EN Official Journal of the European Union C 164/48

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the

— ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Social Fund’ and on the

— ‘Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Community Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity — PROGRESS’

(2005/C 164/05)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

Having regard to the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Social Fund (COM(2004) 493 final — 2004/0165 (COD));

Having regard to the Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council Establishing a Community Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity — PROGRESS (COM(2004) 488 final — 2004/0158 (COD));

Having regard to the decision of the Commission of 15 July 2004 to consult it on this subject, under the first paragraph of Article 265 and Article 148 of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

Having regard to the decision of its President of 5 April to instruct its Commission for Economic and Social Policy to draw up an opinion on this subject;

Having regard to the Commission Communication — Third report on economic and social cohesion (COM(2004) 107 final);

Having regard to its opinion on the Third report on economic and social cohesion (CdR 120/2004 fin);

Having regard to the Commission White Paper: European Governance: a White Paper (COM(2001) 428 final);

Having regard to its opinion on the Commission White Paper: European Governance: a White Paper (CdR 103/2001 fin);

Having regard to the proposal for a Council Regulation on the European Structural Fund (COM(98) 131 final);

Having regard to its opinion on the Proposal for a Council Regulation on the European Structural Fund (CdR 155/98) (1);

Having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions on New Forms of Governance: Europe, a framework for citizens' initiative (CdR 182/2000 fin);

Having regard to the Commission Communication: Dialogue with associations of regional and local authorities on the formulation of European Union policy (COM(2003) 811 final);

Having regard to its draft opinion (CdR 240/2004 rev. 2) adopted on 8 December 2004 by its Commission for Economic and Social Policy (rapporteur: Mrs Paz Fernandez Felgueroso, Leader of Gijón Municipal Council (ES — PES)),

adopted the following opinion unanimously at its 58th plenary session, held on 23 and 24 February 2005 (meeting of 23 February).

1. General comments

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

1.1 points out that this proposed Regulation forms part of a set of regulations on the Structural Funds presented together with other legislative proposals by the European Commission on 14 July 2004. The Regulation sets out the general provisions governing the European Social Fund, hereinafter ‘the Fund’ or ‘the ESF’, as a whole and defines the nature of the activities that the Fund can finance under the ‘convergence’ and ‘regional competitiveness and employment’ objectives. It also sets out other provisions of a cross-sectoral nature that will affect the actions set in motion by the Fund;

1.2 emphasises that the Fund has to date played a significant financial role in employment policy, initiating a process of sustainable growth in jobs. Furthermore, the Fund has prompted a significant number of active policies in the field of employment at national, regional and local level. Its links with the European Employment Strategy (EES) in the current programming period have yielded some extremely valuable results in this field. The Committee of the Regions trusts that its links with the Lisbon Strategy will be equally positive;

1.3 emphasises that the main task of the European Social Fund is to strengthen economic and social cohesion by supporting Member State policies with the aim of achieving full employment, improving quality and productivity at work, promoting social inclusion and reducing disparities in employment at regional level, in accordance with the guidelines and recommendations set out in the European Employment Strategy. This strategy was revised in 2003 in order to adapt it to the Lisbon Strategy and bring it more closely into line with economic and social cohesion policies;

1.4 notes a lack of detail and precision in the current wording of the proposed Regulation. At times, in order to understand its true scope, the Regulation would need to be seen in relation to other legal instruments not considered in this opinion (for instance, to the financing of actions under the Fund or those connected with the partnerships to be set up), which would enhance the Regulation's impact;

1.5 expresses its particular concern at the role assigned to Member States and to the managing authorities in ensuring that the Fund's objectives are achieved, without a single reference being made to regional and local authorities in these partnerships; wishes to point out the need for greater and better involvement of the regions and local authorities in framing, programming and implementing the Fund's measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, whilst respecting the institutional set-up in each Member State;

