Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions establishing the guidelines for the second round of the Community Initiative EQUAL concerning transnational cooperation to promote new means of combating all forms of discrimination and inequalities in connection with the labour market — Free movement of good ideas (COM(2003) 840 final)
Date: 2004-06-02
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU employment policy, EU initiative, anti-discriminatory measure, equal treatment, labour market

C 241/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.9.2004

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the
Commission to the Council,
the European Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions establishing the guidelines for the second round of
the Community Initiative EQUAL concerning transnational cooperation to promote new means of
combating all forms of discrimination and inequalities in connection with the labour market —
“Free movement of good ideas”’

the European Parliament,

(COM(2003) 840 final)

(2004/C 241/09)

On 5 January 2004 the Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the ‘Communication from the
Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and
the Committee of the Regions establishing the guidelines for the second round of the Community Initiative
EQUAL concerning transnational cooperation to promote new means of combating all forms of discrimi-
nation and inequalities in connection with the labour market — “Free movement of good ideas”’.

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 May 2004. The rapporteur was Mr Sharma.

At its 409th plenary session (meeting of 2 June 2004), the European Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following opinion by 185 votes for, one against and nine abstentions.

1. The content of the Communication

view to identifying good practice in relation to the social and
vocational integration of asylum seekers.

The purpose of this Communication is two-fold. It illus-
1.1
the early results of EQUAL, pointing to
some of
trates
promising practices which can already contribute new ways of
tackling discrimination and inequality in the labour market —
‘free movement of good ideas’. It also sets the scene for the
second round of EQUAL, confirming the principles and archi-
tecture and introducing the technicalities of the programme.

1.2
At this early stage, the most visible success in EQUAL is
partnership, the objective of which is to bring together actors
who cooperate in a Development Partnership to develop an
integrated approach to multi-dimensional problems.

1.3
The architecture of EQUAL has integrated essential
features of good governance as it addresses cross-cutting policy
issues, and works across and beyond institutional boundaries.

1.4
EQUAL adopts a thematic approach, and following
consultation, Member States have agreed to retain the themes
of EQUAL unchanged for the second round.

1.5
For the first time, in round 2, the EQUAL programme is
taking European enlargement into account. As a result, support
for the Roma population and for victims of human trafficking
will be sought from all themes as the scale of these challenges
significantly increases.

1.7
Even though work is on-going, and validated results
cannot yet be drawn, the first round of EQUAL which started
in 2001 can already illustrate promising practices of new ways
to tackle discrimination and inequality,
inter alia as regards:
disability and sexual orientation, moves to retain workers
longer in employment, the setting-up of business by unem-
ployed or inactive persons, the contribution of immigrants to
employment and economic growth, steps to promote adapt-
ability in the labour market, building blocks for
lifelong
learning strategies, eliminating gender segregation in sectors
and occupations, share of care and household responsibilities,
corporate social responsibility, re-integration to combat exclu-
sion and the social economy to create more jobs and enhance
their quality.

1.8 Whilst the thematic approach remains stable, EQUAL
will nonetheless address emerging challenges in the second
round, particularly after enlargement, such as the issue of
discrimination faced by the Roma people and victims of traf-
ficking.

EQUAL provides a good opportunity for

1.6
the new
Member States to work with the existing Member States with a

Cooperation across Member States is a fundamental
1.9
aspect of EQUAL and works well, manifesting itself at a
number of
levels: between Development Partnerships and
Thematic networks.

28.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 241/25

1.10 Mainstreaming,
i.e. the integration and incorporation
of new ideas and approaches into policy and practice, is chal-
lenging, but in order to obtain the maximum impact from
EQUAL, results must be analysed, benchmarked and dissemi-
nated in order to have an impact both within Member States
and across the Union.

1.11
Evaluation comprises two parts: a mid-term review and
on-going evaluation. The former is to be carried out by means
of national mid-term evaluation reports which were submitted
to the Commission in December 2003, building on which the
European level evaluation was prepared. The EU-wide evalua-
tors of EQUAL do not suggest any changes in the overall archi-
tecture for EQUAL. However, on the basis of the reports of the
national evaluators, and on their own field work and analysis, a
number of issues that may limit the effectiveness of EQUAL
have been highlighted, and a set of recommendations to
enhance effectiveness are made. Following this mid-term
evaluation the existing Member States will continue to produce
annual interim reports.

2.4
Discussion of European Employment Strategy, Social
Inclusion Process, the Treaty, European Refugee Fund and other
policy instruments is welcomed as a means of providing
context for EQUAL and provides an important opportunity for
groups not normally involved in European policy-making to
understand and connect with it. Additional reading or informa-
tion sources and referencing could encourage further investiga-
tion by such parties. Discrimination and inequality are major
factors in exclusion but familiarisation with the bureaucracy of
change is important
to the mainstreaming of EQUAL by
groups and individuals that are inexperienced in influencing
policy. These guidelines may be a first point of contact for
some groups.

EQUAL's

emphasis on innovation (Section 5)

is
2.5
discussed in relation to new approaches to policy delivery.
EQUAL guidance on innovation (Section 11.4, point 17) also
discusses new policy development processes. The potential of
development partnerships to create empowerment and good
governance in policy development as well as delivery should
not be overlooked.

2. General comments

2.1
The enthusiasm for partnership (Section 3) is welcomed
and recognition of the importance of encouraging partnership
that have not previously collaborated is
between groups
endorsed. This is one of the most significant factors in the
success of EQUAL and that administrative and support
processes should be designed to uphold partnership working as
the highest priority.

