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"
Date: 2000-10-19
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU Member State, EU programme, action programme, cooperation policy, marginalisation

16.1.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 14/69

5.4.
It is vital that an effective network be established for
disseminating good practices at local level. It is also worth
publicising experiences that did not achieve the desired results,
as lessons can be drawn from the mistakes. At all events, there

should be a periodic appraisal of the results achieved, not only
in terms of jobs created but also of their quality, and an
analysis of the progress, growth or ‘mortality’ of small and
micro-enterprises.

Brussels, 19 October 2000.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS

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) ‘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).

The proposal aims to create a dynamic and open
1.2.
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

C 14/70

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16.1.2001

development of common methodologies and thematic
studies;

2. General comments

— 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.

The Commission will ensure the implementation of
1.5.
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.

All institutional and social stakeholders will be called

1.6.
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).

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
therefore constitutes a decisive turning point,
priorities
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.

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).

2.3.
The ESC notes that now, for the first time in many
years, the EU’s economic situation constitutes the ideal frame-
work conditions for focusing attention on social and human
development and that European governments have made
serious commitments in this regard (1). 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

The

legal basis of

is Treaty
1.10.
Article 137(2), subparagraphs 2 and 3, in conjunction with
Articles 2 and 136.

the programme

(1) See Copenhagen and Copenhagen + 5.

16.1.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 14/71

the disabled,

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
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.

In its opinions (1) the ESC has also on numerous
2.4.
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
the programme do not go far enough in exploiting
of
the favourable climate created by the Lisbon decisions, the
Communication on Building an inclusive Europe and, recently,
the Social Agenda.

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 (2) which, with a view to
defining the indicators needed to evaluate the various situ-
ations, suggests as a first step the in-depth examination of
the following broad themes:
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.

income, employment,

Among the priorities, the ESC calls for a focus on the
2.5.1.
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:

Furthermore, the draft programme could have defined
2.5.
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

— a better, and different, definition of the priorities, includ-
ing 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 (3)) of an exemplary nature
based on concerted action between the various stake-
holders and run as part of a network;

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

(2) Progress report of the High Level Working Party on Social

Protection — Brussels, 18.5.2000, nr. 8634/00.

(3) ‘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.)

C 14/72

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16.1.2001

— 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 (1) (including
macroeconomic, financial,
industrial, competition and
agricultural policy) and establishment of a viable screen-
ing 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
suggesting remedies
where necessary;

implementation,

— 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.

Provided that such action really does bring a lasting
2.6.1.
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 mislead-
ing. 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 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 role of

the objectives to be addressed in combating exclusion (2), 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 organis-
ations (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 partici-
pation mechanisms at all levels. Thus it is important for the
Commission to remain open to the participation of networks
(even new networks (3)) 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 import-
ance 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.

(1) as indeed pointed out in the Communication ‘Building an inclusive

Europe’, points 2.4 and 5.1 — COM(2000) 79 final.

(2) Presidency Conclusions, point 32.
(3) Contrary to what is provided for in the annex, action 3.1.

16.1.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 14/73

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.

— 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.

The ESC is somewhat disappointed with the proposed
2.11.
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 pro-
gramme (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
liaison, monitoring and support with the
for observation,
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
regional observ-
atories (1);

appropriate,

— 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;

(1) Drawing in particular on the experience of the Copenhagen

follow-up committees.

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.’

The Council of Europe’s revised Social Charter should

3.2.
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,
responsibility among all
‘between Member States’.

insert ‘within a framework of shared
the operators concerned’ after

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).

The Objectives (Article 3) should be reworded as

3.6.
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.’.

C 14/74

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16.1.2001

In Article 4(1) (Community actions), rewrite the first

3.7.
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.’.

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

Article 6 (Financing): the ESC urges that the reference
3.9.
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 interpret-
ation of the programme and its objectives. This would be
better entrusted to the European Committee on Social Protec-
tion (ECSP) which according to the Lisbon Conclusions is

Brussels, 19 October 2000.

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 (Partici-
pation 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.

As regards Monitoring and evaluation (Article 10),
3.13.
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.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS