Civil Society Actors from Central Eastern European Countries in European Network Governance

Transcription

1 Kristina Charrad & Gudrun Eisele: Civil Society Actors from Visegrád countries in European Governance 1 of 16 Civil Society Actors from Central Eastern European Countries in European Network Governance Kristina Charrad & Gudrun Eisele Research group European Civil Society and Multilevel Governance Institut für Politikwissenschaft, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster Kristina.Charrad@uni-muenster.de, Gudrun.Eisele@uni-muenster.de Paper prepared for the workshop The Institutional Shaping of EU-Society Relations CONNEX Research Group 4 University of Mannheim, Mannheim Centre for European Social Research MZES October 14-15, 2005 WORK IN PROGRESS - PLEASE DO NOT QUOTE Abstract The participation of civil society organisations in the decision-making process is welcomed by European institutions, especially by the Commission. Their participation is seen in a functional perspective as contributors to the best possible problem solving. Especially after the 2004 enlargement which increased the heterogeneity of economic and institutional conditions as well as normative preferences in the member states, the integrating potential of civil society is seen as a centripetal remedy counteracting risks of a centrifugal coming apart of the Union. Despite the instances of the growing importance of civil society organisations for the EU, there is still a lack of research and understanding of the relations between EU institutions and private actors, especially in the context of the EU enlargement. This paper addresses the following questions: Which role do EU institutions attribute to civil society organisations in the context of European governance? And how are civil society organisations from the new member states prepared to act on the European level? In the first part, we focus on governance in the European Union and the role of civil society organisations, taking into consideration academic debate as well as recent developments. Combining these considerations with elements of the research on interest representation, we then conclude what qualities of civil society organisations are advantageous for participating fully in European governance. In the second part, we concentrate on civil society actors from the new member states, more precisely: Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, with regard to the questions how they are organised on the European level and what implications their choice of form of interest representation has. In order to complement the first approximation presented in this paper, we suggest a research design based on network analysis, which can help to achieve a better understanding of the scope of integration of civil society actors in the European decision-making process.

2 Kristina Charrad & Gudrun Eisele: Civil Society Actors from Visegrád countries in European Governance 2 of Introduction In recent years, civil society involvement in European governance as well as debates and publications on it have multiplied: Under the procedure of the Social Dialogue, the European Trade Union Confederation and the Union of Industrial and Employers Confederations in Europe can actively shape European regulation; among thousands of other organisations, they are listed in the Commission s database for Consultation, the European Commission and Civil Society (CONECCS). In the drafting process for a European Constitution by the Convention, civil society organisations have been consulted by hearings as well as via internet; in the Open Method of Coordination, these organisations are being mobilised in the process of drafting the National Action Plans. The White Paper on European Governance attributes a key role to civil society as citizens voice, service provider, mobilising force and as means against exclusion; the Draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe is to bestow the rank of a constitutional provision to EU institutions dialogue with civil society. What aims are linked to these developments? Which role is being attributed to civil society actors in the context of European governance? And how are civil society organisations from the new member states prepared to fill this role, to act on the European level? These are the questions we want to address in our contribution. The paper is structured as follows: In the next part, we will focus on governance in the European Union and the role of civil society organisations, taking into consideration academic debate as well as recent developments. In the following part, we will concentrate on civil society actors from the new member states, more precisely: Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia the so-called Visegrád countries, with regard to the question how they fit in this picture. The paper will be rounded off by a short conclusion. In this paper, using the term civil society organisations, organised civil society or civil society actors, we proceed from the definition of the European Economic and Social Committee, a definition adopted also by the Commission. In the White Paper on European Governance, the following groups are counted among civil society: trade unions and employers organisations ( social partners ); nongovernmental organisations; professional associations; charities; grass-roots organisations; organisations that involve citizens in local and municipal life with a particular contribution from churches and religious communities (European Commission 2001:14, FN 9). Obviously, this notion, including business interest associations (BIAs) and trade unions, is not shared by all scholars researching on civil society. Still, it is best apt to fit our research, focusing on the EU.

