Most of the responses received suggested ways in which CSOs could be incentivised to use more participatory methods. Specific invitations to use certain methods or to state the organisation’s opinion is the best way to incentivise more participation. Similarly, additional financing and budgeting support were mentioned often, as lack of adequate staff seems to prohibit organisations from using these methods. These comments also reflect a more general sentiment
11 Organisations were also asked how many full and part-time employees they had. Some 63% of organisations were classified as small (between 1 and 5 employees) and 34.8% as large (5+ employees).
12 In both cases, the difference was by about 15 percentage points.
Specific invitations to use certain methods or to state the organisation’s opinion is the best way to incentivise more participation. Additional financing and budgeting support were mentioned frequently.
DIRECT DEMOCRACY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 107
among Latvian CSOs; the lack of long-term and consistent funding from the government is viewed as one of the biggest issues currently facing organisations. As such, some organisations thought that financial rewards could be a good incentive to boost participation.
Additional comments requested more opportunities to meet Latvian MEPs, suggesting that there should be more direct pressure from the EP to achieve this. Similarly, more consistent outreach from the EESC could be helpful, in which Latvian organisations receive more formal recognition, as well as campaigns to inform them about the available participation methods or easy-to-read resources that could be distributed to members of organisations inviting them to participate. A lack of information and events in the Latvian language is also mentioned a few times, since organisations tend to have longstanding members with no knowledge of English.
Conclusions
This chapter provides a brief assessment of a select group of CSOs in Latvia. Feedback from national organisations can be helpful when trying to improve both representative and participatory democracy on an EU level.
The average Latvian CSO is informed about five methods and has experience of using two means of EU- level participation; while CSOs are generally informed about the available methods of participation, they have very limited experience in using them. Participation in shaping national policies, and expert groups organised by the EC are the most recognised and used methods, while public consultations offered by the EC are as popular but used far less. Other
popular and frequently used methods of participation include consultations with the EU through transnational organisations, consultations with national MEPs and the ECI.
Generally, participation in expert groups, as well as consultations through transnational organisations, are recognised
While CSOs are generally informed about the available methods of participation, they have limited experience in using them. Participation in shaping national policies, and expert groups organised by the EC are the most
recognised and used methods, while public consultations offered by the EC are as popular but used far less.
108 CIVIL SOCIETY IN EUDECISION-MAKING:ALATVIAN CASE STUDY
as the most effective forms of participation. Views on shaping national policies and consultations with MEPs vary – some organisations see them as being particularly effective, while others reported that their experience had been mostly negative. Only public hearings by the EP and online discussion platforms elicit a more negative response, and they are also among the least popular methods of participation.
Some valuable insights for policymakers can be derived from the responses provided by the Latvian CSOs:
1) There should be a focus on low-cost and low-effort methods of participation. While public consultations have the potential to be more widely used by organisations, the complexity of questionnaires seems to be a considerable disincentive. Because of resource constraints, less established and smaller CSOs whose main focus is not EU-level policymaking might otherwise never choose to use these methods, even if there is some desire to do so.
2) More systematic incentives to organise individual meetings with MEPs should be created. While these are generally at the discretion of MEPs themselves, our survey results indicate that this approach has the most potential to boost the participation of CSOs. Despite some of the negative perspectives, detailed comments received during the survey mostly praised this method; providing more organisations with access to MEPs could thus be useful.
3) Initiatives that specifically reach out to CSOs could boost overall levels of participation. The current methods of promoting different forms of participation are more rewarding for CSOs that seek out participation themselves. Yet some organisations whose perspective on overall issues could be valuable seem to indicate that they will not commit to participatory methods unless directly engaged. While this kind of approach might be more resource-intensive for EU bodies, it also has the potential to boost the participation of local CSOs in member states.
4) Transnational organisations are still an important channel but this leaves behind organisations that might not be members. The survey indicates that Latvian CSOs that are already active in transnational umbrella organisations view
DIRECT DEMOCRACY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 109
this type of participation as very positive, and this could be particularly valuable for smaller CSOs. Since a number of the CSOs surveyed claimed that policy in their area of expertise is only developed at a national level, efforts to boost their participation in transnational organisations could change that perspective and facilitate their EU-level engagement.
5) Despite high levels of awareness, public consultations with the EC do not have a good reputation among CSOs. Since this seems to be one of the most recognised methods of participation, additional efforts to simplify ways for organisations to provide input might be valuable in boosting participation, especially for smaller organisations whose ability to participate on an EU level will always be limited. 6) Financial incentives could boost involvement from CSOs
that are more financially constrained. This seems to be particularly relevant for environments in which CSOs systematically lack access to funding. In such cases, even small incentives could play a big role in boosting participation.
References
Alksne, A. (2014), “Lobēšanas atklātība Latvijā”[Transparency of lobbying activities in Latvia], Sabiedrība par atklātību – Delna (http://providus.lv/article_files/2883/original/2015_LobesanasA tklatibaLatvija.pdf?1427203036).
Centre for Public Policy PROVIDUS (2014), “Opportunities for the organized civil society to influence EU decision-making via national positions”, PROVIDUS, Rīga (http://providus.lv/article_files/ 2553/original/EU_decision_making_petijums.pdf?1391777868). Civil Alliance – Latvia (2016), “The Review of the NGO Sector in Latvia.
2015” (www.nvo.lv/site/attachments/29/04/2016/NVO_ PARSKATS_EN_20.04-2.pdf).
Cmeciu, C. and D. Cmeciu (2014), “’Debating Europe’ Platform–A Means of Crafting Online Representations of a European Identity”,
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 149: 195-199.
EESC (2018), “First European Citizens’ Panel took steps to enable citizens to contribute to the creation of the future of Europe”, 7 May press release (https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/news-media/press- releases/first-european-citizens-panel-took-steps-enable-citizens- contribute-creation-future-europe).
110 CIVIL SOCIETY IN EUDECISION-MAKING:ALATVIAN CASE STUDY
European Commission (2018a), “Citizens’ Dialogues”
(https://ec.europa.eu/info/events/citizens-dialogues_en). European Commission (2018b), “Consultations”
(https://ec.europa.eu/info/consultations_en).
European Commission (2018c), “Registration of Commission Expert Groups” (http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/).
European Commission (2018d), “The European Citizens’ Initiative. Basic Facts” (http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative/public/basic-facts). European Parliament (2018), “Hearings”
(http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/events- hearings.html).
Frīdenberga, A. (2001), “Par biedrībām un nodibinājumiem” [On associations and foundations], PROVIDUS blog entry, 26 October (http://providus.lv/article/par-biedribam-un-nodibinajumiem). Klüver, H. (2013), Lobbying in the European Union: interest groups, lobbying
coalitions, and policy change, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kohler-Koch, B. and C. Quittkat (2013), De-mystification of participatory
democracy: EU-governance and civil society, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lironi, E. and D. Peta (2017), “EU public consultations in the digital age: Enhancing the role of the EESC and civil society organisations”, The European Economic and Social Committee (www.eesc.europa.eu/ sites/default/files/files/qe-07-17-001-en-n.pdf).
Rūse, I. (2013), “Interest representation in advocating EU legislative proposals. How active are interest groups in Latvia?”, Riga Graduate School of Law (https://www.rgsl.edu.lv/uploads/ research-papers-list/13/rp-10-ruse-final.pdf).
State Revenue Service (2015), “Sabiedriskā labuma organizācijas statuss” [Public Benefit Organisations] (https://www.vid.gov.lv/lv/ sabiedriska-labuma-organizacijas-statuss).
DIRECT DEMOCRACY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 111