EN Official Journal of the European Union C 24/29

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Institute for Gender Equality’

(COM(2005) 81 final — 2005/0017 (COD))

(2006/C 24/10)

On 22 March 2005 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned 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 5 September 2005. The rapporteur was Ms Štechová.

At its 420th plenary session, held on 28 and 29 September 2005 (meeting of 28 September 2005), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 166 votes to 5, with 7 abstentions.

1. Committee's Conclusions and Recommendations

1.1 The European Economic and Social Committee reaffirms its keen interest in seeing much more tangible progress in the promotion of gender equality, as it has repeatedly stressed in its recent Opinions on this issue (1). Gender equality is — and must remain — a priority in the European Union's policies. Although more effort has been invested into promoting gender equality in the EU in recent years, women remain disadvantaged in most areas of activity (2) — this must change. Gender discrimination against men also exists, although to a lesser degree, and this must also be resolved. A series of problems rooted in discrimination (on grounds of sexual orientation, age, health, disability, ethnicity and so on) and exacerbated by the gender dimension also fall within this area.

1.1.1 Many different types of gender inequality exist; they occur throughout the EU and it is vital that they are recognised, documented, collected and analysed, that lessons are drawn from them at the Community level and that solutions are sought.

1.1.2 The EESC, therefore, welcomes every effective instrument which helps to ensure that gender equality will become a reality.

1.1.3 The EESC supports the proposal to establish a European Institute for Gender Equality, (hereinafter ‘the Institute’) believing it will become an effective instrument — with great potential — for supporting the efforts of the EU and the Member States to make progress in promoting gender equality in both laws and in practice.

1.2 The EESC agrees with the reasons behind the creation of an independent institute and with the decision that the Institute must not replace or weaken the present tried and tested specialised agencies, or those in the process of being established, at Community level (3). Nor must establishment of the Institute weaken application of the gender mainstreaming principle in all the bodies, policies and programmes of the Community: the EESC is convinced that it will, on the contrary, reinforce this principle.

1.3 The EESC thinks that the Institute will derive authority from its objectivity, neutrality, independence, expert experience and ability to concentrate relevant information in one place and could become an important instrument for a wide spectrum of users. Assuming gender mainstreaming is applied comprehensively, the Institute will serve a most varied ‘clientele’ — from the most diverse strata of civil society to the EU's policy-making bodies.

1.3.1 Moreover, the Institute will operate not only within the EU, but within a broader European context, including preparation for further EU enlargements, and internationally. It will also serve, therefore, to cultivate multicultural links and exchanges.

1.4 The EESC thinks that in view of the ambitious goal and tasks that await the Institute, its powers and responsibilities should be more clearly defined in relation to its functions of research, information, public education and so on. The goals of data collection and processing need to be specified so that the Institute can play its full part in the EU policy-making process. In this context, it should be pointed out that all the Community's bodies have to rely on the statistical resources of the individual Member States. The Institute should be able to put forward its views on planned projects. The Institute should also have an educational role in issues of gender mainstreaming and have the possibility to submit its views on Community initiatives and activities in the field of gender equality.

1.4.1 The EESC takes the view that specifying the Institute's goals and tasks would substantiate its importance and demonstrate the need for it to have the necessary resources to fulfil these aims.

1.5 The Institute must have a strong moral authority and it is absolutely essential that it operate transparently and have truly effective links with relevant groups in civil society (set out in Article 10(1)a)-c)) which have a wealth of analytical experience and expertise on gender equality and can also directly reflect the needs of the EU's citizens. The EESC strongly recommends, therefore, that civil society representatives have more places on the Institute's Management Board (see points 3.7.2 and 3.7.3 below). In this context, the EESC once again highlights the important role of the social partners at various levels in solving the problems of gender equality in the labour market.

1.6 At the same time, the EESC strongly urges that representatives of Europe's social partners and the relevant representative NGO have the same standing on the Management Board as the other members — i.e. that they have the right to vote (see also point 3.7.4).

1.7 The EESC considers it essential that funding for the Institute should be sufficient for it to fully carry out its mission alongside other Community agencies or programmes also dealing with gender equality, and not at the expense of these.

1.8 The Proposal for a Regulation does not state where the Institute will be based. The EESC, however, favours it being set up in one of the countries that joined the EU in 2004. Some of these countries have already expressed an interest in hosting the Institute, and this would also satisfy the need for a balanced decentralisation of institutions around the EU and would offer the opportunity for more direct contact with citizens of one of those countries and for learning more about its experience in the field of equal opportunities for men and women.

1.9 The EESC is convinced that close cooperation with the Institute will be of benefit to both parties and declares its readiness to collaborate with the institute on the basis of Community rules.

2. Introduction and general remarks

2.1 The European Commission issued its Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Institute for Gender Equality on 8 May 2005, and stated, inter alia, in its press release (4) that: ‘The Institute will be an independent centre of excellence at European level. It will gather, analyse and disseminate reliable and comparable research data and information needed by policy-makers in Brussels and in the Member States. It will have a documentation centre and a library which will be open to the public. The Institute will stimulate research and exchanges of experience by organising meetings between policy-makers, experts and stakeholders and it will raise awareness of gender equality policies with events including conferences, campaigns and seminars. Another vital task will be to develop tools for supporting the integration of gender equality into all Community policies’.

2.2 The substantial period of time that separated the first impulse to create a European Institute in 1995 (5) and promulgation of the proposal for a regulation in May 2005 allowed expert and policy research to be conducted which has enabled a considered step to be prepared.

2.3 At its meeting of 1 and 2 June 2004, the European Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council unanimously declared its support for the establishment of the European Institute (6): ‘Delegations fully supported in principle the setting-up of such an Institute, while stressing the importance of a structure that would bring added value but which would not duplicate existing activities in this area. The need for budget-neutrality was also mentioned’. The Council mandated the Institute with: — questions of coordination; — centralisation and dissemination of information; — the raising of gender visibility; and — the provision of tools for gender mainstreaming.

2.3.1 The European Council subsequently invited the Commission to submit its proposal (7).

2.4 The decision to establish the Institute thus came after the EU's enlargement to include ten new countries and the EESC considers it important that it operate, from the outset, in the enlarged EU, which will enable it to take into account a greater variety of experiences, situations and know-how.

2.5 In its Opinion Beijing +10: Review of progress achieved in the field of gender equality in Europe and in developing countries (8), the EESC recently summarised the history and range of activities in the EU on gender equality. It draws attention to that Opinion and stresses the importance of realising that the need for expert reports, analyses and information and the quality demanded of these is growing due to broader application of the principle of gender mainstreaming, which the EESC warmly welcomes.

2.6 Practical experience reveals new and existing problems, directly related to gender issues, which the EU and its Member States face and which the Institute must address: — inequality in the labour market, particularly segregation in professions, differences in wages, hazards in the labour market, — the career progression of women and their rise to supervisory or management positions, monitoring the situation of women in management and executive positions, — reconciling professional and private life, — access to life-long learning, monitoring the improvement of women's professional qualification, — demographic trends in the EU, — the trade in woman (and children) and their exploitation for sexual purposes, — all forms of violence on the basis of gender, — the insufficient participation of women in decision-making, — the generally insufficient attention given to gender issues and continuing inadequate application of the gender mainstreaming principle, — stereotypical presentation of gender roles of men and women (in education, the media, public life and the world of work), — women's own lack of awareness of the position they could have in society, — intercultural issues, — gender equality within different civil society organisations and their representative institutions, particularly European institutions, — etc.

2.6.1 The EESC has already drawn attention in some detail in its Beijing +10 Opinion, to which it refers the reader, to a raft of areas where action should be taken (9).

2.7 As has been stressed above, the EESC is aware that gender mainstreaming is being applied more widely and continues to develop. For this reason, the EESC agrees that the task of concentrating the efforts of Member States and civil society stakeholders so that they can help Community bodies in these matters has to be conferred on an independent institution, which will increase the effect of synergy. The EESC also considers it important to ensure that the Institute and Community agencies complement one another and that the principle of gender mainstreaming will continue to develop within the agencies in close collaboration with the Institute. In the same way, cooperation with institutional mechanisms for gender equality must be the norm.

2.8 The EESC recalls that while the establishment of the Institute is a step forward, this does not rule out the need for further measures aimed at making progress in implementing equality of opportunity while meeting all the goals adopted in Community documents. It will be of the utmost important that the Institute actively contributes to the fulfilment of the Lisbon objectives on promoting growth and job creation.

2.9 The EESC is in favour of the Institute being established. However, it needs to get the best possible reception from civil society at European, national and local levels, without whose support it could not get off to a good start. The necessary resources must therefore be invested in this new institution to make it credible and trusted. This will enable it to successfully pursue activities of all kinds and attract the interest it deserves.

3. Specific remarks

3.1 The EESC approves the legal basis on which the Institute is to be established, namely Article 141(3) and Article 13(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Union. It agrees with the reasons set out in the recitals, which also explain that the Proposal conforms to Article 5 of the Treaty.

