Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a programme of Community action to encourage cooperation between Member States to combat social exclusion"

(2001/C 14/14)

On 24 July 2000 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 137 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 3 October 2000. The rapporteur was Mrs Cassina, the co-rapporteur Mrs zu Eulenburg.

At its 376th Plenary Session (meeting of 19 October 2000), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 99 votes in favour, two votes against and two abstentions.

1. Introduction

1.1. The proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a programme of Community action to encourage cooperation between Member States to combat social exclusion (henceforth referred to as "the programme") comes in the wake of the strategic goal(1) for the next decade mapped out by the Lisbon Council.

1.2. The proposal aims to create a dynamic and open framework of cooperation between the Member States who have or will set up national action plans to combat exclusion. The aim is to work together in a coordinated and mutually supportive manner to achieve the objective of greater social cohesion, based on a better knowledge of the phenomenon of exclusion and commonly defined criteria for analysing and addressing it.

1.3. The objectives of the programme are to improve the understanding of exclusion, to organise policy cooperation and mutual learning in the context of the national action plans and to develop the capacity of actors to address social exclusion, in particular through networking at EU level.

1.4. The actions provided for consist of:

- analysis of the different aspects, causes and trends in social exclusion, collection of comparable statistics and development of common methodologies and thematic studies;

- policy cooperation and exchange of information and best practices on the basis of qualitative and quantitative indicators and benchmarks with periodic monitoring;

- promotion of dialogue involving the various stakeholders and support to European-level networks of NGOs active in this field.

1.5. The Commission will ensure the implementation of the programme, maintaining the necessary contact with all the actors concerned and fostering an integrated and coordinated approach to combating social exclusion. The Commission is also to promote the involvement of the parties concerned and identify actions eligible under the programme.

1.6. All institutional and social stakeholders will be called on to contribute to the success of the programme.

1.7. The proposal provides for an action programme to combat social exclusion lasting five years. The overall funding allocation is EUR 70 million, divided between analysis of social exclusion (27,6 million), policy cooperation (between the Member States) and exchange of information and good practice (29.3 million) and participation of stakeholders and EU networking (13,1 million).

1.8. The programme is to be implemented in such a way as to ensure the consistency and complementarity of action undertaken, as well as consistency and complementarity with other Community policies, instruments and actions, particularly those associated with the Social Fund and the EQUAL programme.

1.9. Cooperation is also to be established with the EFTA/EEA countries and the associated countries of Central and Eastern Europe, as well as Turkey, Malta and Cyprus. The programme will be open to these countries in accordance with the conditions established in existing agreements (or those to be negotiated).

1.10. The legal basis of the programme is Treaty Article 137(2), subparagraphs 2 and 3, in conjunction with Articles 2 and 136.

2. General comments

2.1. The Lisbon Council stressed the need to modernise the European social model by investing inhuman resources and by combating social exclusion: the information society will be built for and by all European citizens, fostering both the quantity and quality of skills, in a social context aimed at eradicating poverty and promoting social cohesion, including through cooperation at the European level. Far from being weakened, European competitiveness will benefit from an equitable and modern social model: a better balance between economic development and social cohesion will prove to be a unique and specific asset of the EU with regard to third countries and will be the hallmark of its contribution and role in the international arena.

2.2. Putting social cohesion back among the EU's top priorities therefore constitutes a decisive turning point, attaching the importance it deserves to human development. This change in thinking must be translated into a series of new actions, policies and attitudes. In terms of the fundamentals of democracy, the ESC would point out that the Lisbon approach reaffirms the close link between the struggle for social cohesion and basic rights as defined by the UN, the revised Social Charter and possibly soon also - provided that work of the Convention on fundamental rights produces a good result which is accepted by the Member States - by the Treaty.

