Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Community Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity — PROGRESS (COM(2004) 488 final)
Date: 2005-04-06
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU employment policy, European Employment Strategy, European social policy, action programme, anti-discriminatory measure, gender equality, social integration

14.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/67

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Decision of the
European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Community Programme for Employment
and Social Solidarity — PROGRESS

(COM(2004) 488 final)

(2005/C 255/13)

On 9 September 2004 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned communi-
cation.

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 15 March 2005. The rapporteur was Mr Greif.

At its 416th plenary session held on 6 and 7 April 2005 (meeting of 6 April), the European Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 127 votes to 2 with 17 abstentions.

1. Background and key points of the PROGRESS Com-

munity Programme

In its Communication on the 2007-2013 financial
1.1
perspective (1), the Commission highlights the crucial
impor-
tance of the social policy agenda to implementing the Lisbon
strategy. In this context, the Commission adopted a package of
proposals in July 2004 that were designed to simplify and
streamline employment and social policy spending in the EU,
especially in respect of the financial rules.

1.2
According to the Commission, the proposed rationalisa-
tion should enhance the visibility, clarity and coherence of the
instruments concerned and thus benefit above all the end-user.
This is to be achieved mainly by simplifying instruments in
legal and management terms, and by streamlining the budget
structure and avoiding duplication.

— The reduction in red tape, paring of rules and greater
decentralisation should thus make the new European Social
Fund (ESF, 2007-2013) easier to administer and better
equipped to link funding with strategies
to promote
employment and consolidate economic and social cohesion
the European Employment Strategy
in the context of
(EES) (2).

for

Social

One of

in question is

the new instruments

Employment
the

the
1.3
and
Solidarity, or
Programme
PROGRESS (3), which is
subject of Communication
COM(2004) 488 final. This programme is intended to stream-
line funding for a large number of measures that support
Commission employment and social policy. The only matter
excluded from PROGRESS is the financing of ‘social dialogue’
and ‘free movement of workers’ (4), Community bodies respon-
sible for employment conditions (5), and the planned European
Gender Institute (6). Thus PROGRESS is a way of bringing
together the following specific Community action programmes:
combating discrimination, gender equality, cooperation to
combat social exclusion and incentive measures in the field of
employment, as well as a number of budget lines relating to
working conditions.

1.4
Under the programme for 2007-2013, which has a
budget of nearly EUR 629 million and is intended to comple-
ment ESF measures, with different priorities for the various
programme sections, support is to be provided for three broad
types of measure:

— analytical activities (e.g. collecting and disseminating data;
carrying out studies, analyses and impact assessments; and
developing
that
enhance understanding of the issues involved, make for
more effective implementation in the various
spheres
funded, and improve coordination with other EU policy
areas and strategies;

statistical methods

evaluations)

and

— The Commission is also endeavouring to improve the distri-
bution of resources by merging existing programmes into
coherent programmes with harmonised implementing
provisions. One aim of this is to reduce from 28 to two the
number of budget lines relating to employment and social
policy that are directly managed by the Commission.

(1) Communication from the Commission to the Council and the Euro-
pean Parliament Building our common future – policy challenges and
budgetary means of the enlarged Union 2007-2013 (COM(2004) 101
final)

(2) See the EESC opinion on the European Social Fund and related
programmes, adopted at the plenary session held on 9 March 2005
(rapporteur: Mrs Engeler-Kefer).

(3) PROGRESS stands for Programme for Employment and Social Soli-

darity

(4) Proposals on providing financial support for social dialogue and
free movement of workers (especially the EURES network), and
studies and reports on social policy costing EUR 480 million, will
be presented at a later date in a separate communication.

(5) The European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and
Working Conditions (Dublin) and the European Agency for Health
and Safety at Work (Bilbao).

(6) The purpose of the European Gender Institute (EGI) is to provide
the Union and Member States with comparable information and
data on questions of gender equality and to promote the develop-
ment, analysis and distribution of information on promoting gender
equality. The Commission plans to issue a communication on the
matter at the beginning of 2005.

C 255/68

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.10.2005

— activities involving mutual learning, exchange of informa-
tion, awareness-raising, and identifying and promoting
good practice, as well as measures relating to monitoring
and evaluation, e.g. assessment by independent experts
(peer review), which should help to establish the state of
play in the Member States and thus also to improve the
application of EU rules;

— supporting key players in order to promote exchange of
good practice, information provision, preventive and aware-
ness-raising measures, as well as discussion processes, e.g.
by setting up working parties of national officials, devel-
oping networking at EU level or funding networks of
experts in the various spheres of activity.

1.5

The programme is to be divided into five sections:

— employment: supporting implementation of the European
Employment Strategy (EES), in particular by evaluating and
monitoring implementation of the European Employment
Guidelines and Recommendations, studying the interaction
between the EES and other policy areas, and raising aware-
ness of employment-policy challenges faced by regional and
local players;

— social protection and social inclusion: supporting imple-
mentation of the open coordination method in this sphere,
as well as improving understanding of all aspects of poverty
and analysing the link between this goal and other policy
areas;

— working conditions:

aimed at
supporting
improving the working environment and working condi-
tions, including safety and health at work;

activities

— antidiscrimination and diversity: promoting effective
application of the non-discrimination principle in Article
13 of the EU Treaty, and incorporating this principle into
all EU strategies;

— gender equality: effectively applying the principle of
gender equality and promoting gender mainstreaming in EU
strategies.

1.6
The programme is open to public and private bodies
and actors. It is aimed in particular at the Member States, local
and regional authorities, public employment
services and
national statistics offices. Specialised bodies, universities and
research institutes, as well as the social partners and non-
governmental organisations, may also take part.