1.6 has considered the statements made in the Third Report on Economic and Social Cohesion, which addresses the issue of the ageing of the population in Europe and the repercussions that this has on the world of work. As stated in that document, and according to the latest projections, the number of persons aged between 15 and 64 is expected to fall by 10 % in the EU by 2025. This will result in a greater number of people over the age of 65. The ageing of the population will, in short, lead to a gradual reduction in the EU's active population. This prospect demonstrates the need to maintain the EU's economic growth and increase employment rates, whilst at the same time curbing early retirement. The Committee would here refer to its opinion (adopted at its 56th plenary session on 29 September 2004) on the Commission Communication entitled Increasing the employment of older workers and delaying the exit from the labour market;

1.7 considers that the future Fund Regulation must reconcile policies for maintaining life-long employability and retraining employees over the age of 40 — both male and female — and for encouraging young people to enter the labour market; this is not reflected in the proposed Regulation. Active ageing and gradual retirement must be promoted in a way that fulfils the criteria of sustainability;

1.8 regards it as appropriate that the Regulation should take account of the specific economic and social problems currently facing remote urban areas in relation to other, more highly developed areas in Europe. This situation could make it even harder for people to access employment services; considers that social problems must be viewed from all angles, in order to meet the great diversity of needs in European cities;

1.9 welcomes the publication of the PROGRESS Programme, a Community programme for employment and social solidarity, especially since the proposal for a Regulation contains no reference to the Community Initiative. The Committee of the Regions recommends considering the inclusion of a reference to this Programme in the draft ESF Regulation;

1.10 is pleased to note the provision on coherence and complementarity in the proposal for a Decision on the PROGRESS Programme. All action supported by the Structural Funds, particularly by the European Social Fund, must be governed by the principles of coherence, complementarity and concentration;

1.11 recalls that in July 2001 the Commission adopted the White Paper on European Governance, which was aimed at opening up the EU policy-making process; also recalls that this process was to involve more people and organisations in shaping and delivering EU policy, which would lead to greater openness and responsibility for all those involved. Greater involvement by regional and local authorities in drawing up EU policies also demonstrates, in some Member States, the important role that these actors play in policy-making, reflecting their increasing responsibilities and the greater commitment of citizens and grassroots organisations to local democracy. Considers that this should be taken into account when finalising the Regulation on the Structural Funds, and in particular the ESF Regulation;

1.12 is pleased to note, in the proposal for a Regulation, the express reference to innovation, because this dovetails neatly with the philosophy of the Lisbon Strategy, which recommends establishing a European area of research and innovation;

1.13 believes that the links established between the proposed Regulation, the EES and the Lisbon Strategy are praiseworthy and will make the European Union's legal and financial instruments more effective; expresses its concern at the lack of clarity it has noted throughout this opinion in some of the proposal's articles, as regards issues of content as well as of funding; considers, lastly, that more precise provisions will only benefit the future regulation.

2. Recommendations

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

2.1 would like to see Article 2(1) on the ESF's mission include a specific reference to support for Member State policies regarding compliance with the principle of gender equality, given the importance assigned to this principle in Article 2 of the EC Treaty and Articles I-2 and I-3 of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe; also for policies in the field of non-discrimination, as set out in Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, because no such reference appears in the text of the proposed Regulation. The Committee of the Regions points out that the future PROGRESS programme is to implement the principle of non-discrimination, and therefore recommends that this be included in the regulation;

2.2 recommends that, together with the reference to the European Employment Strategy, the proposed Regulation should also include a reference to the Lisbon Strategy in the main body of the text, because it is on the basis of this Strategy that the European Union set itself the goal of becoming the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth, creating more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. The Committee of the Regions considers that the actions supported by the Fund must help to achieve this goal;

2.3 considers that local and regional authorities must be involved in developing and implementing the annual employment guidelines. Because these guidelines provide an ideal framework for the use of the Fund by setting priorities for the way it is to be used, local and regional authorities must be consulted and fully involved in setting these priorities. This aspect, which is discussed in the Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Proposal for a Council Regulation on the European Social Fund — adopted at its 26th plenary session on 18 and 19 November 1998 — is a goal that the Committee of the Regions cannot relinquish in the new programming period 2007-2013;

