The current representatives of civil society within the ESC are trying to give another weight to the body, through consistent interventions on important topics, such as housing or the exploitation situation in Rosia Montana, says Corina Murafa, next Now Planet & Climate co-leader, Ashoka and member of the plenum of the Economic and Social Council in November 2020. Murafa believes that if these contributions are consistent enough, in the future the Legislature and the Executive could come to the ESC, because the law allows them to ask for opinions and perspectives from the body.
How did you become a member of CES?
In this bubble of our small civil society, at the end of 2020, there was a strong enough buzz, regarding the fact that there is a kind of understanding between the Government and the FDSC, that these appointments in the ESC should no longer be made politicized, but in a more democratic manner.
On the side of civil society, there has never been this process of self-regulation. The Prime Minister always appointed, from his own signature, the 15 representatives.
Although the law could not be modified, in the sense of removing this signature of the prime minister and because of the way civil society works in our country, this votONG platform was organized, in which the representatives of civil society would appoint their representatives to the ESC by vote, and the prime minister only to sanctify the result of the vote, through that appointment decision.
The intention of the platform, as far as I know, is to be used for other types of appointments in various advisory bodies of the Executive or even at international level.
I, at the time, was still the executive director of the Ashoka Office in Romania. We have signed up for the VotONG platform. I was working a lot on climate, environment and energy issues, and these self-regulated elections were in the realms. I said to apply for one of the two positions dedicated to the topic of environment, sustainable development, because I considered that I have the necessary expertise, I know myself with people from the sector and I can coalesce their voices.
As a CES member, how has your perspective on the NGO sector changed?
I would have expected to see the sector stronger in advocacy, I imagined that I would not just give my opinion as an expert. I would not have imagined that the sector would be so poorly represented at the advocacy level, because the documents reach the ESC only in their final phase, after they have gone through public consultations. Not infrequently we have heard representatives of the authorities in the Executive or even in the Parliament saying that "we were good at doing so, but we have not seen no one else in civil society told us how else, we did not receive contributions during the period of public consultation".
We have an extremely informal channel, in the sense that we sit on the Facebook page of the non-governmental organizations from ESC, and CES posts on its own Facebook page all the documents that come into public debate that week and in 90% of the cases there is no contribution from NGOs in Romania. Or that's a surprise to me. It is only on sometimes extremely blunt issues that such a bit of a wave stirs up, such as a legislative proposal in Parliament initiated by two UDMR MPs in the style of Viktor Orban's anti-LGBTQ law.
Basically, they wanted to completely bring out any kind of public information, not only in the educational system on issues related to reproductive health and, implicitly, LGBT. It was an extremely poorly worded, unconstitutional law, accept association sent ESC a memo a few days before.
He came to the plenary, was asked to be invited and supported the cause. Lucky that, look on this subject, the other NGOs in ESC are also interested in having competences, sometimes even the members have an affinity towards the subject. We were able to successfully struggle, although it was at the edge, one vote away and we managed to give an unfavorable opinion But a vote away it was!
When the NGOs noticed that it was an act on the route and they had this ability to do a monitoring of the Parliament, of the legislative proposals, they sent a point of view documented with figures and we were able to support it in the ESC.
With a good argument I convinced the members of ESC. I think the quality of opinions has improved quite a bit anyway since we are as NGOs and we are increasing the quality of the debate there a little bit and they are being heeded by parliamentarians. What is more, we saw a moment when a new legislative initiative was practically made, arguing it with the views of the ESC opinion.
Unfortunately, romanian NGOs, civil society is too lacking in capacity and resources to be able to follow the legislative process thoroughly and to be able to give us relevant points of view.
Can the ESC become a partner and not just an observer of the legislative process? To be included from the beginning of an act, not just at the end, when it has to give a paraphrase.
We try this stuff from many directions. With regard to the ESC, we are looking, for example, to be involved in the process of monitoring the PNRR. There are countries in the European Union where national ESCCs are represented very actively in the PNR Monitoring Committees. Which I find super relevant and we're also trying to do this stuff, but it's a lobbying and advocacy action and it's not necessarily an easy one to carry out.
We're trying to raise the public profile and be taken as a serious institution with these studies that we want to do at the highest possible level. And I hope the first one that will set that tone is the housing study that I'm dealing with. We are increasing the profile so that the Legislature and the Executive come to us, because the law allows them to ask for opinions and perspectives. From the very beginning we began to receive invitations.
On the other hand, the so-called Social Dialogue Commissions are held in the ministries, which are much earlier than the ESC. Whether the ESC has to rule on an act only after the Social Dialogue Committee has taken place and after consulting the Commission's minutes. In these Commissions, according to the legislation on social dialogue in Romania, employers' and trade unions are represented at the level of all ministries. Employers and trade unions have windows through which to influence the legislative process much earlier, at least the one related to the decisions of the Executive and civil society is not represented in these social dialogue committees.
