SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS EXPERT GROUP MEETING ON ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCILS

SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS EXPERT GROUP MEETING ON ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCILS 24-25 July 2008 Vienna International Conference (VIC) Vienna, Austria Summary: The Division of Public Administration and Development Management (DPADM) of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) organized the Expert Group Meeting (EGM) on the Economic and Social Councils from 24 to 25 July 2008 at the United Nations Headquarters in Vienna, Austria. The EGM aimed at strengthening the promotion of dialogue and exchange of knowledge and innovations relating to civic engagement in national socio-economic policy making. The meeting provided a platform for more than 20 presidents and senior officials from various Economic and Social Councils (ESCs) worldwide and international organizations on ESCs, to discuss key concepts and issues on civic participation and the role of ESCs as a tool for civil society engagement in governmental policy-making, in pursuit of the attainment of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and national economic and social agenda. The meeting articulated various innovative and successful ESC initiatives and experiences in engaging civil society in policymaking. Among the significant outcomes and recommendations of the meeting are the following: i) better understanding of the diversity in the nature, approaches, processes and objectives of ESCs and thus provided a more realistic programme strategy for UNDESA in the area of ESCs as a tool for policymaking; ii) establishment of stronger partnership and collaboration among UNDESA, the European Economic and Social Committee and the International Association of Economic and Social Councils to further advance the ESCs role in social dialogue and civic engagement; iii) recognition of the contribution of ESCs in the implementation of the MDGs, primarily through its impact on macroeconomic policies; iv) acknowledgement of the importance of engaging broader range of civil society participation in ESCs and v) commitment to support the UN Development Account Project for the strengthening the capacities of the African ESCs. A. OPENING SESSION: 1. The Opening Session was chaired by Ms. Mary Christine Ong-Reyes, EGM Coordinator. She introduced the speakers for the Opening Session which included Mr. Jacinto De Vera, EGM Chairman and Chief, Socio-economic Governance & Management Branch (SGMB), Division for Public Administration & Development Management (DPADM), UNDESA and Mr. Alexander Michael Graf Von Schwerin, Vice-President of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC). 1

2. Jacinto De Vera, EGM Chair delivered the welcome address and thanked the EGM experts for their participation and enormous support to this initiative. He highlighted that the EGM is one of the activities undertaken by the UN Secretariat under its normative function, to further research and analysis on issues of relevance to Member States with the assistance of experts of a particular field or focus. He also conveyed UNDESA s desire to enrich and strengthen its knowledge base on ESCs, particularly its structure, functions, mechanisms and other relevant issues and looks forward to the outcomes and recommendations that will emanate from this two-day meeting. 3. Alexander Graf von Schwerin, Vice President of the EESC gave his welcome remarks on behalf of Mr. Dimitris Dimitriadis, President of the EESC. He welcomed UNDESA s initiative to explore the role of ESCs in policy development and articulated EESC s initiatives in strengthening the capacities of ESCs in the African countries, particularly the programmes that the EESC has embarked with the Union of Economic and Social Councils and Similar Institutions of African countries (UCESA). He also emphasized EESC s work in the area of promoting further platforms for social dialogue with other international organizations such as the International Labour Organization (ILO). B. SOCIAL DIALOGUE AND ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCILS 4. Mr. De Vera chaired the Session on Social Dialogue and ESC Country Presentations. He indicated that it would be most useful to adopt a common definition of civil society which will guide the presentations and discussion for this meeting. The most appropriate definition of civil society in the context of the EGM discussion would be the definition used by the EESC which is covering everything but the state. 5. However, UNDESA abides by the civil society definition of the Committee of Experts on Public Administration (CEPA) which includes non-governmental organizations, professional and private sector associations and trade unions. These also include families, churches, neighbourhood groups, social groups and work groups. 6. Adil Khan, Expert on Participatory Governance and former Chief, SGMB, DPADM, UNDESA, pointed out the challenges, opportunities and commitments of civic engagement and highlighted the importance of the UN Development Agenda and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) for furthering civic engagement. He also presented the salient objectives and impact of various emerging models of civic engagement and underlined the unique role that ESCs play in this area. 7. Georges Minet, Senior Labour Law Specialist, Social Dialogue, Labor Law and Labor Administration Department, International Labour Organization (ILO), conveyed ILO s definition of social dialogue which represents all types of negotiation and information sharing among representatives of governments and social partners on issues of common interest relating to economic and social policy. He also stated that ILO promotes tripartite cooperation at the national level in order to achieve the collaboration of workers and employers in policy-making and labour law reform to develop strong representative organizations and capacity building. 2