3 Kristina Charrad & Gudrun Eisele: Civil Society Actors from Visegrád countries in European Governance 3 of European governance: Which role for civil society actors? In this part, we will focus on the governance debate and ask which role civil society organisations have in it, taking into account academic debate and recent developments. Combining these considerations with elements of the research on interest representation, we then conclude what qualities of civil society organisations are advantageous for participating fully in European governance. First used in economic science, the concept of governance, via the discipline of international relations, became common in the general field of political science where it, increasingly popular, has been inspiring a multitude of publications. Meanwhile, on the one hand, efforts of consolidation and categorisation (Benz 2004; Schuppert 2005) and, on the other hand, the further differentiation in the fields of regional governance, local governance, environmental governance etc. can both be observed. The EU has been described as a system of multi-level governance, in two different meanings: While the institutional understanding of the EU as a multi-level system highlights the different territorial levels of state action, the functional concept aims at the specific contribution of public as well as private actors to the decision-making process, characterised by interdependent political arenas (Grande 2000; George 2005). Later analyses, emphasising the relationships between state institutions and non-state organisations, have put forward network governance as a concept (Kohler-Koch and Eising 1999): The EU lacking a binding ideology for unifying action, instead being based on a functional raison d être is being governed by reaching agreement in a highly interwoven negotiating system where a plurality of interests needs to be recognised and [o]ptimising performance calls for a sympathetic treatment of target groups. In the EU as a network system of governance, the role of the state as mediator and activator is to bring together the relevant actors of society by offering institutional frameworks, organising the arena for political exchange and agreement and building issue-specific constituencies. Negotiating in a community friendly way without losing sight of one s partial interests is the main rule of behaviour for actors involved. The core idea of network governance is that political actors consider problem-solving the essence of politics and that the setting of policy-making is defined by the existence of highly organised social sub-systems. In sectoral sub-structures and policy communities, private and public actors interact in a way that is only little hierarchical. Political action takes place on different and often decentralised and functionally specific levels (all: Kohler-Koch and Eising 1999:5 and 24-6). 1 1 A very popular and indeed excessively used notion are the new modes of governance, the question being which exact part of this fuzzy concept encompassing soft law, policies beyond regulative and distributive modes (Tömmel 2000), instruments such as the open method of coordination with benchmarking and mainstreaming, can rightfully be called new. Insightful in this regard has been Rainer Eising and Andrea Lenschow s contribution to the conference Europäische Wohlfahrtsstaatlichkeit im Wandel in Osnabrück, April 2005; see also (Eising and Kohler-Koch 1999).

4 Kristina Charrad & Gudrun Eisele: Civil Society Actors from Visegrád countries in European Governance 4 of 16 In such a system of governance, civil society organisations have an important role to play. On the one hand, the dependence of European institutions on private actors for achieving effective governance has already traditionally been well described by scholars: As European institutions do neither possess expert knowledge in each of the policy fields encompassed by EU regulation nor the financial means to buy it, they depend on input from relevant actors and experts in the respective sector. If groups that stand for those affected by EU legislation are involved already in the preparation process, this upfront reduces opposition to the respective policy measure and thus fosters a smooth implementation process. The relationship between interest groups and EU institutions is thus characterised by mutual dependence. With regard to civil society organisations, this importance as well as awareness and debates on them have gained momentum in recent years. Besides the described rather functional aspects of private actors contribution to European governance, there are aspects of a more normative nature which were recently brought to the fore: Addressing citizens diagnosed distrust, disinterest and lack of confidence in the European Union, the White Paper on European Governance, published in 2001, aimed to connect Europe with its citizens and therefore called for the Commission s stronger interaction with [ ] civil society (European Commission 2001:3-4). The draft constitutional treaty, under the heading of participatory democracy, is to oblige the European institutions to maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with representative associations and civil society. It further states that [t]he Commission shall carry out broad consultations with parties concerned in order to ensure that the Union s actions are coherent and transparent (art. I ). 2 Much has been talked and written about the way this reshaped the political debate on EU democracy (Smismans 2003:484), complementing the concept of representative democracy with the notion of participatory democracy. In this perspective, civil society organisations could provide societal integration on an individual and collective basis and offer avenues for participation. In the face of the diagnosed lack of a European demos considered essential for enhancing democracy within the European Union, societal integration and participation via European civil society is regarded as a possible alternative or at least complement. If in favour of the EU and European integration which is often optimistically assumed by its institutions (Smismans 2003:491), civil society organisations could transport European issues and generally the European cause to the citizens level. Thus able of acting as a two- 2 Out of the European institutions, the Commission is of particular importance to groups wishing to influence European decision-making, as is underlined by the following statement by the director of European Citizen Action Service : Unless this is done with the Institution which has the right of initiative and is at the start of the legislation or policymaking, it is impossible to have any meaningful process of consultation let alone participation at a later stage. (Venables 2004:158)

