Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on 'The role of the socio-economic partners in the Interreg programmes and the Eures network` (97/C 355/06)

On 18 March 1997 the Economic and Social Committee decided, in accordance with Rule 23(3) of its Rules of Procedure, to draw up an opinion on: 'The role of the socio-economic partners in the Interreg programmes and the Eures network`.

The Section for Regional Development and Town and Country Planning, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 16 September 1997. The rapporteur was Mr van Dijk and the co-rapporteur Mr Simpson.

At its 348th plenary session (meeting of 1 October 1997) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 82 votes to four with eight abstentions.

1. The ESC has already issued an opinion on the involvement of the socio-economic partners in the implementation and development of the Structural Funds (). That opinion primarily concerned the practical implementation of the partnership principle as applied to the Structural Funds. This was the basis for the inclusion of Article 4 in the framework regulation.

2. This opinion is mainly concerned with the role of the socio-economic partners in border regions and in cross-border projects. The Interreg programmes and the Eures network are important in this context.

2.1. The opinion has two aims: firstly, to provide information on Interreg and Eures; and secondly, to comment on the way in which the socio-economic partners could become involved in border regions.

3. Interreg

3.1. The objective of the Community Interreg initiative springs from the Commission's drive to promote cohesion in the European Union.

3.1.1. Interreg IIA is aimed entirely at border regions. A wide range of cross-border projects may be submitted under this programme.

3.1.2. At the moment there are 59 different programmes under the Interreg IIA umbrella. For the 1994-1999 programme period some ECU 2 500 million has been set aside for this part of Interreg. Besides Interreg IIA, there is also Interreg IIB and Interreg IIC. The comments in this opinion on Interreg IIA also apply to these other two parts.

3.2. There are various ways in which the socio-economic interest groups are involved in Interreg projects.

3.2.1. Firstly, they can submit projects themselves. In this case the formal application must be made to the regional or national authorities. These authorities can leave the implementation to the socio-economic partners. This may involve projects in the field of vocational training and labour market surveys.

3.2.2. Secondly, they can be involved in proposals for projects submitted by the authorities.

3.2.3. There are various phases in the development and implementation of a project:

1) development;

2) co-financing;

3) decision-making;

4) implementation;

5) evaluation.

For the duration of the whole project there is a monitoring committee that is responsible for management and control.

3.3. The party submitting the projects is responsible for the involvement of the socio-economic partners. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 4 of the framework regulation for the Structural Funds, the role of the socio-economic partners varies.

3.3.1. 'Community operations shall be such as to complement or contribute to corresponding national operations. They shall be established through close consultations between the Commission, the Member State concerned and the competent authorities and bodies - including, within the framework of each Member State's national rules and current practices, the economic and social partners - designated by the Member State at national, regional, local or other level, with all parties acting as partners in pursuit of a common goal`.

3.3.2. This wording leaves the Member States scope for dispensing with the close involvement of the socio-economic partners in Interreg projects. In some cases even the regional authorities are not involved in implementing and developing Interreg projects. It would seem that there are only a few projects where the socio-economic partners are involved in all relevant phases.

4. Eures

4.1. The Eures network is intended to promote the free movement of workers in the EU. To this end the Commission wishes to see obstacles removed.

4.2. The Eures network is based on Regulation 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on the free movement of workers in the Community. This regulation deals with cooperation between the Member States and the Commission on the exchange of data on labour market trends.

This includes the exchange of information on job vacancies. Special services may be set up to this end.

4.3. It also stipulates that services in the border regions are to exchange information regularly on labour market trends.

4.4. In 1993 a Commission decision was approved on the implementation of the second part of this regulation. It was also stipulated that these services were to be set up under the responsibility of DG V.

4.4.1. The annex to the decision gives a definition of Eures, namely 'a network made up of the national employment services, their eventual partners and the Commission`. It is responsible for exchanging information specified in the 1968 regulation and providing the information to potential users. It is based on a computer system and a uniform exchange of data.

4.4.2. The following organizations may participate in Eures:

- the employment services of the Member States;

- the European Commission;

- the social and economic partners designated by conventions establishing a cross-border Eures;

- public and private partners of the employment services who have signed an agreement with the Commission.

4.4.3. The members have access to the information network via computers.

4.4.4. It is made clear in the annex that more and more responsibility is being shifted to the regions. In addition, other organizations besides the pubic employment services are to be brought in for the placement of specific groups of workers.

4.4.4.1. In pursuance of this, the Commission decision stipulates that regional services on both sides of a border may organize direct exchanges of information. To this end they can create cooperation structures with a view to:

- circulating information on labour market trends (vacancies) so as to inform the public;

- providing information on living and working conditions in the regions concerned;

- drawing up an inventory of vocational training opportunities and making it accessible to the public;

- setting up a framework for dialogue between management and labour in the domain of employment.

4.4.4.2. 'The economic and social partners, and in general all institutions concerned with employment problems and vocational training in the border regions concerned, shall contribute to the functioning of these cooperation structures mentioned above`.

4.4.4.3. Services specializing in certain professions or categories of employees may establish direct contact with their counterparts on the other side of the border. Inasmuch as this involves matters specified in the regulation, it should be coordinated or integrated with the Eures network.

4.4.4.4. The Commission is to ensure that individuals in the member organizations of Eures are given training enabling them to carry out the above-mentioned activities.

