A Seat at the Table — But on Whose Terms? Civil Society in the EU–Central America Trade Dialogue
From 15 to 17 June 2026, civil society organisations, trade unions and business representatives from Central America and the European Union met through the Domestic Advisory Groups (DAGs) and the Civil Society Forum linked to the EU–Central America Association Agreement. Labour rights, environmental sustainability and the green transition were on the agenda. But the meetings also raised a fundamental question: does having a seat at the table mean having an equal voice?
Trade agreements are closely connected to the everyday work of feminist organisations, NGOs, trade unions and communities. Trade policies affect working conditions, environmental protection, small producers, women’s economic opportunities and the choices available to governments and communities.
This is why civil society participation matters.
The EU–Central America Association Agreement includes a Trade and Sustainable Development (TSD) chapter, with Domestic Advisory Groups intended to bring different parts of society into its monitoring. In theory, DAGs provide a space for civil society organisations, trade unions and workers’ representatives, employers and business representatives to follow sustainable development commitments and engage with policymakers.
WIDE+ is a member of the DAGs linked to the EU’s trade agreements with Central America, Mercosur, Canada and Chile, and holds the chair of the Central America DAGs for 2026 and 2027.
In practice, however, formal participation does not mean that everyone enters the room on equal terms.
A seat at the table — but on whose terms?
For NGOs and labour representatives, being heard — and sometimes simply being able to remain at the table — can be difficult, especially if they are from a Southern partner country to the trade agreement.
Following the complexities of EU and international trade processes demands time, specialist knowledge, continuity and resources. Yet smaller and less well-funded civil society organisations in the Global South often lack the support needed to participate fully and on an equal footing.
Meanwhile, business representatives, particularly those from Central America, have been involved in DAG structures for many years and can draw on substantial institutional resources, including legal expertise and professionals in public affairs and communications. NGOs and labour organisations, by contrast, often participate with far fewer resources and may therefore come to the table at a considerable disadvantage.
There is also the question of who is invited to participate and how representatives are selected among Southern partners. The organisations represented in DAGs in countries with which the EU has concluded agreements do not necessarily reflect the full breadth of civil society expertise available within those countries. In some Central American countries, NGO participation is shaped by national selection processes involving governments, while organisations with extensive expertise in women’s rights, labour rights, human rights, environmental justice or the impacts of trade may remain outside these formal spaces..
The June meeting report itself points to differences in how Central American DAG members are appointed and how long they remain in their positions. In practice, some representatives have held their seats since the committees were first established, in contrast to the greater emphasis on transparency and periodic renewal within the European DAG system.
These may appear to be matters of institutional design, but from a feminist and human rights perspective, they are fundamentally questions of power: whose expertise is recognised, who is able to challenge powerful interests, whose knowledge and experience make it into the room—and, ultimately, how much influence can civil society really have?
Labour rights, economic justice and unequal power in the green transition
These inequalities framed three days of rich—and at times difficult—discussion. European and Central American representatives addressed forced labour and emerging EU regulations, ILO Conventions 87 and 98, and formal and informal employment, while planning webinars and working groups for 2026–2027 to strengthen trade union cooperation across both regions.
These exchanges matter because EU trade, supply-chain and forced-labour policies have consequences beyond Europe. Workers and trade unions in partner countries need to understand these requirements, while their knowledge and lived experience should, in turn, inform European policymaking.
Discussions also covered MSMEs, cooperatives, women-led ventures, environmental sustainability and small-scale agriculture. From a feminist perspective, women’s economic participation goes beyond markets and entrepreneurship: it concerns decent work and social protection, control over resources, unpaid care, and whose work is recognised and valued. Likewise, a green transition is not automatically a just transition. Who bears the costs, who receives support, whose livelihoods must adapt—and who gets a say in shaping it?
These questions of power also exist within the DAGs. Companies, trade unions, NGOs, feminist organisations and cooperatives may all be “stakeholders”, but they do not have equal interests, resources or negotiating power. Those most affected by trade agreements—including workers, women, small-scale producers and affected communities—may still have less influence, even when represented at the table.