5 Kristina Charrad & Gudrun Eisele: Civil Society Actors from Visegrád countries in European Governance 5 of 16 way channel bridging the gap between the EU and its citizens, organised civil society is a very attractive intermediary partner for European governance. 3 Consequently, in the pre-accession period, the European Union was concerned about the state of organised civil society in the applicant countries, especially in those with post-socialist background. The White Paper mentions the EU s efforts to encourage the development of civil society in the applicant countries as part of their preparation for membership (European Commission 2001:14). As civil society organisations became an indispensable actor in European governance, [a] broad variety of involvement strategies has been developed over the years and is employed throughout the policy cycle: from inter-group discussions and round tables in the phase of problem definition and agenda setting, to a variety of instruments of consultation and deliberation during a policy formulation, to effecting partnership arrangements in implementation and providing societal actors with rights of monitoring and legal control. (Kohler-Koch 2005: 8). In the end of 2002, the European Commission adopted minimum standards for consultation of interested parties which were recommended as a role model for other EU institutions and agencies by ECAS (European Citizen Action Service 2004:10). Already in the Governance White Paper, the Commission emphasised its will to structure the involvement of civil society. One of the measures initiated by the White Paper in order to create a new base for the relation between EU institutions and civil society organisations was the database CONECCS (see also below). Of the listed criteria for the organisations willing to register there, three seem to be central: a permanent presence on the European level, the ability to offer expertise and representativeness. Judging from these criteria, an ideal civil society organisation, from the institutions point of view, would have an office in Brussels, be able to provide expertise in different policy areas and be representative for particular interests. 4 The issue of representativeness, linked to the question of accreditation, is currently being discussed in academics and practice (European Economic and Social Committee 2005; Greenwood and Halpin 2005). The importance of being able to provide expert knowledge in the EU decision-making process has been identified and repeatedly pointed to in research on interest groups (Van Schendelen 1993; Radaelli 1995; Pappi and Henning 1999). From research conducted with the focus on business interests, we can draw conclusions as to the meaning of knowledge for the involvement of private actors in the dialogue with European institutions. Among the pertinent contributions to that field is Bouwen s theory of access. According to it, only organisations offering the kind of goods demanded by the respective institution can access this institution. Expertise is here understood as an exchange good: When offered at the right time, 3 4 There is, however, some doubt about how wide the range of actors actually involved is; the European Citizen Action Service, along the same lines, calls repeatedly for consultation to go wider than the Brussels inner circle (European Citizen Action Service 2004:5). Greenwood and Halpin describe the Commission s preference for one stop EU associations (Greenwood and Halpin 2005:5).

6 Kristina Charrad & Gudrun Eisele: Civil Society Actors from Visegrád countries in European Governance 6 of 16 it can be exchanged for access to the institution, which is the resource required by the private actors (see Bouwen 2002: 7-8; Bouwen 2002: 365). In this theory, access is the indicator for influence. A similar approach is being used in the work of Jan Beyers, who compares diffuse and specific interests 5 in their use of voice or access strategies (Beyers 2004: 213-4). He concludes that it is advisable for interest groups to adapt to the demands of the respective institutions as well as to their culture in dealing with interest groups if they want to be stronger involved in the dialogue with them. Again, the ability to offer expertise enhances opportunities for interest groups. This all confirms that the chance to be substantially included in the decision-making process is increased by some qualities, like the ability to offer expertise or special information or having a good reputation from the past consultation processes. According to these findings, new actors in the scene face remarkable difficulties: They have to adapt to the ways in which the different institutions work and establish themselves as experts on the new additional, European, level, on which the know-how from the national level alone might not be sufficient. For actors from the Visegrád countries, this adaptation process might be even more difficult because they don t posses a lot of experience on the national level. The new European arena complements regional and national arenas, offering new opportunity structures but also posing new challenges. They have to establish themselves at the same time in the national as well as in the European arena. How do civil society actors from the Visegrád countries deal with these challenges? This is the point we will turn to now. 3. Civil society actors from Visegrád countries: Participants or observers in European governance? In this part, we study civil society organisations from the new EU member states with the questions in mind: How do these organisations fit in the picture? Are they prepared to act on the European level? In which ways do they try to participate in European governance, which forms of being present in Brussels do they choose? Overall, can they be considered as participants or as observers in European governance? Standing at the very beginning of our empirical research, this paper can only present a first approximation to these questions. At the end of this part, we will give an outline on further research. From the countries that became EU members in 2004, we focus on Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. These countries have historical patterns in common from former empires and authoritarian regimes to the Eastern bloc and the transformation process which shaped traditions and attitudes towards societal engagement in a similar way (Szabó 5 Beyers refers mostly to business interests.