4.5. So far the funds have mostly found their way to the public employment services. Some funds have also been allocated to the activities of the socio-economic partners.

4.6. Job-seekers can obtain information from the public employment services on vacancies in other Member States, along with information on working and living conditions.

5. Recommendations

5.1. The Commission supports the involvement of the social and economic interest groups in the decision-making and monitoring of the use of the Structural Funds. In principle, the Commission should be expected to have the same aspirations for particular Community initiatives, including those which have a cross-border dimension such as Interreg. Some Member States, however, are reluctant to make this a formal commitment.

5.2. The Committee strongly supports the involvement of social and economic interest groups in Interreg programmes. Its earlier opinions have always advocated their involvement in the Structural Funds in general. In the case of cross-border programmes too, the Committee considers that their involvement enhances the quality of the projects and increases support for them. To secure this involvement, the Committee puts forward the following recommendations.

5.3. The Committee is of the view that the project proposals must be clear as to how the socio-economic partners are to be involved in the project. They must at least be involved in development, decision-making, implementation and evaluation. This applies to projects which in one way or another have an impact on social and economic policy.

5.4. The development, implementation and evaluation of Interreg programmes is subject to the procedures used by the formal monitoring committees. This brings Commission officials and national (and/or local) officials together on a regular basis. This is more complex than the procedures within a Member State, since there must be appropriate representation from two neighbouring Member States. The involvement of the social and economic interest groups should reflect the need for representatives from both areas, who identify with the overall needs of the cross-border region.

5.5. The Committee urges that the socio-economic partners be involved in the working parties accompanying the various projects.

5.6. The Committee considers that the involvement of the socio-economic partners is crucial for the success of projects and therefore attaches great importance to their involvement. For these reasons the Committee thinks that the Commission must examine every project for involvement of the socio-economic partners and must be able to require such involvement if necessary.

5.7. In the annual reports on the work of the Structural Funds, the Commission should include an assessment of progress in securing adequate involvement of the social and economic partners in all programmes, whether through the monitoring committees of single programme frameworks, operational programmes or Community initiatives.

5.8. The socio-economic partners should be given more opportunity to submit projects. The Committee urges that a specific part of the Interreg programme be reserved for projects submitted by the socio-economic partners. The projects must of course comply with the relevant criteria. This might cover, for instance, projects connected with vocational training and the labour market.

5.9. The above comments on Interreg apply to all parts of Interreg.

5.10. The Committee considers that in principle the Eures network can make a good start on reducing the obstacles to the free movement of workers.

5.11. In view of the importance of the network and the positive influence it can exert, the Committee is surprised that it is based on a decision which leaves all the decision-making in the hands of the Commission. In order to publicize and gain support for the network, the Committee proposes that the EP, the ESC and the Committee of the Regions should be more closely involved in the decisions on this network.

5.11.1. The most suitable approach would be to turn this network into a Community initiative. Since, however, in an earlier opinion the Committee argued for restraint in establishing Community initiatives, it will not here call for Eures to be turned into a Community initiative. One reason is that the financing for Eures (ECU 10 million per annum) is not comparable with that for other Community initiatives.

5.12. As the Committee has not yet had a chance to issue an opinion on the Eures network, it will seize this opportunity to make a few comments on it.

5.13. The Committee urges the Commission to show restraint in amending the administrative rules. The accessibility of the network depends on the participant organizations knowing where they stand. A policy whereby the rules are changed every two years, as is the case at the moment, is felt to be counterproductive.

5.14. In the present network, ECU 6 million are reserved for Eures cross-border. Especially in this component, a role is envisaged for the socio-economic partners. In addition, the public employment services take part in this network.

5.14.1. The public employment services are mainly responsible for the cross-border exchange of information on vacancies. The socio-economic partners are mainly responsible for practical information on working abroad and for helping to resolve conflicts. Thirdly, the socio-economic partners pinpoint specific bottlenecks, and this can help towards a structural solution to these bottlenecks in the free movement of workers.

5.14.2. At present the impression is that most of the Eures network is devoted to the exchange of vacancies. Shifting the Eures network within the Commission from the 'free movement of workers` unit to the 'labour market policy` unit also suggests that the Commission wants to place greater stress on the role that Eures can play in the unemployment problem. The consequence will be an even greater emphasis on the exchange of vacancies.

5.14.3. The Committee would point out that Eures was originally intended to promote the free circulation of workers. The cross-border exchange of vacancies is an instrument that can go only so far towards achieving this end. The armoury of instruments is completed by: providing information, coordinating vocational training, giving a clear picture of the cross-border regional labour market and assisting cross-border workers with any problems.

5.14.4. For these reasons the Committee urges that a specific percentage be reserved for the socio-economic partners.

5.15. The Committee considers that the appointment of a regional coordinator is in line with the subsidiarity principle. This coordinator must contribute to the creation of socio-economic networks and to this end must be assigned the role of stimulator and middleman. They can put forward recommendations about the financing of projects proposed by the socio-economic partners and the public employment bodies.

5.16. Finally, the Committee calls for close cooperation between the Eures network and Interreg IIA. There are opportunities for close cooperation particularly in the area of vocational training and the labour market. To this end, the socio-economic partners must have broad access to Interreg IIA and their role in Eures should not be reduced any further.

Brussels, 1 October 1997.

The President of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS

() OJ C 127, 7. 5. 1994.