From Ambition to Reality: The Civil Society Dialogue Between the EU and Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine

Download the Full Report

Summary 

The EU conducts a dialogue with civil society in membership candidate countries through formal mechanisms and informal channels. At the same time, civil society in these countries is expanding and diversifying, as well as facing restrictions. This places new demands on the dialogue mechanisms to remain accessible, representative, and relevant. In three countries of the EU’s Eastern Partnership (EaP)—Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine—these face constraints. Restrictive environments, particularly in Georgia, along with smear campaigns and resource scarcity undermine participation by civil society organizations (CSOs). As a result, not all can access and use the mechanisms effectively. And some that do often lack clarity about the impact of their contributions. 

The formal EU-CSO dialogue rests on a dual structure. The Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum (EaP CSF), including its national platforms, addresses regional policy, while the bilateral Civil Society Platforms established under the Association Agreements focus on bilateral relations in the context of accession. These mechanisms are complemented by informal channels such as ad hoc meetings, consultations, thematic events, and joint initiatives, usually coordinated by EU delegations. 

This framework functions but could be strengthened. Its effectiveness and relevance are hindered by several factors. Financial sustainability is fragile; inclusiveness is increasingly difficult to maintain as the number and diversity of CSOs grows; and participation from outside capital cities remains limited. There is an overreliance on large CSOs that influence the mechanisms by providing resources and by shaping the agenda. Many CSOs—particularly smaller, grassroots, and youth-led ones—lack the resources to engage or are unaware of how to access the process. The mechanisms, and the EU itself, lack a clear perspective on how inclusive the dialogue truly is. 

Larger, capital-based CSOs are more familiar with the dialogue mechanisms, better able to engage effectively, and more likely to perceive their input as influential in shaping EU policy. Smaller, grassroots, and periphery-based CSOs often lack this awareness, capacity, and access, leaving them underrepresented. This risks skewing the EU’s engagement toward the larger, more visible actors while sidelining important perspectives. A systematic EU policy to support and involve smaller CSOs is needed to ensure a more inclusive, balanced, and representative dialogue.

Participation in the dialogue mechanisms should be broadened to include thematically underrepresented and geographically dispersed CSOs, with consultations decentralized and supported by multilingual resources and digital tools. Clear participation targets would help ensure diversity. Targeted awareness-raising by EU delegations, using clear language and diverse communication channels, would strengthen CSOs’ understanding of how to and why participate. Transparency should be enhanced through regular publication of consultation opportunities, outcomes, and feedback reports, alongside thematic summaries of how CSO input shapes EU policies. The role of EU delegations must be reinforced. Finally, capacity-building and sustained financial support are essential to enable meaningful engagement, ensuring that the EU-CSO dialogue remains an inclusive and impactful component of the accession process. 

Cristian Alexandru Damian is a ReThink.CEE fellow 2024 of the German Marshall Fund of the United States.