7 Kristina Charrad & Gudrun Eisele: Civil Society Actors from Visegrád countries in European Governance 7 of ), and as we shall see, they are struggling with similar problems when it comes to organised civil society. 3.1 Civil society in Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Hungary Interesting findings about the features of civil society have been offered by the research project Future of Civil society (focs), carried out shortly before the EU accession, which was dealing with civil societies in the Visegrád countries. The researchers point to clear similarities in the development of organised civil society in CEEC. These similarities are mainly caused by a communist state policy that damaged voluntary organizations and liquidated their economic base (Juros, Les et al. 2004: 558). One of the negative aspects of that legacy is the deep distrust that societal organisations often face, partly caused by the widespread antipathy to collectivism (Priller 2004:552). Two of the continuing characteristics are the comparatively small number of civil society organisations and their weak financial standing. Although all four countries saw a significant increase in the number of civil society organisations right after the breakdown of the socialist systems, their organisational infrastructure is still remaining more than modest when compared to Western European countries. For example in Poland, after finishing the transformation to democracy and just before joining the EU, the number of civil society organisations was five times smaller than in the EU countries (Juros, Les et al. 2004: 558). The Slovakian focs researchers, on the contrary, see the recent developments there as a reason for optimism as citizen participation in NGOs and engagement in traditional charitable activities increased in the last decade. What motivates even more optimism is the fact that the representatives of NGOs enter the public policy arena and become partners and watchdogs of the representatives of political and economic power (Kuvikova and Hullova 2004: 649). The Hungarian focs team points to the lack of professionalisation as a weakness of the Hungarian third sector. The further development depends on the ability of civil society organisations after the rather chaotic period of extensive growth to develop their own rules of ethical behaviour, establish their umbrella organizations, improve cooperation and information exchange within the sector, and significantly increase the professional quality of their activities (Kuti and Sebesteny 2004: 677). The Czech third sector shows a huge gulf that continues to yawn between the old organizations that have survived from Communist times and the new groups that have sprung up since 1989 (Fric, Goulli et al. 2004:617). This cleavage is typical for the structure of civil society in post-socialist countries. Generally, the old organisations are better funded due to their possession of property, but lack attraction for new, especially young members and innovative ideas. The new organisations, on the contrary, attracting new members, suffer from shortage of resources. The different characteristics described above by the respective research teams can be considered typical for civil society in all Visegrád countries.

8 Kristina Charrad & Gudrun Eisele: Civil Society Actors from Visegrád countries in European Governance 8 of Tracing civil society actors from the Visegrád countries in Brussels While the development of civil society in the countries under study is still far from being finished, civil society actors need to represent their interests also on the European level. After joining the EU, public policy shifted from the national level to the European level and civil society organisations were bound to allocate increasing amounts of lobbying resources to that level (Mazey and Richardson 2001: 221). Obviously, establishing themselves as interest groups is quite a challenge for civil society organisations: While only acquiring the know-how of interest representation in a democratic state, they at the same time need to develop strategies to that end on the European level. The learning process runs parallel on both levels. In this part of the paper, we want to outline which actors are present in Brussels and which form of interest representation they choose and discuss this choice in the context of network governance. Organised interests have different means to find their way to European decision-making 6 : On the one side, the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) as an advisory body provides an institutionalised form of civil society interest representation with a firm standing in the EU polity structure. The head of the Polish NGO Office in Brussels, Pawel Krzeczunowicz, claims that the inclusion of more civil society representatives from new member states [in the EESC] provided some possibilities for linking NGOs better to the EU (European Citizen Action Service 2004:10). On the other side, organisations also make use of other and more direct ways to be included in the European decision-making process. In this category, there are basically five different ways to voice interests on the European level: First, civil society organisatons can open their own office in Brussels. Second, they can send someone to Brussels only on important occasions, while being organisationally based in the member state. Third, they can join one of the established European umbrella organisations (EUROFEDs). Forth, they can join European networks, which are relatively loose junctions 7. Fifth, they can hire consultants or lawyers to act for their purposes. This part of the paper will follow this structure, with a stronger emphasis on possibilities one to three and, due to the lack of detailed published research, general considerations on possibilities four and five. Having an office in Brussels or acting from capitals of member states? For a first general idea of the presence of civil society actors from the Visegrád countries in Brussels, we searched two databases that were created by European institutions in order to facilitate consultations with civil society actors and manage relations with them. The Commission s registry of civil society organisations CONECCS contains information on civil soci- 6 7 Besides the options listed in the following, actors can also try to influence European decision-making indirectly via national representatives (government representatives, MEPs etc.). In this paper, we concentrate on more direct ways. Networks here are meant as organisation form, not as interest intermediation system or analytical tool. For the differences, see (Börzel 1998).

9 Kristina Charrad & Gudrun Eisele: Civil Society Actors from Visegrád countries in European Governance 9 of 16 ety organisations which have voluntarily registered there. The registry of the European Parliament, on the other hand, lists individual lobbyists from each organisation who have a pass to the EP. The CONECCS database contains 734 organisations 8. The Commission defined a set of criteria that organisations willing to register should fulfil. Organisations should be organised at European level, which means having members in three or more EU or candidate countries, be active and have expertise in the Commission's policy area(s) and capable of providing expertise and input, have authority to speak for their members, operate in an open and accountable manner. On request by the Commission, they should be willing and able to provide further information 9. Most organisations registered in CONECCS are EUROFEDs, due to the requirement to have members in several EU countries. Searching for organisations explicitely related to Visegrád countries, only two organisations can be found, both based in Hungary (see first row). Table: Organisations from Visegrád countries in CONECCS and Registry of EP CONECCS Hungary Poland Slovakia Czech Rep. Central-and-East- European Working Group for the Enhancement of Biodiversity Civil Europe Association Registry of EP Hungarian Interchurch Aid Hungarian Academy of Sciences Hungarian NGO-Europa HAZ The Hungarian Europe Society The Polish NGO Office in Brussels Polish Tourist Information SBRA (Slovak Business Representation) SPPR (Project Management Association of Slovakia) Source: own table from the data in CONECCS and Registry of EP, Stand: June 2005 CEBRE (Czech Business Representation) Czech Airlines Czech Railways Czechinvest More organisations related to Visegrád countries can be found in the Registry of the European Parliament: It contains four Hungarian organisations, which are active in the environmental field with an office in Hungary, one Polish NGO Office and one Polish BIA both based in Brussels, one Slovak and four Czech BIAs. Can we conclude from these findings that organisations from Visegrád countries are more likely to lobby the European Parliament 8 9 Data from June [20 June 2005]

10 Kristina Charrad & Gudrun Eisele: Civil Society Actors from Visegrád countries in European Governance 10 of 16 than they lobby the Commission? Such a conclusion is difficult to draw, because the registration in the CONECCS database is voluntary and provides no special advantages, in contrast to the registration with the EP which entails access to the buildings of the EP. Still, the number of organisations found is very small, and only a minority of them give an address in Brussels while most of them are based in the capitals of the member states. The table shows that most registered organisations from Visegrád countries are BIAs. The two non business interest organisations which are registered in CONECCS, Central-and-East-European Working group for the Enhancement of Biodiversity and Civil Europe Association, are both based in Hungary and it seems that they are only periodically coming to Brussels. Only the Polish NGOs have opened an office in Brussels it is registered in the Registry of EP in order to be present in the Brussels lobbying scene. It seems that non-business interests from Visegrád countries have more difficulties than business interests in opening representation offices at Brussels. This consideration also applies to Western European interests, however, even business interests from Visegrád countries are underrepresented in Brussels. The numbers of organisations and registered representatives are small, but how can they be evaluated in the context of other countries? We compared the number of representatives registered with the EP with those of two founder states of the EU, Germany and France, and those of two countries which joined the EU only in the last enlargement round of 1995, Finland and Sweden. The diagram shows the numbers of representatives per country. Diagram: Representatives of organisations from different countries, registered with the EP Germany France Poland Hungary Czech Rep. Slovakia Finland Sweden Source: own drawing according to the data in the Registry of EP (June 2005)

11 Kristina Charrad & Gudrun Eisele: Civil Society Actors from Visegrád countries in European Governance 11 of 16 Germany clearly has the most actors registered, France has less, but the Visegrád countries, with only small differences between them, have the lowest number of actors registered. One might want to object that this does not seem astonishing as these countries joined the EU only in May But in the whole pre-accession period from 1993 on, actors from these countries were allowed to register, which means that they had nearly the same time as Finland and Sweden which joined the EU When taking into account the numbers of inhabitants, the contrast appears even bigger: The Scandinavian countries are smaller than Poland or Hungary, but they have twice as many actors registered. To sum up, only a small number of actors from Visegrád countries are registered in the databases of European institutions. A large part of them is based not in Brussels, but in the capitals of the member states. Membership in EUROFEDs Another possibility for civil society organisations to represent their interests and get information about European issues is to join European umbrella organisations, so called EURO- FEDs. Being member of a EUROFED, interest groups from CEEC, on the one hand, can mainly benefit by learning from the experience of their Western European colleagues and by using the resources of the EUROFED (see Borragan 2002: 170). The EUROFEDs, on the other hand, are also interested in including organisations from the new member states in order to represent interests of all EU countries. According to Platzer, a new development of European federations and associations is issue- and geographically-related differentiation and broadening of networks (vertical as well as horizontal) for information, consultation and co-operation. The horizontal broadening of networks concerns a stronger involvement of partner associations from Central European countries. As Platzer points out, associations from EU candidate countries were already since the late nineties full members in many European federations (Platzer 2002: 416). BIAs from Visegrád countries are members in EUROCHAMBRES and UNICE. The environmental organisations are members of EEB, the organisations in the social sector are members of the Social Platform, and trade unions joined the ETUC. 10 Due to the fact that interest groups from CEEC lack experience in lobbying procedures and knowledge about the EU institutions as well as financial and personal resources to operate autonomously in Brussels, they depend on large European associations: The access of Central and Eastern European interest groups to European Institutions, although effective as information-gathering mechanisms, are [sic] limited by their reliance on Eurogroups (Borragan 2002: 177). But this partnership is a tremendous challenge for both sides. It is not easy 10 The abbreviations stand for the following names: EUROCHAMBRES is the Association of European Chambers of Commerce and Industry, UNICE is the Union of Industrial and Employers Confederations in Europe, EEB is the European Environmental Bureau, the Social Platform is the Platform of European Social NGOs, and ETUC is the European Trade Union Confederation.