8. Thomas Delapina, Secretary-General, Austrian Social Partners' Advisory Council for Economic and Social Affairs, stressed that unlike other ESCs that have been established by legislation, the Austrian social partnership is a voluntary agreement which was developed on an informal basis. It is guided by mutual trust and negotiations towards achieving the common goals of each interest group and thus has led to a strong sense of responsibility for their political decisions. Moreover, the four strong, independent and representative organizations that comprise their ESC are backed by a detailed legislation. He also underlined some unique elements of the Austrian system that can be helpful for other countries in setting up ESCs which include a strong institutional set-up, willingness for cooperation and a culture that allows compromise and concessions. C. COUNTRY PRESENTATIONS: 9. Peter Birch Sørensen, President (Chairman) Danish Economic Councils, presented a detailed background of the Danish ESC and the Environmental Council including its legislation, mission, membership and procedures. He also provided his perspective in terms of some possible alternative roles for ESCs as a provider of policy advice to the government; stimulus to high-quality public debate on economic and social policies; and qualified second opinion on proposed government polices. He further indicated that the influence of its Economic Council to policy making has been mostly indirect via its impact on the public debate on economic and environmental issues being considered by the Governement. 10. Beatriz Martín-Nieto, Head of the Department of Analysis and Evaluation of Activities, International Relations, Economic and Social Council of Spain, stated that its ESC, known as the house of partners is the highest institution of social dialogue in Spain. She pointed out that the real challenge of ESCs is to become the formal seat of participation of social and economic partners in the legislative decision making process. In the ESC in Spain, an institutionalized social dialogue has been considered as an asset for the following reasons: a) it guarantees the organized civil society participation beyond any political situation, b) the socio-professional organizations will have equal possibilities to exert pressure upon governments, c) it activates participation through consultation and d) the institutionalized participation in decision-making is more democratic. 11. Igor Antauer, Deputy President, Economic and Social Council of Slovenia, directed the focus of attention to Slovenia s tripartite model of ESC between government, trade unions and employers associations. He presented a background on the establishment of its ESC and discussed its various work areas. A discussion on its ESC procedures and decision-making was also elaborated. Mr. Antauer cited some of the most important and frequent topics covered by their ESC and provided a thorough description of how their ESC contributed to the Social Agreement for the period of 2007 to 2009. He took the position that the ESC s primary role is to promote opinion-making. 12. Renata Mesquita, Economic Advisor to the President, Economic and Social Council of Portugal, articulated that the ESC in Portugal is a constitutional body with a consultative role and that this is totally independent from government. Their ESC represents the civil society ensuring the public to freely express its opinions and to participate in the definition of economic and social policies and related matters. Distinctively, the ESC has a separate Permanent Committee for social dialogue which includes the tripartite committee including 3

government, employer s confederations and trade unions. In addition, she outlined the specific procedures entailed in issuing an opinion. 13. Steven Duursma, Deputy Secretary-General, Socio-economic Council of the Netherlands indicated that their ESC serves as an advisory body to the Dutch government and parliament on social and economic issues. More importantly, it enables to engender broad social support for policy changes because it brings representatives together from the Crown and social partners including the trade unions and employers organizations. The success of its ESC can be attributed to its strong legal mandate and extensive representation of social partners. Furthermore, he underscored that the involvement of other civil society groups outside the social partners is allowed through participation in ad hoc working groups, committees and workshop. Key questions regarding setting up an ESC were also discussed. 14. Ben Marapin, Secretary-General, Social Economic Council of Aruba, traced the historical background and legal framework of the social economic counseling experience in Aurba. The various factors that shaped the development of their ESC were discussed along with some of the significant challenges confronted by their ESC which include the lack of information and data; isolation of function of ministries resulting in incoherent socio economic policy; and lack of sufficient independent socio-economic analysis which makes it difficult to reach consensus. In addition, he advocated the need to formally institutionalize its Secretariat as an autonomous institution for socio-economic analysis and recommended regular formal consultative meetings between the ESC and cabinet ministers and the parliament. 15. Agata Oklińska, Senior Specialist in the Social Dialogue and Partnership Department, Ministry of Labour and Social Policy of Poland Tripartite Commission for Social and Economic Affairs of Poland, described the relationships among trade unions, employers organisations and NGOs in which the dialogue takes place in the frame of the Tripartite Commission for Social and Economic Affairs in an institutionalized way. In addition to its formal membership, their ESC also allows possible participation from representatives of governmental and self-governmental parties, non-representative social partners organizations and social and professional organizations. She also expounded on the various historical regulations and legislative mandates that supports the tasks of the Commission. 16. Martha Theodorou, Head, Public and International Relations, Economic and Social Council of Greece, put emphasis on the CES Link Project, a central information tool which aims to enhance public awareness of how the EESC and the national ESCs work and to strengthen cooperation between the EESC and national ESCs in Europe. Established in 2006, the CESlink Portal and the Joint Document Database features extensive information on the background of each ESC including information on their structure, mission, activities, news, publications, initiatives and other relevant data on European Union ESCs. The CES Link Work Programe and 2006 to 2008 Action Plan were further elaborated in this presentation. Among the recommended areas for future development include the improvement of communication on the CESlink activities and tools and strengthening of cooperation between the EESC and the national ESCs in the EU. 17. Ms. Silke Astrid Eisenbeiss chaired the session on the ESCs in the Eastern European region and provided a synthesis and lessons learned from a study undertaken with Mr. De Vera on a select number of ESCs which include the ESCs in Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary and 4

