Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision No 253/2000/EC establishing the second phase of the Community action programme in the field of education "Socrates" (COM(2002) 193 final)
Date: 2002-07-17
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: action programme, administrative procedure, co-financing, education, international cooperation

7.10.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 241/97

4.15.
The European Economic and Social Committee will
take into account the content of the present opinion in its
work on the Convention on the future of Europe.

4.16.
The European Economic and Social Committee will
disseminate the present opinion to relevant European and
national disability organisations.

Brussels, 17 July 2002.

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 amending Decision No 253/2000/EC establishing the second phase
of the Community action programme in the field of education ‘Socrates’

(COM(2002) 193 final)

(2002/C 241/18)

On 7 June 2002, the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 198
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 20 June 2002. The rapporteur was Mr Bernabei.

At its 392nd Plenary Session (meeting of 17 July 2002), the Economic and Social Committee unanimously
adopted the following opinion.

1.

Introduction

significant specific weight, and at the same time underline its
importance for achieving other goals such as professional
mobility and full employment; we can therefore say that, in
future, education will be a fundamental and indispensable
element of the process of European construction.’ (1)

1.1.
The Socrates programme is based upon Articles 149
and 150 of the EC Treaty which state that the Community
shall contribute to the development of quality education by
encouraging cooperation between Member States through a
series of measures including mobility, exchanges of infor-
mation, teaching the languages of the Member States and
promoting lifelong learning for all EU citizens.

1.2.
The Community supports and supplements the action
of Member States in the field of education, respecting the
responsibility of Member States for the content and organis-
ation of national education systems. Moreover, the focus of
Community policy as defined at the Lisbon and Stockholm
European Councils is the sustainable development of the
European economy as the most competitive knowledge-based
economy in the world. The conclusions of the Barcelona
European Council gave education ‘for the first time, its own

In particular, the Barcelona European Council asked
1.3.
the Commission to take immediate steps to implement five
actions: ensure the transparency of diplomas and qualifi-
cations, especially concerning vocational training; encourage
foreign language learning; promote the European dimension
in education in Member States; activate the Work Programme
on objectives for education and training systems; and adopt
the Resolution on Lifelong Learning before the June 2002
European Council in Seville.

(1) Declaration of the Spanish Presidency at the Education and Youth

Council of 30.5.2002

C 241/98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.10.2002

1.4.
The second phase of the Socrates programme, covering
2000-2006, was adopted on 24 January 2000 by Decision
No 253/2000/EC of the European Parliament and the Council,
with a budget of EUR 1 850 million. The programme is an
integral part of the proposed strategy and focuses on eight
action lines:

programme information, poor dissemination of results and
inadequate monitoring and evaluation. The Parliament called
for increased and better coordination, simplification and
streamlining of procedures, clear agreements with National
Agencies and improved monitoring and control, without
however hampering implementation.

— Comenius, for schools

— Erasmus, for higher education

— Grundtvig,
education

for adult education and other forms of

— Lingua, for foreign language learning

— Minerva, for information and communication technology

development in education

— Observation and Innovation of education systems and

policies

— Joint initiatives with other European programmes

— Accompanying measures, for awareness-raising, dissemi-
nation, improved management and horizontal priorities,
such as fostering equal opportunities and inter-cultural
education.

The Committee gave its views on the launch of the
1.5.
second phase of the Socrates programme in an opinion (1)
which underscored its support
for the objectives of the
programme. The Commission will present a mid-term assess-
ment of the implementation of the programme to the Council,
the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee
and the Committee of the Regions by 30 June 2004 at the
latest.

1.6.
On 28 February 2002, the European Parliament adopt-
ed a Report and a Resolution on the implementation of the
Socrates Programme (2), in accordance with its right and duty
to check that expenditure was managed in the most efficient
way consonant with the attainment of the objectives of
the adopted programme. The Report identifies structural
problems, inadequate coordination with other programmes,
cumbersome and complex procedures and red tape, poor

On 12 March 2002, the Court of Auditors, in turn,
1.7.
presented a Special Report (3) highlighting the design weak-
nesses complicating the structure of the programme, the
38 highly heterogeneous actions, complicated cooperation
between Member States, assessment hampered by unclear
criteria and parameters and lack of an appropriate framework
for synergy with other Community programmes. The Court
also found shortcomings in aspects of management, both
concerning centralised management in the Technical Assist-
ance Office and the decentralised management of National
Agencies,
insufficient
through lack of an adequate status,
resources and the lack of a legal framework defining responsi-
bilities. Lastly, the Court detailed shortcomings in the evalu-
ation reports, the impact of which it considers arguable.

1.8.
In its replies to the Court, the Commission emphasised
that it should not underestimate the tension between defending
the need for strict management, the need to adopt user-
friendly management methods which respect the principle of
proportionality regarding the modest amounts of funding
involved, and the need to simplify the access and management
of a programme which benefits 70 million young people, over
4.5 million teachers, approximately 12 million students from
5 000 higher education establishments as well as millions of
adults following full or part-time courses within the European
Union and in candidate countries.

1.9.
The new Socrates II programme is based on a frame-
work including indicators, a timetable, measures for standardis-
ing and comparing data and the presentation of national
reports by the end of 2003. It provides for the development of
networks of National Agencies by adopting measures to define
responsibilities and the phasing out of the Technical Assistance
Office, in anticipation of an executive agency. The programme
confirms the need for a certain degree of
flexibility in
implementation and introduces measures to simplify control
and monitoring procedures.

( 1) OJ C 410, of 30.12.1998.
( 2) A5 0021/2002

(3) Special Report No 2/2002 of 12.3.2002 on the Socrates and

Youth for Europe Community action programmes

7.10.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 241/99

1.10.
Against this backdrop, the purpose of the present
proposal for a decision is to reduce the administrative burden,
level of funding
excessive in comparison to the modest
concerned — on average, EUR 3 315 per project in 2000 —
and correct the disincentive for small establishments, such as
primary schools. At the same time, the proposal forms a
response to Decision No 253/2000/EC which stipulates that,
as a general rule, Community aid should not amount to more
than 75 % of the total costs of each individual project.

2. The Commission proposal

2.1.
The proposal is designed to amend the legislation on
the second phase of the Socrates programme in order to
introduce a greater degree of flexibility in the co-financing
procedure, over and above the 75 % ceiling established in that
legislation.

2.2.
In accordance with the Commission’s commitment to
the principles of simplification and proportionality as laid
down in the White Paper on Reforming the Commission (1),
the Commission considers that it should not apply ‘a new
requirement on the institutions participating in projects within
the decentralised actions of the programme to account for the
contribution towards their realisation made by staff employed
by these institutions, solely in order to demonstrate that the
Community grant does not normally exceed 75 % of the total
costs of the project’.

The Commission therefore proposes amending the
2.3.
first paragraph of section IV(B)(2) of Decision No 253/2000/
EC in order to provide appropriate flexibility in applying this
co-financing requirement.

2.4.
In this context, eliminating the specific requirement
for recipients to provide proof of their contribution to co-
financing equal to a minimum of 25 % of the total costs of the
project, enables them to continue to apply and report entirely
on the basis of direct costs, without having to justify spending
for staff necessarily employed to carry out the project itself.

grant to co-finance the project, which is enshrined in the new
financial regulations for Socrates II. This requirement would,
in any case, be satisfied by involving members of staff of the
recipient establishment in carrying out the project.

3. Comments

The Committee endorses the Commission proposal to
3.1.
the extent that it aims to strike the correct balance between
the basic principle of co-financing on the one hand — with
the recipients taking an active and responsible part in the
project by contributing staff and time alongside the Com-
munity funding — and the need for simplification, less red
tape and promotion of synergies on the other hand. These
should be the hallmarks of action to create quality human
resources and strengthen European cooperation in the field of
education and training, in the light of the Lisbon strategy and
the objectives set at Stockholm and at the Barcelona European
Council in March 2002.

3.2.
The Committee therefore welcomes the proposal for a
technical amendment regarding the method of granting finan-
cial aid to projects organised under this programme. Nonethe-
less, it considers that several aspects of the issues raised by the
Resolution of the European Parliament of 28 February 2002
and by the Court of Auditors’ Special Report No 2/2002 of
12 March 2002 have not been dealt with and merit further
analysis and solutions.

3.3.
In particular, over and above the revision to apply the
principles of simplification and proportionality to the co-
financing procedure, the following needs should be addressed:

— ensuring coherence, coordination and transparency for
the vast and complex web of decentralised actions in an
enlarged Union of 25-28 Member States,

2.5.
According to the Commission proposal, this is a purely
technical amendment with no repercussions in terms of
finances or human resources. It does not imply any departure
from the principle of requiring the recipient of a Community

— improving information and the dissemination of results
through appropriate data networks and the development
of the Symmetry Information Management System,

( 1) COM(2000) 200 final/2.

— increased and enhanced synergies with other Community
programmes, especially with a view to creating a Euro-
pean Education and Research Area by activating joint

C 241/100

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.10.2002

initiatives which have been planned but have yet to be
carried out,

— ensuring the efficiency of the new system of indicators,
standardisation and comparability of data, monitoring
and control in order to carry out impact assessments,
with a view to boosting the programming potential and
direction of actions under the Socrates programme,
without causing an unnecessary and unconstructive
administrative burden for recipients,

Brussels, 17 July 2002.

— further

streamlining

procedures,
especially those regarding the payment of often very
modest amounts of funding.

and accelerating

3.4.
The Committee therefore asks the Commission to give
due attention to these issues and to the measures deemed
appropriate, in the interim evaluation report on the implemen-
tation of the Socrates II programme which it is to submit to
the European Economic and Social Committee by 30 June
2004.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission
— Adapting to change in work and society: a new Community strategy on health and safety at
work 2002-2006’

(COM(2002) 118 final)

(2002/C 241/19)

On 11 March 2002, the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned communication.

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 20 June 2002. The rapporteur was Mr Etty.

At its 392nd Plenary Session (meeting of 17 July 2002), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the
following opinion with 123 votes in favour and five abstentions.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
The Commission’s Communication comes after a
period of several years without much strategic thinking on
health and safety at work. In that period, the world of work
has changed considerably and new problems have come up in
the EU which urgently need to be addressed.

1.3.
The Commission has prepared this Communication in
close consultation with all the parties concerned. The European
Economic and Social Committee has played its part in this
process by means of the Explanatory Opinion of July last year,
which had been requested by Commissioner Diamantopoulou
in December 2000 (1).

1.4.
In the present Opinion, the Committee will not repeat
elements from its July 2001 Opinion which have been taken
on board by the Commission.

1.2.
In addition to that, the forthcoming enlargement of
the EU poses a host of challenges in the area of health and
safety at work which have to be addressed systematically and
with vision.

(1) Opinion on the Request by the European Commission for the
Committee to draw up an exploratory opinion in anticipation of
the Commission Communication on health and safety at work,
OJ C 260, 17.9.2001.