The only ones who succeeded were those from the Students' Council who are practically invited to the Social Dialogue Commission from the Ministry of Education where there are even blunt discussions. There are substantive discussions to take into account their opinion, because otherwise you realize, they get stuck, they make protests. They won that right quite strongly, but no one else was present in these civil society social dialogue committees in NGOs.
Communication with employers and trade unions how does it work?
With the exception of some more delicate issues, the dialogue is a good one. But it's one that somehow we've made to be this way, because we're active, we come up with interventions, so it's relatively easy for us to call a member of the employers' association or the union and say 'let's go together on that thing'. It's a process of building coalitions.
Civil society is quite organized: we come up with 15 votes, so we are strong, and if employers and unions want to pass something and if there is no consensus between them they have to take votes. But now the problem is also the representativeness of the movements, because there are a lot of people in ESC who have been there for many years and have already kind of gotten to be on an individual basis. I am surprised that when I emit some perspectives it does not at all tally with what I know is the position of the union on that subject, I was surprised to see from the representatives of the employers' associations some things contrary to business, for example.
Otherwise know that it was not an undoubted dialogue. For example, when at one point the ESC came out with a point of view — which again was a first — on the inclusion of Rosia Montana in the UNESCO heritage, a subject that somewhat divides the society from us.
Civil society then had the capacity to lobby the employers' associations and the trade unions and the telephones were heated, to support us in issuing a point of view of the ESC, because such points of view had to be adopted with three quarters of the members of the plenary and it is difficult to constitute that majority. We managed to give an official view of the ESC that was heeded by the press and created public pressure.
But alliances between civil society and trade unions on certain issues or even between civil society and employers on certain issues do not really exist. And it's a very pity, because if there were, our voices might be stronger. Now in CES it's like we're still befriending this housing committee, where we're always tripartite.
Are there frustrations when laws are promulgated despite negative opinions from ESC?
Unfortunately, there is a great obstacle to capacity here, and I would like there to be at the level of think tanks, for example, or at the level of technical secretariat in the ESC, this ability to follow the legislative process after the issuance of opinions. In other words, how much of that opinion was taken from or how many of the unfavourable opinions contributed to the closure of a legislative process or how many, for example, despite the unfavourable opinion, nevertheless led to the adoption of that act.
I think it would be a very interesting reflection on the legitimacy of the act of government and the legitimacy of the government.
I remember one of my first battles lost in THE ESC, maybe if I had the experience now of building coalitions before the vote, I wouldn't have lost it. There was at one point the question of a legislative project on Education for the environment, education for climate change in fact, it was an initiative in Parliament and it was intended to introduce such a guideline by amending the Education Act.
Everyone knows that the opinion of the SCM is an advisory one and all we can do when we have an unfavorable opinion to be more vocal, that is, not only to give an unfavorable opinion and motivation, but to come out with a press release.
Which again is not wanted sometimes, because you would disturb the government very much and you also depend somewhat institutionally on the government. It is not wanted, because sometimes for unfavorable opinions there is not necessarily consensus.
What would happen if the ESC opinion was not a mere optional thing, a mere advisory opinion? If it should be heeded on certain laws, such as that of the budget?
I don't know if it would necessarily be a solution for the opinion to be to be binding, as long as I look at the fact that sometimes majorities in the ESC for giving opinions are done on things that are not related to the general public interest, but rather on group interests. I'm afraid that until this advisory body is professionalized more and the members of the ESC are professionalized more, it wouldn't be a very good idea.
I would see some procedural changes. I would see it compulsory to read the opinion of the ESC in parliamentary committees, because often the opinion is put on the file there. If the committee chair does not have some respect for the ESC, the opinion is not read by anyone.
We could go as representatives of the ESC to support that opinion in Parliament, but we do not have that capacity all the time. Sometimes I did this thing when there was something very interesting to a certain part of the ESC, but at least the Chair of the Parliamentary Committee should be obliged to read the opinion, that is, to formalise the observations.
Can ESC bring the NGO sector to the same table?
I don't imagine ESC being a kind of catalyst for the whole sector, because it's just that the sector is very complex. But I could imagine that ESC and its members would be catalysts on certain topics. On the subject of housing, we struggled, we also did a public hearing, and all the NGOs that knew the subject, that talked about housing for vulnerable groups and evictions, participated in the public hearing. A movement on the subject has been catalyzed and there are not only NGOs, but also professionals from other fields.
Know that a common front is being made, for example in the area of rights and freedoms or the protection of vulnerable groups, which are usually themes loved by civil society. That's what's happened now, on the Orban-LGBTQ law.