2.2
The intention of Action 1 (described in Section 3, para-
graph 4) is well founded. Simplifying processes for progression
to development work will help to maintain momentum and to
ensure that the success of the programme does not rely too
heavily on the people who originate it.

2.3
The very wide range of partners involved in EQUAL
means that their active participation is likely to encourage
development of good governance. Encouraging empowerment
in the principles and architecture of EQUAL should be para-
mount to good governance and a useful opportunity to empha-
sise this was missed in Section 3.1. The continuation of
networks created through EQUAL (Section 3.1, paragraph 4)
will rely on empowerment of all parties to influence policy and
practice of other stakeholders. Discussion of the inclusion of
those directly affected by discrimination is welcomed but it
should be recognised that implementation of EQUAL through
European, national, regional and local levels is often hierarch-
ical and can increase bureaucracy and reduce ownership unless
such problems are foreseen and avoided.
the
control of funding should be highlighted as a mechanism that
often effects empowerment.

In particular,

Reinforcement of

2.6
the mainstreaming activities recog-
nises its importance. Enabling creation of new projects by
‘multipliers’ could lead to greater innovation. It is important to
recognise that the process of innovation undertaken in develop-
ment partnerships does not necessarily involve the right people
to mainstream the outcomes.

2.7
The evaluation process recommends greater focus on
job retention, quality of employment and direct job creation.
Attracting individuals working in SMEs to participate in activ-
ities such as life-long learning and career planning for people
in their 30s and 40s might require innovative means of engage-
ment. It is important to work with networking organisations
(such as trades unions) and to manage the bureaucracy to
centralise as much of the paperwork as is possible.

2.8
For SMEs and NGOs the bureaucratic challenges of
EQUAL are recognised but the same challenges are also faced
by local authorities and the new Member States already have
concerns regarding administration of Structural Funds. Admin-
istrative problems amongst local authorities are likely to be
passed on to SME and NGO partners and deter uptake by these
groups. Finding solutions for SMEs and NGOs might be
expected to benefit organisations throughout the system.

The timing of

2.9
this initiative is good in regard to
informing development of European policy and strategy. The
Lisbon process has its mid-term review in July 2005 and the
EU Employment Strategy is a key element of that. New Struc-
tural Funds are also due to be proposed in July 2004 and the
European Cohesion report also provides some opportunity to
mainstream outputs from EQUAL.

C 241/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.9.2004

3. Specific comments

3.1
The concepts on which the EQUAL are founded are
accepted. Specific comments therefore focus more on mechan-
isms.

3.2
In the first round of EQUAL, the transition between the
partnership building Action 1 phase and development phase
Action 2 caused a loss of momentum for some programmes. A
new ‘confirmation step’ is proposed that will reduce the admin-
istration of approval for Action 2 and ensure that expenditure
remains eligible throughout the transition.

3.3
The focus of the transition from Action 1 to Action 2 is
the formation of the Development Partnership Agreement with
its aim, objectives and action plan. Continuity is important and
partnerships should understand how their empowerment activ-
ities, administration procedures and staffing could support that
continuation. There is considerable inequality in the support
provided by Managing Authorities to Development Partnership
which are not always working adequately. Member States
should learn from each other as to the type of support needed
to develop effective Development Partnership. Continuity of
staffing might be a particular problem in the new Member
States where personnel might move more regularly as a result
of the new opportunities opening up.

3.4
The development of transnational partnerships is a very
beneficial part of EQUAL. Partnerships should be encouraged
to be flexible, to react to and build on the inevitable changes in
programme plans that result from innovations made. Flexibility
in the budget is crucial to that.

3.5
Financial rules are the same for all Structural Funds but
processes of accounting for finances and activities should be
carefully managed so that the administrative burden does not
deter those best placed to deliver empowerment opportunities.

3.6
Previous experience of the Commission indicates that
only 85 % of allocated funding will be spent. Capturing under-
spend and using it for further mainstreaming is suggested.
Capturing under-spend should not undermine programmes
suffering from slippage or change either by requiring excessive

Brussels, 2 June 2004.

administration that detracts from delivery, or by reducing
funding prematurely.

The list of mainstreaming activities in Section 9a is not
3.7
exhaustive but it is felt to be particularly important to recognise
the role of business support alongside mentoring. Actors such
as social partners,
including trades unions, are particularly
important. Development of Round 2 EQUAL proposals is also
an important part of developing the outcomes from Round 1
where appropriate.

3.8 Mainstreaming is an approach or strategy and should
not be regarded as a goal
in itself. Mainstreaming does add
value but must be supported by underlying equality instru-
ments such as the new equal treatment legislation or positive
action policies. It is unacceptable that a number of Member
States have yet to comply with the anti-discrimination direc-
tives by enacting laws to establish a common standard of
equality in these countries.

3.9
The guidance identifies ‘Equal opportunities’ as having a
low take-up (Section 10.1, para. 3) and being understood in a
limited or traditional way (Section 10.1, para 6). Communica-
tion of the different ways of perceiving and dealing with Equal
Opportunities in the Member States would greatly benefit
development of new programmes. For example, gender inequal-
ities are addressed in one theme by a small number of groups
but across the programme most groups are working on this.

The negative impact of different

3.10
timing/processes
between Member States (Section 10.1, paragraph 5) goes
beyond the setting-up of transnational partnerships where it
has been addressed for Round 2. The setting-up of administra-
tive and monitoring procedures,
timing of Action 3, and
overall project duration can all differ between countries and
can therefore be counter-productive in transnational working.

3.11
Selection procedures for Round 2 programmes would
benefit from access to advice from the two lead countries for
each theme so that the managing authorities can benefit from
some coordination between Member States.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH