Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Community statistical programme 2003 to 2007" (COM(2001) 683 final — 2001/0281 COD)
Date: 2002-03-20
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU programme, EU statistics, accession to the European Union, data collection, euro area, project evaluation, statistical method

27.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 125/17

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Decision of the European
Parliament and of the Council on the Community statistical programme 2003 to 2007’

(COM(2001) 683 final — 2001/0281 COD)

(2002/C 125/06)

On 18 February 2002 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion, which was
responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 25 February
2002. The rapporteur was Ms Florio.

At its 389th Plenary Session (meeting of 20 March 2002), the Economic and Social Committee adopted
the following opinion with no dissenting votes and three abstentions.

1.

Foreword

1.1.
Regulation (EC) No 322/97, which the Council adopted
on 17 February 1997, provides for the establishment of a
Community statistical programme setting strategies, priorities
and work plans for the period 2003 to 2007.

The strategic importance of

1.2.
the programme has
increased over the years, partly owing to the gathering pace of
economic, monetary and institutional processes, and of social
change within the EU, and partly owing to the practical
progress made by the central and eastern European candidate
countries which will conclude their EU accession negotiations
in 2002.

1.3.
The five-year programme for 2003-2007 is the sixth
successive medium term programme prepared by Eurostat.
Like its predecessors, the programme contains provision for a
mid-term evaluation and a more detailed annual plan, and a
final evaluation.

On the basis of

1.4.
the indications provided by the
Commission and the Council, Eurostat should increasingly
take on a key role in setting ever more standardised criteria for
data collection and analysis and ensuring their timely provision
in statistical programmes.

Eurostat, and the European Statistical System (ESS) in
1.5.
general, have the delicate task of speedily obtaining comparable
data both in sectors which the EU institutions have analysed
and monitored for many years, and concerning socio-econ-
omic trends and the changes which the enlargement process is
causing in the candidate countries and will cause in the
Member States.

1.6.
In this context, while a statistical evaluation of the
eurozone should clearly focus on monetary-related aspects,
care must be taken to use a method which brings out
differences in the three areas: eurozone Member States, non-
eurozone Member States, and candidate countries.

2. Statistics as a source of guidance in the EU

2.1.
Eurostat data are regularly used in the many reports,
periodic monitoring and analyses of economic and social
cohesion in the EU, and in national governments’ planning
papers.

2.1.1.
The Committee would draw attention to the useful-
ness of statistical surveys for boosting the strategies decided at
the Lisbon and Gothenburg Councils.

2.2.
The introduction of the single currency will undoubt-
edly increase the need for monitoring tools to provide a
scientific and realistic basis for economic,
financial and
social decisions that will strengthen the Union and boost its
competitiveness on the world market while also upholding the
principles of equity and social justice.

It is clear that the efficacy and practical value of the
2.3.
ESS depend on the collection of data that are as standardised,
integrated and harmonised as possible.

C 125/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.5.2002

2.4. Member States will have to make significant invest-
ments, both financially and in terms of training, if they are to
iron out the continuing differences in statistical survey criteria
and speed up the adjustment of their national statistical
institutes to EU standards.

3. Statistics and enlargement

3.1.
Statistics have a dual role in the enlargement process
and in negotiations with the candidate countries. Firstly, they
are an integral part of the Community acquis, and secondly
they are basic indicators of the ‘health’ of the candidate
countries’ economies.

The position of the network which Eurostat has set up
2.5.
to handle monetary statistics is somewhat different, as it
directly meets the monitoring requirements of the European
Central Bank. The inconsistencies between the various data
collection systems must be swiftly eliminated if the task of
shaping the EU’s future is not to be left solely up to monetary
policies.

3.2. With the exception of Turkey, all
the candidate
countries submit data to Eurostat four times per year using the
same criteria as the Member States. The national data collected
in the candidate countries are not yet comparable with ESS
data and are therefore still analysed with some caution.
Nonetheless, major progress has been achieved over the last
few years.

By the same token, as the Commission pointed out in
2.6.
its last report on economic and social cohesion, statistical
instruments also need to be brought into line for the economi-
cally lagging regions and areas.

3.3.
The EU has undertaken many schemes to promote
closer harmonisation of data collection criteria, but not all the
problems have been solved definitively. Turkey and Malta
remain outside this system (the Turkish statistical office is
outside the European system).

2.7.
In the ESS, data collection is mainly undertaken
according to the subsidiarity method. National statistical
bodies often work with private agencies which directly or
indirectly influence the reading of statistics and in any event
become ‘shadow’ partners. A serious assessment is needed of
the role which such agencies play in data collection, with a
view to ensuring that statistical instruments are as neutral,
scientific and accurate as possible.

4. Recommendations

4.1.
As in earlier opinions, the Committee calls for cooper-
ation between Eurostat and the national statistical institutes to
be made as effective as possible, so that the ESS can play a
more effective role.

4.2.
The coordinating role of Eurostat must be improved
so as to secure greater harmonisation and effective compara-
bility of data.

2.8.
Lastly, alongside national governments, businesses
etc. (1), there is another major category of Eurostat user to be
considered, namely the national and European socio-economic
organisations. In both the ex ante and ex post evaluations,
there should be consultation of all the parties who use and
provide input for statistics services.

4.3.
As enlargement draws nearer, the statistical institutes
of the candidate countries should be more effectively brought
into the system by stepping up cooperation with the provision
of economic aid for training and adjustment of statistical
instruments.

(1) COM(2001) 683 final — 2001/0281 COD, page 61, point 5.2.1.

4.4.
In order to ensure that statistics are more neutral, the
Committee also thinks that the activity of private agencies
working directly or indirectly within the ESS should be
monitored.

27.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 125/19

In the light of

4.5.
the Committee thinks
the above,
that Eurostat’s funding should be increased, with greater
involvement of Member States’ governments and a coherent
role for the Commission.
4.6.
As already noted, statistical surveys should focus
on already identified, clearly targeted strategies (Lisbon and

Gothenburg Councils). In particular, as noted in an earlier
Committee opinion (1), specific data should be provided on all
aspects of sustainable development.

(1) OJ C 221, 7.8.2001, p. 169 and OJ C 48, 21.2.2002.

Brussels, 20 March 2002.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on ‘Hospice work — an example of voluntary
activities in Europe’

(2002/C 125/07)

On 26 April 2001 the Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 26 of its Rules of Procedure,
decided to instruct the Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship to draw up an information
report on ‘Hospice work — an example of voluntary activities in Europe’.

At the last plenary session on 20 and 21 February 2002, it was decided to transform the information
report into an own-initiative opinion (Rule 23(3) of the Rules of Procedure).

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion unanimously on 27 February 2002. The rapporteur
was Mrs zu Eulenburg.

At its 389th Plenary Session on 20 and 21 March 2002 (meeting of 20 March), the Economic and Social
Committee adopted the following opinion by 80 votes to one, with three abstentions.

This firm and steady determination to do something for the
common good is based on a humanistic view of society and
on the awareness that we all belong to the same ‘solidum’, in
which joint responsibility requires voluntary participation and
high-minded action.

Preamble

Action and commitment by citizens are an essential part of
political and social life and the basis of the Member States’
system of organisation and values. For private individuals
participation and involvement mean taking part in cultural,
social and political life. Society is shaped and developed by
voluntary involvement in intermediary organisations (action
groups, societies, interest groups, trade unions, political par-
ties). When ordinary people make a commitment to the
common good, they create social cohesion and put flesh on
the bones of democracy.

Voluntary activity is a higher form of citizen involvement and
is based on a firm and steady determination to do something
for the common good because we are all responsible for
everyone.

So, this commitment does not correspond to a mere feeling or
a mood, but presupposes a degree of magnanimity and
personal devotion, which gives honorary activities their essen-
tial aspect of being voluntary and gratuitous, without which
there would be a danger of people blindly counting their ‘cost’
simply on the basis of their ‘monetary value’.