Yet these actors are expected to find consensus. Dialogue can foster cooperation, but divergent interests can also produce confrontation, as became evident when WIDE+ raised concerns about health and dangerous chemicals used in banana production, which agro-industry representatives rejected. Such moments underline the importance of the previously mentioned code of conduct: disagreement should not prevent difficult issues from being raised and discussed respectfully.
Despite these tensions, the European and Central American DAGs agreed on common structural requests to the Trade and Sustainable Development Board, including stronger responses to DAG resolutions, better communication, analysis of EU forced-labour legislation and greater DAG involvement in shaping the Civil Society Forum.
This raises a broader question about civil society engagement, particularly for communities most affected by trade: to what extent are their recommendations reflected in policy and decision-making?
A joint declaration does not necessarily mean a shared vision
The joint declaration of the Central American and European DAGs reflects the compromises inherent in bringing together actors with different interests and perspectives. It reaffirms the importance of the EU–Central America Association Agreement and presents it as a framework for advancing sustainable and inclusive trade. It also calls for DAGs to be maintained and strengthened as independent spaces for consultation, exchange and the formulation of proposals.
These are meaningful commitments. For WIDE+ and other NGOs, however, they represent one step in a much broader process. A joint declaration cannot, on its own, capture the full range of concerns surrounding the social and environmental consequences of a trade agreement, nor does it necessarily reflect the ambitions of civil society organisations seeking to bring those consequences more clearly into public and policy debate.
By its nature, a joint declaration in this case is the product of negotiation between actors with different priorities, interests and degrees of influence. Agreement on a common text should therefore not be mistaken for agreement on everything behind it. Those around the table may endorse the same declaration while holding very different understandings of what sustainable development requires, which impacts deserve greater attention, and ultimately what a socially and environmentally just approach to trade should look like.
A Civil Society Forum needs civil society voices
The third day centred on the Civil Society Forum, with discussions on social dialogue, labour rights and environmental sustainability, followed by a presentation on the Global Gateway. Yet limited time for audience contributions restricted meaningful exchange. More concerningly, informal discussions suggested that the growing focus on the Global Gateway is shifting EU attention and funding away from traditional support for civil society, human development and democratic governance.
A Civil Society Forum must allow civil society not only to listen, but to be heard. This means being able to question, challenge and bring the experiences of communities, workers and affected groups into the debate.
These principles were tested by the exclusion of Haydée Castillo, a representative of the Nicaraguan democratic diaspora, following opposition from the Nicaraguan Government. Members of the European DAG protested the decision, raising concerns about the independence of civil society participation, which was expressed later on by a protest letter from all the European DAGs. An intervention by another WIDE+ representative protesting for the exclusion of Castillo was met with a dismissive reaction during the Civil Society meeting. Such experiences underline a broader institutional challenge: meaningful consultation depends not only on who is invited, but also on whether participants can question, disagree and speak critically without facing hostility.
Her intervention was met with a confrontational response, while similar concerns later raised by another WIDE+ member received a dismissive reaction during the Civil Society meeting. Such experiences underline a broader institutional challenge: meaningful consultation depends not only on who is invited, but also on whether participants can question, disagree and speak critically without facing hostility.
One practical step would be to incorporate Code of Conduct principles into the procedural rules governing DAG meetings and related civil society forums, as well as the European Economic and Social Committee’s (EESC) DAG Handbook. Clear standards for respectful engagement could foster an inclusive environment for open debate while protecting the right to challenge, disagree and hold institutions and other stakeholders to account.
From being consulted to having influence
The June meetings revealed both the potential and limits of civil society participation in EU trade policy, enabling valuable exchanges on labour rights, forced labour and environmental sustainability, alongside common DAG requests to the Trade and Sustainable Development Board.
Yet consultation alone is not enough. Meaningful participation requires transparent selection, adequate resources, access to information, freedom to voice critical perspectives and clear pathways for civil society recommendations to influence decision-making.
These questions reach beyond Central America. As EU trade and supply-chain policies increasingly shape lives beyond Europe, affected communities must have a meaningful voice in the decisions that concern them.
Ultimately, meaningful participation is not simply about who sits at the table, but whether the knowledge, concerns and lived realities of communities affected by trade are taken seriously in shaping EU trade policy and the agreements that affect people on the ground. The real measure of participation is whether those most affected can help shape the decisions that will, in turn, shape their lives.