2.3. The ESC notes that now, for the first time in many years, the EU's economic situation constitutes the ideal framework conditions for focusing attention on social and human development and that European governments have made serious commitments in this regard(2). It is also interesting to note that business is increasingly concerned with the need to promote social cohesion as a means of consolidating the strategies and process of development. It is therefore extremely important that all pathways are explored in the fight against exclusion and that such an initiative does indeed provide new opportunities for all. The ESC recalls that the Communication entitled "Building an inclusive Europe" (point 5.1.1, fourth indent) pointed out that the time was ripe for "taking advantage of the economic growth expected for the next decade in order to invest in active participation for all with a view to reducing in the long run the need for and the burden of social transfers: in other words, restructuring public expenditure towards active investment and forward looking adaptation and away from passive transfers." Following this approach, a special effort must be made in combating social exclusion to provide a firm foothold for the excluded in the labour market and in society. In particular, the ESC would highlight the need to break down the barriers preventing those having been excluded from entering the labour market by removing the obstacles facing certain particularly disadvantaged groups and individuals (e.g. those with major family commitments, the disabled, the unskilled, those with psychological problems and those recently released from prison). Given that participation in the labour market is a necessary condition, but not always sufficient in itself, the ESC would also emphasise the need for specific and well targeted measures to tackle the bedrock of marginalisation so as to break the vicious circle which makes poverty and exclusion a perverse heritage passed down from one generation to the next. It is important in this context to recognise the crucial role played by social protection schemes and particularly the need to provide safety nets offering a minimum livelihood to all those in need (monetary benefits as well as goods and services). In particular, it is also necessary to promote a culture of inclusion which can inform political, economic and social choices.

2.4. In its opinions(3) the ESC has also on numerous occasions highlighted the need to take account of the reality of social exclusion and poverty in the various policies and programmes. These are very complex phenomena which cannot be tackled with simplistic analyses and much less with miraculous across-the-board remedies which in many cases merely serve to make things worse for the excluded. The ESC can appreciate that the approach to the programme taken by the Commission is one of prudence, being a sort of methodological preliminary to the actual work of combating exclusion, but deplores the fact that the content and funding of the programme do not go far enough in exploiting the favourable climate created by the Lisbon decisions, the Communication on Building an inclusive Europe and, recently, the Social Agenda.

2.5. Furthermore, the draft programme could have defined certain priorities for cooperation between Member States. The phenomena of exclusion and poverty need to be clearly targeted and addressed in a comprehensive manner, and it is regrettable that the title of the proposal is limited to "social exclusion" alone and that, in the text, the two phenomena are not always referred to as going hand in hand. No time should be lost in clearly identifying the many facets of the problem using approved criteria which are necessary if the process of cooperation is to be tackled correctly. On this point the ESC would draw attention to the progress report of the High Level Working Party on Social Protection(4) which, with a view to defining the indicators needed to evaluate the various situations, suggests as a first step the in-depth examination of the following broad themes: income, employment, living conditions and comfort, consumption, high-risk situations and social participation. The ESC welcomes this approach but feels that the themes should be expanded upon, taking account of both traditional profiles of exclusion and those which may arise from new risks.

2.5.1. Among the priorities, the ESC calls for a focus on the risk of new instances of exclusion, particularly in the context of the knowledge society (not having the required know-how may push many people towards marginalisation, but being illiterate or leaving school unable to read or write may be a recipe for permanent exclusion in the knowledge society); attention should also be centred on the chronically low-paid (who may be forced into exclusion at the first setback which reduces their earning capacity), those with low employability (who are forced to seek ever more precarious, unskilled and poorly paid jobs), those working on fixed-term contracts such that their working lives are interspersed with frequent periods of unemployment, moving populations (both third-country immigrants and those constantly on the move in search of sources of income), older workers and those whose retirement pensions are insufficient to live on. Carrying out an analysis of risks of exclusion as a matter of priority is a preventive measure which should involve all the Community institutions and Member States.

2.6. The ESC feels that the extent of social exclusion in the EU, its trends and the risk of new cases warrant a bolder approach in at least four areas:

- a better, and different, definition of the priorities, including the development of innovative and concrete initiatives and approaches on the ground (which are excluded under the Commission proposal, but possible under Article 137(2) of the Treaty(5)) of an exemplary nature based on concerted action between the various stakeholders and run as part of a network;

- accordingly, an increase in funding to be distributed differently: the proposed budget is far too small to cover activities on the ground, even if limited to those which are exemplary in terms of the methodology followed and their success in bringing firm social integration without the risk of slipping back into marginality;

- the need to take account of social cohesion as an objective in all Community decisions and policies(6) (including macroeconomic, financial, industrial, competition and agricultural policy) and establishment of a viable screening system making it possible to: evaluate in advance the content of policies and decisions; propose accompanying measures to prevent new cases of exclusion; and assess the impact of policies and decisions affecting social cohesion after implementation, suggesting remedies where necessary;

- a clearer call to the Member States to define plans for combating exclusion including from the start a timetable and quantitative and especially qualitative objectives for eradicating poverty.

2.6.1. Provided that such action really does bring a lasting change to the circumstances of those currently enduring exclusion or poverty, investment in combating exclusion pays high dividends, both social and economic. With this in mind, the ESC would urge the European Parliament to play a role in modifying the programme in the way described (support for concrete and innovative activities and approaches) and, in its capacity as the budgetary authority, to review the level and especially the distribution of funding for the programme accordingly.