12 Kristina Charrad & Gudrun Eisele: Civil Society Actors from Visegrád countries in European Governance 12 of 16 for EUROFEDs to identify reliable counterparts in CEEC, and the expansion of membership to various newcomer groups brings internal organisational difficulties as well as new issues on the agenda (see Borragan 2002: 174-5). For groups from CEEC, contact with EUROFEDs brings a number of adaptational pressures : They need rapidly and effectively to learn and adapt to the basic rules of the European game while making sure that their own interests are not diluted in the general interest of the wider organisation (Borragan 2002: 176-7). Borragan further points out that the ability of civil society organisations from CEEC to influence the agenda of the European federations is limited, despite the fact that they pay membership fees. She concludes that there is little evidence of their effectiveness in relation to policy outputs and [ ] the transnational activities of Central and Eastern European interest groups evidence a peculiar model of interest-group politics, where the exchange and ownership of information are more important than the actual impact on policy-making (Borragan 2002: 178f). One of the expectations the Commission has towards civil society actors is their ability to offer expertise. The newcomers, civil society organisations from CEEC, as the head of the Polish NGO Office in Brussels points out, mostly are not able to provide technical expertise with their ressources and need to rely therefore on European associations (European Citizen Action Service 2004:10). Still, this solution brings lot of pressures; the actors have to establish themselves on the European level while at the same time they need to maintain their active role at the national level. This might be particularly difficult for new and small civil society organisations such as most civil society organisations in the Visegrád countries. A question still not answered by current research is if membership in European federations from the late nineties on was effective for the interests from CEEC. Engaging third parties or creating networks? As Borragan found out, most interest groups from the CEEC choose the membership in the EUROFEDs in order to operate in Brussels and leave out other possibilities like opening their own representation offices or engaging third parties (political consultants or lawyers) for their aims, due to the lack of knowledge and resources. The possibility to engage third parties might be less resource intensive than opening an office in Brussels, but there are no studies as to how often organisations from Visegrád countries use this option. BIAs from Visegrád countries seem to choose the strategy to join their resources to create new networks at the European level. There is no data about the effects of their presence in existing networks, but one interesting fact is that they create new networks, uniting, for example, BIAs from candidate countries. The Network of Interest Representation Offices from Candidate Countries (NIROC) was established in Its members represent interests mainly from countries which by now became EU members, but also from Bulgaria, Rumania

13 Kristina Charrad & Gudrun Eisele: Civil Society Actors from Visegrád countries in European Governance 13 of 16 and Turkey. According to NIROC s statute, NGOs and regional authorities are also welcome, but the members list contains only one representative of a region 11. The new Research, Innovation and Business Network (RIBN), established in 2005, contains not only organisations from the new Central European EU member states, but also organisations from Bulgaria, Rumania, Serbia, Macedonia and Croatia. RIBN aims to act as an interface between the various levels along the value chain in the economies of Central and South Eastern Europe, as well as to increase the region s participation in EU programmes and projects. 12 In contrast to BIAs, there are no signs that organisations active in the environmental or social fields would be joining their capacities in order to strengthen their position on the European level. It seems that they rather join the existing EUROFEDs. How effective are the different possibilities to get involved into European decision-making process, which were listed above? Does the way in which interest representation on the European level is organised matter, and if it does, to what extent? These are the questions directing our further research. At the beginning of this part, we asked if civil society organisations from the Visegrád countries are participants or observers in European governance. Venturing a first tentative assessment based on the results given by European databases as well as on literature review, it seems more likely that after more than one year of membership in the EU, civil society actors from Visegrád countries are still rather observers than active participants in European governance. Their capacity to use the opportunity structure which opened up for them with EU membership seems limited by their lack of resources. In our further research, we want to take a closer look at the actual involvement and establish a base for answering the question participants or observers? more thoroughly. 3.3 Outlook: Analysing the involvement of civil society actors The network governance approach puts forward the importance of networks as organised sub-systems. Only through these networks can actors contribute inputs to the policy process. That is why participation in the networks is extremely important. Academic literature highlights integration in networks as the most promising strategy in order to realise inputs into the policy formulation process. The current research has still not broached the issue of the involvement of actors from the new member states in the sectoral or particular issue networks. It is an agenda for further research, because without studies on the degree of integration of these actors, we can neither understand which role they play in the policy process nor see if they are able to influence European policies. Regarding this lack, we propose a new research design combining the approach of network governance and the tool of network analy [20 June 2005] [20 June 2005]