3.2 The EESC also agrees that working with the existing infrastructure — foundations and other bodies — is consistent with the Council's desire to avoid duplication. The EESC notes that Recital 12 implicitly includes other institutions and authorities working within the EU, such as Eurostat. The EESC draws attention to the Communication from the Commission on the operating framework for the European Regulatory Agencies (10) and the Draft Interinstitutional Agreement on the operating framework (11) and notes that the Institute's place among existing institutions will also be defined in this context.

3.3 The EESC points out that the English title of the Institute (Art. 1) — The European Institute for Gender Equality — reflects its mission unambiguously and is open to the widest connotations (ethical, moral, aesthetic, sexual, etc.). However, we know from experience that the word ‘gender’ has no precise equivalent in a number of EU languages. Translations should therefore be worded to come as close as feasible to the original.

3.4 As far as the Institute's goals are concerned, the EESC thinks Article 2 should include a clear reference to promoting the principle of gender mainstreaming.

3.4.1 The EESC also considers that the Institute should be tasked with helping employers' and workers' organisations and other elements of organised civil society in their work on gender equality. This aim should be clearly stated and taken into account.

3.5 The EESC thinks the tasks in Article 3 are just as important as the goals and should be expanded as set out in point 1.4 of this opinion.

3.5.1 The EESC asks for social partners to be explicitly mentioned in Art. 3(1a). In this context it should be noted that the European social partners have recently adopted a Framework of Actions on Gender Equality.

3.5.2 The EESC stresses that the Institute's benefits will be more apparent if it regularly issues, in addition to the annual report, information related to achievements made under, for example, the Framework Strategy on Gender Equality. It should also publish, amongst other things, its work programme as well as its annual report (Art. 3(1e)).

3.5.3 The issues that the Institute deals with will also require appropriate working methods. These should be tailored to different types of gender inequality and discrimination, and so should use comparative methods (benchmarking), case studies, vertical (sectoral) data collection, gender budgeting, monitoring, etc. It goes without saying that the Institute must also collaborate with specialised agencies and institutions in this regard.

3.5.4 The EESC notes that (1d) of the same Article states that the Institute will conduct research in ‘Europe’, a reference to its broader operation within the EEA, as part of future enlargement and in the countries of the Council of Europe.

3.5.5 The EESC would want — in keeping with the objectives set out in Article 2 and the Recital — to add the national or regional level to Art. 3 (1g). This would make it possible to involve other stakeholders, such as local and regional governments, which have an important role to play in spreading awareness of gender equality issues among the public at large.

3.6 The EESC agrees with the Institute being independent of national bodies and civil society (Art. 5). It considers, however, that it should also be independent of the Community's institutions, which will enable it to take a more objective approach towards them. Not least for this reason, the EESC proposes increasing the number of civil society representatives on the Management Board to ensure the Institute's greater independence.

3.6.1 The EESC agrees with and supports the principle that the Institute will work freely and independently with institutions in the Member States. It thinks members of the Advisory Forum should be made responsible for obtaining and delivering information in time (see point 3.8.2 below). This could be a suitable role for bodies which are to operate in the Member States under the Directive to consolidate directives on equal opportunities (12).

3.7 As far as the Institute's bodies are concerned, the EESC appreciates the efforts to make the Management Board an operational body that can ensure the Institute reacts flexibly to changes and demands.

3.7.1 The EESC takes the view, however, that the Commission must only appoint members of the Management Board who are to represent the groups mentioned on a proposal from those organisations. This should be stated in Article 10.

3.7.2 The EESC stresses that if the Management Board is to be able to respond appropriately to needs — i.e. to reflect its responsibilities to the European Commission and the Member States — and if it is to receive appropriate feedback from civil society, Europe's social partners and the relevant NGO need to be effectively and visibly represented at the Community level, which has — as the Regulation puts it — a ‘legitimate interest in contributing to the fight against discrimination on grounds of gender and the promotion of gender equality’. Moreover, there is no reason why such an involvement of civil society representatives could not be proposed. Given that the national level of social partners will not be represented here, unlike in the Community's tripartite bodies, it is desirable at least in this way to guarantee the active involvement of social partners and the relevant NGO.

3.7.3 The EESC, therefore, urges that the number of members on the Management Board be increased. It would suggest raising the number to six members from each party (Council, Commission, social partners and relevant NGO at Community level), which would also enable the organisations mentioned in Art. 10(1) a)-c) to ensure equal representation of men and women when selecting candidates. It follows, therefore, that these organisations would have two seats each.