2.7. The draft programme emphasises the need to develop integrated and complementary measures and to create maximum synergy with the European Employment Strategy, programmes and actions provided for under the European Social Fund and the strategy for modernising social protection systems. The ESC firmly supports this approach, but regrets that the wording of the Decision is quite vague, even misleading. It should be clearly indicated that all programmes under the ESF should verify their consistency with the objective of social cohesion. Furthermore, there is no mention in the text of the role of the High Level Working Party on Social Protection even though the Lisbon Council stated that the Working Party will be involved in the Council's work to define the objectives to be addressed in combating exclusion(7), and the initial contributions by the Working Party mentioned in point 2.5 have already proven valuable.

2.8. Among the stakeholders involved in the programme at all levels should be the Community authorities, the Member States, the regions and local administrations, the social partners and NGOs working with the excluded, but also those actually suffering exclusion and poverty, who should be given the opportunity to organise themselves and to participate in the programme. It is understood that the category NGOs includes organisations of the people concerned and mutual assistance organisations as well as associations providing social services and developing social actions. However, there are two key players who are crucial to the success of the programme: firstly, national governments who bear the chief responsibility for combating exclusion, and secondly, civil society organisations (the social partners and NGOs) at European level. The responsibility and capacity to involve other players at national, regional and local level are crucial here: the success of the programme largely depends on the effectiveness of participation mechanisms at all levels. Thus it is important for the Commission to remain open to the participation of networks (even new networks(8)) which might identify areas of potential and innovative measures in the fight against exclusion and poverty, especially in creating enabling environments as a way out of exclusion.

2.9. The draft programme also lays emphasis on the development of networking. The ESC shares this view, but would stress that networks which are effective at combating exclusion involve a range of players of differing status: national, regional and local governments, social partners, NGOs, religious institutions etc. Effective "polymorphic" networks will have to focus their activities on the goals agreed by common accord. Administrations must be aware of the problems, take a highly responsible attitude and be willing to cooperate (including with other tiers of administration). They will therefore be required to demonstrate political flexibility as well as ensuring optimum management of the resources available. Success in combating exclusion is never achieved by one political force alone, but by administrations which are able to mobilise all their citizens, including first and foremost the excluded themselves. The ESC would stress the crucial importance of involving the local and regional levels and civil society organisations at these levels. That is why the ESC is keen to be able to cooperate on the programme with the Committee of the Regions.

2.10. The ESC notes that procedures to join the programme must be clear, simple and free of red tape; this provides a greater guarantee of transparency than complicated procedures. The same procedural clarity and flexibility are required in developing the "open method" which must never remain within the confines of decision or policy-making institutions without having benefited from the participation of other stakeholders.

2.11. The ESC is somewhat disappointed with the proposed measures: while it agrees with the Commission that it is crucial to establish criteria for a common approach and for reliable and harmonised statistics in the analysis of exclusion, it cannot endorse the importance accorded to "studies" and "research". These areas would receive generous funding from the programme (EUR 5.1 million for thematic studies and EUR 4,6 million for expert work and specific studies), with the inherent risk of resources being spread too thinly with no guarantee of any resulting benefit in the actual fight against exclusion. The ESC would point out inter alia that the quantity and quality of those studies on the subject already available should be reviewed first.

2.11.1. In this context, the ESC, in collaboration with the COR, will explore the possibility of setting up a body for observation, liaison, monitoring and support with the participation of interested European NGO networks and the European Parliament. Without being cumbersome, this body would be made up of eminent and knowledgeable personalities appointed by common accord of the ESC, the COR, the European Parliament and the NGO networks involved. Its task could be to:

- interlink European, national and local networks and establish contacts and ongoing collaborations with national, and where appropriate, regional observatories(9);

- examine and evaluate existing studies and research on exclusion and poverty;

- monitor the programme regularly and collate the results and knowledge gained;

- assess initiatives and especially to identify best practice with a view to disseminating it and supporting the mutual learning process;

- provide support in the systematic screening of policies, legislation and measures to ensure consistency with the objective of social inclusion;

- give its opinion on the development of the programme.

3. Specific comments

3.1. The ESC urges that the title of the programme should also refer to poverty, as follows: "Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a programme of Community action to encourage measures to combat social exclusion and poverty in particular and to promote social inclusion."

3.2. The Council of Europe's revised Social Charter should also be cited in whereas (2).

3.3. The ESC is pleased to note that it is mentioned in whereas (3) as one of the institutions and bodies which have called for greater efforts to combat social exclusion.