14 Kristina Charrad & Gudrun Eisele: Civil Society Actors from Visegrád countries in European Governance 14 of 16 sis (Wasserman and Faust 1994; Börzel 1998; Brandes and Erlenbach 2005) with its analytical and visualisation possibilities. In order to answer the question how civil society actors from Visegrád countries integrate themselves on the European level, their embeddedness needs to be analysed. A network analysis approach is suitable here as it helps to identify not only the range of actors involved but also the way in and degree to which they are involved. This is a starting point for understanding how the system of making EU policies works (see Richardson 2001: 11) and what role each actor has in it. We start from the following hypothesis: Actors who are less integrated have fewer chances to give inputs, and actors who are not integrated at all are excluded from the policy-making process. The aim is to discover the grade of embeddedness of the actors from Visegrad-countries in order to measure their possibilities to contribute their interests to the policy-making process, because the relational position of actors in the structure explains to large part the ability to realise their interests and influence the outcomes. 4. Conclusion In this paper, we asked for the role of civil society actors in European governance. As the network system on governance relies on the interaction of public and private actors in sectoral sub-systems and policy communities, there is a functional need for civil society actors which can fulfil this role. To this add normative aspects: Via a strengthened dialogue with civil society, the European institutions hope to bring the Union closer to the citizens. We further drew conclusions as to which civil society organisations fit best in this picture. Statements of the Commission seem to confirm results of academic research on interest representation underlining the importance of expert knowledge in the relation between EU institutions and groups. Obviously, civil society actors from the new member states have to face the double challenge of consolidating themselves on the national level and establishing themselves as interest representants on the European level, which requires a high degree of professionalisation and special know-how as well as lot of contacts. Due to a lack of experience and resources, it may be difficult for them to effectively influence EU decision-making. After a short outline on civil society in Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Hungary, we engaged in tracing civil society actors from these countries in the Brussels scene, taking databases of the Commission and the European Parliament as a first starting point. We further tried to show which choice of the organisational form of representing interests civil society actors from the Visegrád countries make: Probably determined by the state of personal and financial resources rather than by strategic considerations, the most frequent choice seems to join EUROFEDs, which entails disadvantages like to stand up to stronger members in the wider organisation. Current research has little to say about the way civil society actors from the CEEC act on the Europan level, although these countries are members of the EU already since more than one

15 Kristina Charrad & Gudrun Eisele: Civil Society Actors from Visegrád countries in European Governance 15 of 16 year: Neither do we know which issues they are concentrating on, nor can we specify exactly how they deal with opportunities offered as well as challenges arising. We therefore suggest a research approach based on network analysis which can create a better base for understanding the scope of integration of actors from the new member states in the European decision-making process and help to draw conclusions from the positioning of actors in centre or periphery and their relational embeddedness. References Benz, A., Ed. (2004): Governance - Regieren in komplexen Regelsystemen. Eine Einführung. Governance. Wiesbaden (VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften). Beyers, J. (2004): Voice and access: Political Practices of European Interest Associations. In: European Union Politics(5): Borragan, N. P.-S. (2002): Coming to Terms with European Union Lobbying: The Central and Eastern European Experience. In: A. Warleigh and J. Fairbrass: Influence and Interests in the European Union: The New Politics of Persuasion and Advocacy. London (Europa Publications): Börzel, T. (1998): Organizing Babylon - on the Different Conceptions of Policy Networks. In: Public Administration 76: Bouwen, P. (2002): A Comparative Study of Business Lobbying in the European Parliament, the European Commission and the Council of Ministers. MPIfG Discussion Paper. Köln, Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung. Bouwen, P. (2002): Corporate lobbying in the European Union: the logic of access. In: Journal of European Public Policy vol. 9(N. 3): Brandes, U. and Erlenbach, T. (2005): Network Analysis. Methodological Foundations. Berlin (Springer). Eising, R. and Kohler-Koch, B. (1999): Network governance in the European Union. In: B. Kohler-Koch and R. Eising: The Transformation of Governance in the European Union. London (Routledge): European Citizen Action Service (2004): The European Commission and Consultation of NGOs. Brussels. European Commission (2001): White Paper on European Governance. COM(2001) 428. Brussels. European Economic and Social Committee (2005): Preliminary draft opinion of the subcommittee on the representativeness of European civil society organisations in civil dialogue. Brussels. Fric, P., Goulli, R., et al. (2004): Small Development Within the Bureaucracy Interests: The Nonprofit Sector in the Czech Republic. In: A. Zimmer and E. Priller: Future of Civil Society. Making Central European Nonprofit-Organizations Work. Wiesbaden (VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften): George, S. (2005): Multi-level Governance and the European Union. In: I. Bache and M. Flinders: Multi-level Governance. Oxford (Oxford University Press): Grande, E. (2000): Multi-Level Governance: Institutionelle Besonderheiten und Funktionsbedingungen des europäischen Mehrebenensystems. In: E. Grande and M. Jachtenfuchs: Wie problemlösungsfähig ist die EU? Regieren im europäischen Mehrebenensystem. Baden-Baden (Nomos): Greenwood, J. and Halpin, D. (2005): The Public Governance of Interest Groups in the European Union: does regulating groups for 'representativeness' stregthen input legitimacy? ECPR conference, Budapest, 8-10 Sep 2005.

