect the unique nature of civil dialogue. This interinstitutional agreement could assign roles and objectives according to the competences of each institution, and harmonise existing initiatives.

The study also suggests having institutional contact points and periodic reporting, celebrating success and providing training for moderators. The co-authors recommend that future research look into the financial resources available for EU-level civil dialogue and find out what impact civil society inputs have after discussions are completed.

Closing the launch event, Mr Boland said: Now is the time to make concerted efforts to structure civil dialogue further and make it sustainable and predictable for all actors. Over the years, the EESC has extensively explored and promoted civil dialogue. It is well placed to facilitate this process.

The publication of the EESC study comes at a crucial time. The European Commission has pledged to step up engagement with civil society and better protect civil society in its work during its 2024-2029 term. In addition, civil society faces numerous challenges in the face of geopolitical and socio-economic changes.

The study and an executive summary are available on the EESC’s website.