3.4. In Article 1, insert "within a framework of shared responsibility among all the operators concerned" after "between Member States".

3.5. In Article 2(2) reference is made to the need to mainstream social cohesion in all policies. The ESC very much endorses this, but regrets that the proposal goes no further than this statement: this mainstreaming should be one of the key elements of the programme (which would entail no cost whatsoever as it depends solely on the political will of the actors concerned).

3.6. The Objectives (Article 3) should be reworded as follows:

"- improving the understanding of social exclusion and poverty in order to reach a common definition of the criteria and parameters to be applied in combating social exclusion;

- organising policy cooperation and mutual learning in the context of national action plans based on common parameters;

- developing the capacity of actors - including those suffering exclusion - to work effectively for social cohesion through exemplary actions and to develop networks at every appropriate level.".

3.7. In Article 4(1) (Community actions), rewrite the first indent as follows:

"- definition of criteria for analysing the multidimensional nature of the causes, processes and trends ... etc.".

Add a new indent at the end of the paragraph as follows:

"- direct support for exemplary initiatives and approaches to combat exclusion based on the best synergies between the various institutional and social actors working in networks which have the potential to provide new ways forward, particularly in terms of consolidating inclusion, preventing relapses into exclusion and redistributing opportunities.".

3.8. Insert a new paragraph as Article 5(3) to set up an observation, liaison, monitoring and support body along the lines proposed in point 2.11.1 of this opinion.

3.9. Article 6 (Financing): the ESC urges that the reference amount should be increased, especially if the programme is to support innovative and concrete actions and approaches on the ground as requested.

3.10. The ESC would point out that the Committee referred to in Article 7 should be a management committee: it is not clear why it should be consulted on "the annual plan of work for the implementation of the programme's actions, and the Commission proposals for selection criteria for financial support" (Article 7(3), third indent). Defining the "selection criteria" is a delicate matter which entails a political interpretation of the programme and its objectives. This would be better entrusted to the European Committee on Social Protection (ECSP) which according to the Lisbon Conclusions is supposed to define the criteria and objectives to be adopted in combating exclusion. In any event, the political role of the ECSP in implementing the programme should be explicitly referred to in the text of the decision.

3.11. Article 8(1) mentions a series of policies in which the Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, is to ensure overall consistency with the present programme. The ESC endorses this, but urges the Commission to extend this to other policy areas, notably taxation, economic and monetary policy, competition, consumer protection and agriculture.

3.12. The ESC is pleased to note that, in Article 9 (Participation of the EFTA/EEA countries, the associated countries of Central and Eastern Europe, Cyprus, Malta and Turkey), the programme is opened to the candidate countries in particular, but would also stress the need to develop consultation with these countries and to carry out an in-depth examination with them of current social exclusion and its trends, making provision in the pre-accession strategies for a range of aid measures - including financial - to combat exclusion effectively, particularly by supporting the modernisation and improvement of their social protection systems.

3.13. As regards Monitoring and evaluation (Article 10), the ESC wonders if it is appropriate to wait until the end of the third year for the first evaluation, believing that an interim report by the Commission services to be submitted perhaps two years after the programme's entry into force could help to improve the targeting of initiatives in the second half of the programme itself. Furthermore, the ESC expresses its willingness henceforth to provide any assistance that may be deemed useful in the work of monitoring and evaluation, trusting that the Commission will seek its opinion on the report.

Brussels, 19 October 2000.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke Frerichs

(1) "The Union has today set itself a new strategic goal for the next decade: to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion."- Lisbon Council, Presidency Conclusions (point 5). "The number of people living below the poverty line and in social exclusion in the Union is unacceptable."Lisbon Council, Presidency Conclusions (point 32).

(2) See Copenhagen and Copenhagen + 5.

(3) See in particular the opinion on Costs of poverty and social exclusion in Europe (rapporteur: Mr Burnel) - OJ C 284/98 (p. 7).

(4) Progress report of the High Level Working Party on Social Protection - Brussels, 18.5.2000, nr. 8634/00.

(5) "The programme would not co-finance micro projects on the groundaimed at dealing with social exclusion at local, regional and national level and at benefiting the excluded directly." (Explanatory Memorandum, point 5.)

(6) as indeed pointed out in the Communication "Building an inclusive Europe", points 2.4 and 5.1 - COM(2000) 79 final.

(7) Presidency Conclusions, point 32.

(8) Contrary to what is provided for in the annex, action 3.1.

(9) Drawing in particular on the experience of the Copenhagen follow-up committees.