16 Kristina Charrad & Gudrun Eisele: Civil Society Actors from Visegrád countries in European Governance 16 of 16 Juros, A., Les, E., et al. (2004): From Solidarity to Subsidiarity: The Nonprofit Sector in Poland. In: A. Zimmer and E. Priller: Future of Civil Society. Making Central European Nonprofit-Organizations Work. Wiesbaden (VS Verlag): Kohler-Koch, B. (2005): European governance and system integration. European Governance Papers (EUROGOV). No. C-05-01, Kohler-Koch, B. and Eising, R., Eds. (1999): The Transformation of Governance in the European Union. Routledge/ ECPR Studies in European Political Science. London (Routledge). Kuti, E. and Sebesteny, I. (2004): Boom and Consolidation: The Nonprofit Sector in Hungary. In: A. Zimmer and E. Priller: Future of Civil Society. Making Central European Nonprofit- Organisations Work. Wiesbaden (VS Verlag): Kuvikova, H. and Hullova, D. (2004): Watchdog of Political and Economic Power: The Nonprofit Sector in the Slovak Republic. In: A. Zimmer and E. Priller: Future of Civil Society. Making Central European Nonprofit-Organizations Work. Wiesbaden (VS Verlag): Mazey, S. and Richardson, J. (2001): Interest groups and EU policy-making: organisational logic and venue shopping. In: J. Richardson: European Union: Power and Policy Making. London (Routledge): Pappi, F. U. and Henning, C. A. (1999): The Organization of Influence in the European Agricultural Policy: A Network Approach. In: European Journal of Political Science Research 36: Platzer, H.-W. (2002): Interessenverbände und Europäischer Lobbyismus. In: W. Weidenfeld: Europa-Handbuch. Bonn (Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung): Priller, E. (2004): Introduction to the Country Profiles: The Nonprofit Sector in Central Europe. In: A. Zimmer and E. Priller: Future of Civil Society. Making Central European Nonprofit-Organizations Work. Wiesbaden (VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften): Radaelli, C. M. (1995): The Role of Knowledge in the Policy Process. In: Journal of European Public Policy 2(2): Richardson, J., Ed. (2001): European Union. Power and Policy-making. London (Routledge). Schuppert, G. F., Ed. (2005): Governance-Forschung. Vergewisserung über Stand und Entwicklungslinien. Schriften zur Governance-Forschung. Baden-Baden (Nomos). Smismans, S. (2003): European civil society - shaped by discourses and institutional interests. In: European law journal 9(4): Szabó, M. (2004): Civic Engagement in East-Central Europe. In: A. Zimmer and E. Priller: Future of Civil Society. Making Central Nonprofit-Organizations Work. Wiesbaden (VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften): Tömmel, I. (2000): Jenseits von regulativ und distributiv: Policy-Making der EU und die Transformation von Staatlichkeit. In: Grande, Edgar/ Jachtenfuchs, Markus (Hg.):. In: E. Grande and M. Jachtenfuchs: Wie problemlösungsfähig ist die EU? Regieren im europäischen Mehrebenensystem. Baden-Baden (Nomos): Van Schendelen, R. (1993): National Public and Private Lobbying. Aldershot (Dartmouth). Venables, T. (2004): The EU's relationship with NGOs and the issue of "participatory democracy". In: Transnational Associations(2): Wasserman, S. and Faust, K. (1994): Social Network Analysis. Cambridge (Cambridge University Press).