2.4 recommends that training and education actions, which appear mainly under the ‘convergence’ objective, be extended to the ‘regional competitiveness and employment’ objective and that this be clarified; recommends, furthermore, that lifelong learning be included as a specific activity in the field of training;

2.5 recommends that a specific reference to young people be added to Article 3, stipulating that all measures adopted under this article should be geared to offering equal opportunities to women, men and young people, given that the rate of unemployment amongst young people in the euro zone is almost double the general rate of unemployment, together with a reference to the group comprising unemployed men and women over the age of 40 who, because of their particular situation, risk being excluded from employment, in addition to the groups referred to in the proposal: older and low-skilled workers; job seekers and inactive people; migrants and people with disabilities; welcomes the preventive approach in the field of access to employment as a means of combating unemployment;

2.6 wishes to highlight, as regards the priorities for receiving support set out in Article 3, the measures for ongoing training, lifelong learning and training in the new information and communication technologies; welcomes the fact that increasing and promoting investment in human resources is treated as a priority, because of the effects that this action has on the labour market. Each of these priorities ties in with the Lisbon Strategy; also highlights the measures for the modernisation of employment services, language training and the reference to the social economy. Where employment services are concerned, the Committee recommends that coordination with local authorities be included in the article. The Committee of the Regions also proposes that specific measures be adopted to encourage women to take on positions of responsibility in their working lives;

2.7 recommends that the increase in the ceiling on ESF funding for social inclusion (priority c) measures to 10 % of the priority axis, specified in Article 3(4) of the draft ESF Regulation, also apply to priority b) measures — enhancing access to employment;

2.8 suggests, in general, that the terminology and wording of Article 3 of the proposal for a Regulation be improved as they could cause problems of linguistic interpretation, particularly in the current context, now that ten new States have joined the Union and that new languages will consequently become part of the Community acquis. This consideration could be extended to all articles in the proposed Regulation;

2.9 notes that the draft Fund Regulation emphasises that it is the role of the Member States and the managing authorities to ensure that action supported by the Fund is consistent with the implementation of the European Employment Strategy, and therefore considers that it would be useful to further clarify the role of local and regional authorities as they too have to ensure consistency in the activities financed by the Fund, particularly when such actions are implemented by regional and local government; considers that this need for consistency and concentration, which is acknowledged in Article 4 of the proposed Regulation, must take account of the consequences for social cohesion;

2.10 welcomes the listing of areas in which the Fund's actions must concentrate their activities and the reference to the most serious problems facing regions and localities, including deprived urban areas and declining rural and fisheries-dependent areas; suggests that a specific reference also be made in Article 4 to ‘industrial areas in crisis’, because it is in this field that actions financed by the Fund can help to achieve greater social cohesion at particularly difficult times for the people, especially women;

2.11 welcomes the reference to regional and local authorities in connection with good governance and partnership; nevertheless considers that, when measures to be financed under the Fund are being planned, regional and local authorities should be taken into account, in line with the specific institutional characteristics of each Member State; as the Committee of the Regions itself stated at its 36th plenary session, held on 14 December 2000, on the initiative New Forms of Governance: Europe, a framework for citizens, some issues (such as job creation, inclusion and social cohesion) cannot be successfully solved at one level alone — they need help from all sides, in accordance with the principles of proximity and proportionality. Considers that it would be appropriate for some of the measures adopted under the Fund to be managed by regional and local players, which would help to achieve the aims of this article;

2.12 welcomes the reference to the need to ensure the involvement of the social partners and adequate consultation of non-governmental stakeholders, at the appropriate territorial level, in the programming, implementation and monitoring of ESF support; notes, however, that the proposed regulation suffers from a lack of detail, and therefore calls for this paragraph of Article 5 to be improved; recommends specifying both the type of association to be considered in this area, for example workers' and employers' associations, and the ideal level and scope for this consultation. The Committee of the Regions thus wishes to voice its concern that in practice the lack of detail could render this article unworkable. The Committee of the Regions would refer to the Communication Commission: Dialogue with associations of regional and local authorities on the formulation of European Union policy, of 19 December 2003, the main aim of which was to inform territorial partners, through their associations, of the possibility of expressing their views and helping to implement European policies;