Romania. The main purpose of the study was to examine how the purpose of establishment has influenced its level of civil society participation in these ESCs. One of the significant findings of the study revealed that ESCs established as a result of their respective country s transition to market economy in the 1990s (Czech and the Romanian ESCs) reflect a corporate model of tripartite participation. In contrast, ESCs recently established as part of their EU integration process (Hungarian ESC and the Bulgarian ESC) seem to replicate the EESC model of civic participation and represent a wider scope of civil society, thereby completely meeting the EU requirements concerning civic participation and social dialogue. 18. Lalko Dulevski, President, Economic and Social Council of Bulgaria, discussed the various pre-requisites that enhanced the development of a new model of civil dialogue and consultations in Bulgaria. A unique and interesting feature of their ESC includes the holding of public discussions and consultations, participated by the executive and legislative authorities which represent an outstanding model of broadening civil dialogue. Media also plays an important role in covering these consultations which has therefore enhanced the provision of accurate, accessible information to the Bulgarian citizens. Moreover, he emphasized that the key to the success of their ESC lies in the unity, strong will, consensus and autonomy of its Council s work. 19. János Tóth, President, Economic and Social Council of Hungary, presented the initiatives of the Hungarian ESC in terms of promoting discussion of national strategies of economic and social policy and facilitating social dialogue to reach national consensus. He also provided a distinction between its National Council for Interest Conciliation and its Economic and Social Council and focused the rest of his presentation on their ESC s structure, membership and major tasks. Some of the notable work of their ESC from 2005 to 2008 and collaborative initiatives with the EESC and the International Association of Economic and Social Councils and Similar Institutions (IAESCSI) were also presented. 20. Lubomír Baroš, Senior Counsellor for External Relations Secretariat, the Council of Economic and Social Agreement, indicated that their ESC represents a joint voluntary negotiating and initiative body of the government, trade unions and employers for achieving an agreement in essential issues of economic and social development. Established in 1990, their ESC has served as an effective institution of social dialogue even without a legislative mandate. Its ESC has been instrumental in maintaining and stabilizing social peace, strengthening its economy and reforming its public administration. A. COUNTRY PRESENTATIONS: JULY 25 21. Efrain Velazquez, President, National Economic Council of Venezuela, introduced his presentation with an overview of the significant features of the Venezuelan ESC. He focused on the capacity building issues of ESCs, outlining some relevant considerations and initiatives in strengthening capacities of ESCs for the African region and gave his perspective in this area. The ESC membership, media and the ESC relationship with the executive branch and legislature and international cooperation were among the critical factors that warrant further attention in the area of building ESC capacities. He further remarked that it is vital that the ESC membership should reflect the current priorities of the country. An 5

