Ensuring Participation in Legislative Processes: European Principles and Practical Considerations Katerina Hadzi-Miceva European Center for Not-for-Profit Law

The broader context…. “We will be forward looking in developing policies to deliver outcomes that matter, not simply reacting to short-term pressures.” (Modernizing Government, White Paper, UK)

WHY a participatory process: s ome benefits  Creating fair policies/laws reflective of real needs enriched with additional experience and expertise  Facilitating dialogue and reaching consensus  Adopting more forward and outward looking solutions  Ensuring legitimacy and compliance  Increasing partnership and responsibility in implementation  Strengthening democracy - preventing conflict…

Underlying principles  Commitment  Respect of rights  Clarity  Continuity (ongoing)  Proper structure (coordination)  Publicity  Transparency  Openness and consideration  Objectivity and equal treatment  Resources  Sufficient time  Accountability  Acknowledgement and feedback  Evaluation

ConsultationParticipation “is limited in that the process is often driven by the policy agencies, and the timetable, format and issues for consultation are defined by government agency.” (M. Sankar, Dep’t of Labor, NZ) “shared agenda setting for all participants, a relaxed time frame for deliberation, an emphasis on value sharing rather than debate and consultative practices based on inclusiveness, courtesy and respect.” (Institute on Governance).

Citizens as Partners, OECD, 2001 Forms of involvement InformationConsultation Active Participation Stage of process Design Implementation Evaluation

Citizens as Partners, OECD, 2001 Forms of involvement InformationConsultation Active Participation Methods of involvement Policies Legislation Institutions Tools

Examples: Information  Policy: active – providing info on regular basis (e.g., Denmark) or passive – response when info is sought (e.g., Finland).  Legislation: Act on Openness of Gov’t Activities (e.g., Finland), Law on Freedom of Electronic Information (e.g., Hungary)  Tools: Registers, internet, promotion  Institutions: within gov’t or independent oversight (e.g., Hungary Data Protection Ombudsman, UK and Irish Office of the Information Commissioner)

Examples: Consultation  Policy: Gov’t strategies, Parliament House Rules (e.g., Hungary)  Legislation: NGOs shall be involved in drafting regulations which “pertain to the interests or affect the social conditions which they represent and protect” (Hungarian Act on Legislation)  Tools: citizen panels, advisory committees, lobby lists at ministries, open hours, public discussions, web portals (UK Departmental consultation websites).  Institutions: Office for Cooperation with Parliament (Macedonia), Parliament Committees (e.g., Croatia,) Ministry Social Council (Hungary)

UK Code of Practice on Consultation: The Six Criteria 1. Wide consultation throughout the process, min. 12 weeks for written consultation, at least once. 2. Clarity of proposal, affected people, questions that are asked and timescale for responses. 3. Clear, concise and widely accessible consultation. 4. Feedback on responses received and on how the consultation process influenced the policy. 5. Monitoring department's effectiveness at consultation (designated consultation coordinator). 6. Consultation follows better regulation best practice (incl. Regulatory Impact Assessment).

Civil Society Organizations for Openness of National Development Plans (Hungary) 2005, Monitoring of:  Publicity of process of development of NDPs and related documents  Realization of partnership and public participation  Following deadlines  Utilizing the user friendly technical solutions and regular information sharing  Practice of giving feedback

Examples: Active participation  Policy: Gov’t strategies, draft initiative: European Charter on Active Citizenship  Legislation: freedom of expression and association, right to propose legislation  Tools: working groups, advisory and decision- making bodies, citizens’ fora (Danish Youth Forum for Democracy)  Institutions: Board of Technology (Denmark), Expertise Bureau for Innovative Policy- Making (Netherlands)

Addressing some challenges  Credibility  Quality of input  Burden on bureaucracy (imposing limits)  Representation  Selection criteria  Communication (language barrier)  Culture and mindset  Responsibility for the outcome…

Resources  White Paper on European Governance (EC, 2002)  Towards a reinforced culture of consultation and dialogue - General principles and minimum standards for consultation of interested parties (EC, 2002)  Citizens as Partners (OECD, 2001)  UN Relationship between the Member States and Civil Society, including NGOs (GA, 2006)

THANK YOU! ecnl.org.hu