2.13 welcomes the inclusion of cross-sectoral aspects in the draft Regulation, particularly gender equality. The Member States and the managing authorities must ensure that the operating programmes include a description of how gender equality will be promoted in programming, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. The Committee of the Regions considers that regional and local authorities could bring their experience to bear in light of the lessons learned in the 2000-2006 programming period, and thus recommends that a reference be included to these authorities in Article 6;

2.14 considers that action funded by the ESF should play an active role in implementing Directive 2002/73 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions; welcomes the fact that gender equality is one of the spheres of activity to be included in the future PROGRESS Programme;

2.15 recommends that the meaning of the word description contained in Article 6 of the draft Regulation be clarified; it would be appropriate for the Regulation to include not only a description of how gender equality is to be promoted, but also guidelines for the principle's proper implementation. For all of these reasons, the Committee of the Regions recommends that the content of this provision be redrafted in greater detail;

2.16 wishes to express its concern at the total absence of any reference to the regional and local dimension in Article 7, because this is the level at which it is easiest to determine the needs for innovation. Specific knowledge of the local situation helps research and innovation activities. Because of their proximity, local authorities can spot innovative activities and can promote them with all the means available to them, thus making it possible to develop more efficient research and innovation activities at regional and national level;

2.17 is concerned to note the deletion of ‘innovative actions’ because these have helped to implement extremely valuable pilot projects with considerable effects on the labour and vocational training markets; considers it appropriate that there should still be an instrument for innovation that is not subsumed into the general run of activities supported by the Fund and that its actions should continue to be coordinated with Community support; this will make it possible to continue experimenting with new ways of doing things in the spheres of employment, male and female workers, social inclusion and territorial disparities;

2.18 welcomes the fact that the proposed ESF Regulation contains a specific paragraph devoted to transnational cooperation — Article 8 — which shows greater recognition of the role of the regions; recommends that the various territorial cooperation instruments promote the establishment and strengthening of networks of towns and the extension of initiatives establishing decentralised cooperation between local authorities, as stated in the Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Third Report on Economic and Social Cohesion, adopted at its 55th plenary session on 16 June 2004;

2.19 wishes to express its concern at the absence of any reference to the regional and local dimension in Article 8, which is devoted to transnational cooperation, especially bearing in mind the experience gained in the course of the current programming period under the INTERREG Community initiative; which has been managed within the regions themselves by independent managing authorities distinct from the national authorities; recommends that this article be made more specific, as regards the arrangements for action, the funding of these activities and the specific role of the regions and local authorities;

2.20 is pleased to note the inclusion in the proposed Regulation of the provision stipulating that the Commission must promote exchanges of experiences, awareness-raising activities, seminars and networking to identify and disseminate good practices and encourage mutual learning, with the aim of enhancing the Fund's contribution to the Community's objectives in relation to employment and social inclusion; regrets the fact that the Regulation is not more precise as regards funding for technical assistance and coordination between this programme and all the programmes to be implemented in the next programming period; and thus calls for greater detail to be provided in this article;

2.21 welcomes the inclusion of an article devoted to the annual reports and the final report summarising the content of these; considers that these reports should also mention the forms of participation and consultation of both sides of industry, non-governmental representatives of the public interest and NGOs;

2.22 wishes to express its concern at the lack of detail in some indents in the article on the eligibility of expenditure; this article introduces the concept of ‘indirect costs’ of an operation, fixed on a flat-rate basis, up to 20 % of the direct costs declared for this operation, according to factors that are not explained; recommends greater precision in the final wording of this provision as a whole, because the lack of detail in these matters complicates management and makes spending less efficient, which contravenes the principle of sound financial management, a requirement constantly brought up by the European Commission.

Brussels, 23 February 2005. The President of the Committee of the Regions Peter STRAUB

(1) OJ C 51 of 22.02.1999, p. 48