3.7.4 There is no reason why representatives of the social partners and the NGO should not have the right to vote. In order to better ensure independence, autonomy and objectivity of proceedings, the EESC appeals to the Commission to incorporate full voting rights for all representatives of employers, workers and the relevant NGO. This is consistent with paragraph 4, which states that ‘Each member of the Management Board, or in his/her absence his/her deputy, shall have one vote’.

3.7.5 The EESC considers that the directors of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training and the EU Agency for fundamental rights might perhaps also be able to participate directly in the meetings of the Institute's Management Board as observers (Article 10(11)). The director of the Institute should likewise be able (on behalf of the Management Board and/or on the basis of a ‘memorandum of understanding’) to take part in the proceedings of these institutions.

3.8 The EESC respects the fact that the Advisory Forum's role will enable Member States to involve relevant bodies and create a network of experts. Under Article 12, this body will not have decision-making rights within the Institute and it is unnecessary, therefore, to state that the three members who represent interested parties at European level do not have the right to vote. One might also ask why they are appointed by the Commission: they should be directly appointed by the organisations set out in Article 10(1) a)-c).

3.8.1 A way must be found to ensure equal representation of men and women in the Advisory Forum.

3.8.2 As stated in point 3.6.1, members of the Advisory Forum should have responsibility for ensuring cooperation between institutions in their countries and the Institute (Art 12(4)).

3.9 The EESC has reservations concerning the Institute's planned funding. It detects contradictions in what the Council press release (quoted above in point 2.3 of this opinion) says it should achieve, namely provide added value by meeting demanding goals, while at the same time maintaining budget neutrality.

3.9.1 It is assumed that funding for the Institute will be partially deducted from the PROGRESS programme funds. Paragraph 3.6 of the Draft Proposal's Explanatory Memorandum states that: ‘The Institute's activities will be distinct from those proposed under the gender equality strand of the PROGRESS programme (2007-2013)’. The EESC sees this as an argument supporting the position expressed in its Opinion on the PROGRESS programme: ‘We therefore urge that the funding earmarked for the Gender Institute should not be deducted from the total PROGRESS financial framework, as the current proposal evidently intends, but that separate funding be provided for’ (13).

3.9.2 The EESC recommends, therefore, that the necessary funding for the running and sound operation of the Institute should be taken into consideration when the EU's Financial Perspectives are being discussed and should be allocated, at least in stages, so that the Institute can have the legal and financial security needed to meet the demands which will be placed upon it.

3.9.3 The EESC thinks that concentrating work on gender equality in one place will bring savings at the Community and national levels. The PROGRESS programme draft budget should not, therefore, be reduced but, on the contrary, increased by this amount if there is no decision on separate funding for the Institute.

3.9.4 On no account must the establishment of the Institute be an excuse for reducing funding of other institutions — for example, the Dublin Foundation — whose remit also includes issues such as equal opportunities.

Brussels, 28 September 2005. The President of the European Economic and Social Committee Anne-Marie SIGMUND

(1) EESC Opinion on the Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Community action programme to promote organisations active at European level in the field of equality between men and women (rapporteur Ms Warholin, 10.12.2003) – OJ C 80 of 30.3.2004

EESC Opinion on the Proposal for a Council Directive implementing the principle of equal treatment between women and men in the access to and supply of goods and services (rapporteur Ms Carroll, 3.6.2004) – OJ C 241 of 28.9.2004

EESC Opinion on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (CESE 1641/2004, rapporteur Ms Sharma, 15.12.2004)

EESC Opinion on Beijing +10: Review of progress achieved in the field of gender equality in Europe and in developing countries (rapporteur Ms Florio, 9.2.2005) – OJ C 221 of 8.9.2005.

(2) COM(2005) 44.

(3) Dublin Foundation, Bilbao Agency, CEDEFOP, Fundamental Rights Agency.

(4) European Commission Press Release IP/05/266 8.3.2005, available in English, French and German.

(5) Role of a future European Institute, a study for the European Parliament, Final Report, 15.6.2005.

(6) Council of the European Union, press release 9507/04, 1-2.6.2004.

(7) European Council, 17-18.6.2004, presidency conclusions, paragraph 43.

(8) Rapporteur: Ms Florio, point 4 – OJ C 221 of 8.9.2005.

(9) Rapporteur: Ms Florio, point 6, Conclusions and work proposals – OJ C 221 of 8.9.2005.

(10) COM(2002) 718, 11.12.2002.

(11) COM(2005) 59, 25.2.2005.

(12) COM(2004) 279, 21.4.2004.

(13) Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Community Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity - PROGRESS (Rapporteur: Mr Greif) (JO C 255, 14.10.2005, p. 39).