improvement of the ESCs institutional presence is also necessary to engage broader participation from civil society. 22. Simone Zoundi, Vice-President, Economic and Social Council of Burkina Faso and Gustave Nebie, Interregional Advisor, UNDESA, provided a snapshot of the typical ESC profile in Africa. They both outlined the challenges and solutions of the ESCs in Africa based on the current situation of 12 active ESCs in Africa, mainly in the francophone Africa. Among the most urgent challenges include limited information on the consultative process; anonymity of ESCs in Africa; limited capacities and expertise of ESC members to ensure better quality of social dialogue; and weak complementarities and synergies among ESCs. In this regard, they highlighted the following key recommendations: dissemination of typical ESC profile to ensure a common orientation on the role and structure of ESCs in Africa; involvement of ESCs in designing national development strategies; establishment of ESCs as an elected framework for an inclusive social dialogue; and maintenance and expansion of forums within the Union for of Economic and Social Councils and Similar Institutions (UCESA). 23. Michael Kamano, President, Economic and Social Council of Guinea, put emphasis on the evaluation of public policy as a requirement for good governance in terms of consolidating peace and national unity, based on two methods: a) inter-ministerial studies to coordinate short, medium and long term decisions in favor of the Guinean population, based on the knowledge of present situations and good projections for the future concerning economic and political uncertainties, and b) programme budgets in order to reduce the constraints of the annual budget by prioritizing on objectives at medium term. Moreover, he stressed that the contribution of their ESC to improve good governance in countries with natural resources has not yet found its way to development. 24. Mr. De Vera presented an overview of the UN Development Account on Enhancing the Role of National ESCs for Inclusive Socio-economic Policy Development, which endeavors to strengthen the capacity of ESCs in Africa to support the participatory process in the formulation, implementation and monitoring of public policies, as well as to improve service delivery and accountability in public programs including those for the achievement of the MDGs. The Development Account is an integral part of the technical cooperation programme of the economic and social entities of the United Nations under the umbrella of the Executive Committee for Economic and Social Affairs (EC-ESA). Its expected accomplishments and main activities were also briefly described. Mr. De Vera also covered briefly the primary outputs of UNDESA s Work Programme on ESCs. 25. Ms. Ong-Reyes delivered a presentation on the UNDESA s Database on ESCs and Similar Institutions, highlighting its major aspects and some key criteria used in the selection of ESCs in this database. She also elaborated on the salient findings of the most recent survey conducted by UNDESA among ESCs presidents and focal contacts which include among others the need to further enhance communication of ESCs as a means to share and exchange best practices and key information among ESCs worldwide and collaborate on ESC projects and initiatives. 6

DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 26. Mr. De Vera opened the discussion, stating that UNDESA s previous study on ESCs examined some important criteria that impact on the civil society participation aspect of ESCs which includes the membership structure, information dissemination efforts and the role of media in publicizing ESC s opinions and work and legislative mandate. He further stressed that UNDESA s future work on ESCs would be guided by the discussions and conclusions that will result from this meeting. 27. One of the key findings is the distinction between social dialogue and civil society dialogue. There was a consensus reached that social dialogue pertains to the negotiations that result in binding agreements among organizations. On the other hand, civil dialogue refers to nonbinding discussions or consultations. 28. Mr. Antauer raised a question if the type of legislation affects the level of consensus reached in an ESC. Mr. Delapina pointed out that a more elaborate legislative framework would generally be more problematic. Restricting the legislative framework can be a concern not only in attaining consensus but also in communicating more freely with other relevant stakeholders. On the other hand, the informal and voluntary ways of interaction and communication of meetings and institutions are very worthwhile. 29. Mr. De Vera remarked that many of the country presentations revealed that legislative mandate supporting the establishment of an ESC perform a vital role in ensuring its sustainability. However, he also drew attention to the unique and essential feature of the Austrian ESC which is not supported by legislation yet its member organizations have strong legislative mandates. 30. An EGM expert underlined the importance of engaging civil society in policy development. However, he pointed out some issues with regard to determining the representativeness of civil society sectors such as NGOs in social and civil dialogue. Mr. De Vera echoed similar concerns and sought the advice of the EGM experts on the best way of determining the suitability of an ESC member. Do ESCs use some standards for verifying which group best represents the interests of the society? Is there a need to reformulate the ESC legislation particularly in reference to its membership structure? 31. In response to the prior issues raised, Mr. Venturini concurred that representativeness is certainly a key issue and element in ensuring the efficiency, transparency and democracy of the EESC. He assured that the answer to the question of representativity in terms of social dialogue is quite simplified. It is about how many members you get and who you represent. He drew attention to the need for social partners to recognize their ability in their autonomy and their ability to conclude agreement. In some instances, these organizations may also be evaluated on some degree of subjectivity or qualitative criteria. Therefore, he keenly advocated the need to adopt some guidelines relating to these types of criteria. 32. Mr. Duursma conveyed that in the case of ESC in Netherlands, their council is appointed every two years. Their government solicits public opinions to determine their views on which are the most representative organizations through the establishment of some objective criteria. 7

33. A majority of the EGM experts agreed that information dissemination efforts, specifically the role of media in publicizing ESC opinions and reports perform a critical role in engaging participation from the civil society, particularly for those ESCs whose memberships do not allow participation from a broader range of civil society. Many of the ESCs consider that civil society is already somewhat engaged when the public is informed of the ESCs opinions and reports. Media also increases the transparency and accountability of the ESCs to the public. 34. Mr. Antauer stated the ESC s unique role as an opinion-maker through providing opportunities and platforms for public dialogue and consultations. 35. Ms. Renata Mesquita commented that Portuguese ESC loses some critical positions in terms of civil participation and thus, there exists some tiredness concerning the political parties and politicians. Also, she posed a question to the floor: how to give more importance and visibility given that the constitutional body in Portuguese ESC is already independent from the government and parliament? 36. Mr. Igor Antauer mentioned that it is important for ESC members to be intensely motivated in its role in issuing opinions. Even if consensus is not reached, it is essential that the public and the politicians are informed of this message. 37. Mr. De Vera suggested the usefulness of establishing some indicators or criteria that could gauge the effective performance of ESCs. For instance, the ESC in the Czech Republic employs a very simplistic approach and uses the number of labor strikes as a basis for accomplishing its objectives. 38. Mr. Sorensen commented that it would most beneficial for UNDESA to conduct an analytical study of the various ESC prototypes and models. 39. There was also a general consensus that the ESCs work contributes to the implementation of the MDGs, primarily through its impact on macro-economic policies. The EGM experts from the EU welcomed the UN Development Account Project to build the capacities for the African ESCs. Many of the ESCs demonstrated their firm commitment to support the implementation of the UN Development Account Project. 40. While the UN Development Account Project is targeted primarily for the ESCs in the African region, Mr. De Vera emphasized that UNDESA s Programme of Work on ESCs is applicable to all UN Member States. 41. Mr. Toth underlined the significance of enhancing the capacity building of the ESC towards achieving the MDGs and strengthening the institutional credibility of representative democracy. He further explained that the collaboration among the UN, EESC and IAESCSI represents a special form of a public and private partnership, which needs to be maintained and strengthened. 42. Another important issue that was articulated by the EGM experts pertained to the need to enhance the capacities of the ESC Secretariat, particularly for ESCs in developing countries. The strengthening of capacities of the ESC Secretariat is a key factor in improving the ESC s credibility to issue advice and opinions. 8

43. Mr. Venturini said that the work of ESCs as an advisory body is a long term trend of society and that this should be nurtured based on the expertise of the political dialogue between the advisory institutions and the executive and legislative bodies at the national levels. He also put emphasis on one of the challenges confronted by ESCs that there seems to be no clear understanding between representative and participatory democracy. Given that ESCs are empowered by the same objectives, initiatives and values, he stressed the strong need for ESCs to establish a common vision. 44. In response to the relevant issues raised during this meeting, Mr. Venturini recommended the production on a regular-basis of electronic newsletters to ESC members to promote exchange of information and best practices. He also welcomed UNDESA s work in this area and strongly advocated for a roundtable meeting among EESC, IAESCSI and UNDESA to discuss specific responsibilities of each organization in light of our common goal of advancing the role of ESCs in promoting dialogue and cooperation. 45. With regard to institutional building, he proposed an action plan for clear follow-ups in partnership with ILO and a medium-term partnership among AIESIS, ILO, EESC and other international organizations. Likewise, he underscored his appreciation and support for UNDESA s initiative to put the ESC issues in its agenda. 46. Mr. Khan raised some lessons learned during the meeting: policy development through the ESC mechanism is one option of sharing the multi-stakeholder participation in the policy discourse; ESCs provides more formal framework; and Europe has the most mature experience in ESCs. In support of this, he also stated that there is a general agreement among all the parties (states, business sectors and civil society organizations) on the complementarities, and therefore, the need for rational multi-stakeholder dialoguing and policy making is strong within European countries. 47. Lastly, he emphasized the importance of the capacity building management by strengthening the linkage with the development accountability. In order to be successful, a diagnostic advocacy workshop for policy makers is needed in partnership with international associations of ESCs. Once the diagnostic studies and advocacy workshops are done, ILO, UNDP or other bilateral organizations in Europe can assist at country levels, and this is where UNDESA and international associations can help linking up each other. 48. Mr. Venturini suggested that one comparative advantage of EESC is that it serves as a place for synthesis. He also strongly supported the need to develop analytical expertise on ESCs. 49. Mr. De Vera expressed his appreciation to all the EGM experts for their contribution to the meeting. The insights learned from the various ESC country presentations, discussions and capacity building panel certainly enriched UNDESA s knowledge on ESCs. He conveyed his gratefulness for the ESCs support in the UN Development Account Project and looked forward to further collaborating with the various ESCs, the EESC and the IAESCSI in the development and implementation of UNDESA s ESC programme. Drafted by: Mary Christine Ong-Reyes, EGM Coordinator 9