EU assistance will take the form either of a service contract
granted further to a call for tender or of a subsidy amounting
to no more than 80 % of costs following a call for project
proposals.

PROGRESS is
to be managed by a single programme
committee, replacing the current four (one for each of the four
action programmes).

1.7
A total of EUR 628.8 million has been budgeted for the
seven-year programming period. This breaks down as follows
over the programme sections:

— Employment: 21 %

— Social protection and inclusion: 28 %

— Working conditions: 8 % (7)

— Antidiscrimination and diversity: 23 %

— Gender equality: 8 % (8).

A maximum of 2 % of the total budget has been earmarked for
administrative expenses, notably the programme committee
that will oversee PROGRESS. Ten percent of the total budget
(EUR 62.9 million, or about EUR 9.2 million per year) is not
allocated to a particular programme section, but kept as a
‘reserve’ to be allocated by the programme committee to the
programme sections each year in accordance with future devel-
opments arising over the course of the programme.

Promoting the devel-
statistical
opment of
tools, methods
and
indicators

Improving the knowl-
edge and understanding
situation
of
the
prevailing
the
in
Member States through
analysis, evaluation and
monitoring
of
measures

General objectives of PROGRESS: overview

Supporting and moni-
toring the implemen-
tation of EU law and
in
policy objectives
States
the Member
their
assessing
and
impact

Promoting
networking, mutual
learning, and identifi-
cation and dissemina-
tion of good practice
at EU level

Raising awareness of
stakeholders and the
general public about
strategies
pursued
under PROGRESS

Improving the ability of
the main EU networks
to
and
promote
support
Community
strategies

(7) A further EUR 266.4 million in funding is earmarked under the
heading of working conditions for the European Foundation for the
Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Dublin) and the
European Agency for Health and Safety at Work (Bilbao).

(8) In addition, the Commission announces in the explanatory memor-
andum of the draft decision on PROGRESS that it will shortly put
forward a proposal on gender equality with a view to setting up a
European Gender
Institute (EGI), with a planned budget of
EUR 52.7 million for 2007-2013. Establishment of the Gender
Institute should be budget-neutral, since this sum has already been
deducted
PROGRESS
programme.

from the proposed funding

the

for

14.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/69

2. General and specific comments on the Commission's

proposal

not limited to actors at EU level but also includes support for
cross-border exchanges of relevant stakeholders bilaterally and
multilaterally between individual Member States. The EESC also
thinks it is necessary to include ‘better understanding of all
types of discrimination’ as an explicit objective in Article 8.

explicitly welcomes

the policy areas relevant

If enhanced competitiveness

2.1
in a knowledge-based
economy is really to be accompanied by sustainable job-
creating economic growth, with better quality of employment
and greater social cohesion, as set out in the Lisbon strategy,
then it is crucial that adequate financial resources and instru-
to
ments be provided for in all
PROGRESS. The EESC therefore
the
present Commission proposal on PROGRESS 2007-2013, and
takes great interest in the initiative, especially in the light of
current contributions to the Lisbon mid-term review, since this
framework programme will be one of the key funding instru-
ments, alongside the ESF,
for the 2006-2010 social policy
agenda, which is currently also in the process of adoption.
Despite its generally positive assessment of PROGRESS, the
Committee would like to follow up its general comments on
this new Community financial instrument with some reserva-
tions about specific points of the Commission document that it
require further clarification and explanation in the
feels
proposal for a decision.

2.2 General objectives of the programme

the priorities and form of

In the light of the Lisbon strategy, the EESC is pleased
2.2.1
(without prejudice to ongoing discussions
that the proposal
about
the 2007-2013 financial
perspective) clearly emphasises the need to maintain existing
Community funding in the sphere of employment and social
policy.

Bringing all those Community financial

2.2.2
instruments
for social and employment policy for which the Commission
has direct administrative responsibility more closely together
within a single framework programme can certainly be seen as
a way of ensuring adequate funding for strengthening the
social dimension of the Lisbon strategy and especially also as a
means of coordinating spheres of social policy under the social
policy agenda.

2.2.3
The EESC broadly endorses the general objectives set
out in Article 2 of the proposal. However, it would recommend
that the promotion of cross-border exchanges of stakeholders
active in the sphere of social policy should also be explicitly
mentioned as an objective, since for many potential PROGRESS
applicants it is a key point of reference for taking part in EU
projects.

In this context, the EESC does not fully understand
2.2.4
to promoting
why Article 2 (4) of
networking only ‘at EU level’. We think that the list of general
PROGRESS objectives should be expanded in order to ensure
that the mutual learning to be promoted through PROGRESS is

the proposal

refers

2.3 Coherence and complementarity with other policy areas

2.3.1
The new programme must be seen as part of the
‘streamlining’ drive pursued by the Commission since 2003 in
in this case, of
respect of economic and social policy, and,
employment policy in particular. In this context, Article 15 of
the present proposal for a decision — which refers to mechan-
isms and activities of the Commission and the Member States
for coordinating PROGRESS activities with other Community
and EU policies, instruments and actions — seems inadequate,
because it covers only a narrow policy area. Research, justice
and home affairs, culture, education, training and youth policy
are important areas for action, which certainly need to be coor-
dinated with employment, education and training, and social
security, but other areas, such as regional and cohesion policy,
are completely omitted.

2.3.2
The Committee believes that PROGRESS should also
be linked to other policy areas which have just as much impact
— at least — on the employment situation and social inclusion,
equal opportunities, etc. In particular, as well as prioritising
education and training and lifelong learning, coordination with
strategies and activities relating to economic,
financial and
competition policy should also be required here, in order to
ensure that these policies at European and national level do not
conflict with the general objectives of the programme. The
EESC therefore recommends making appropriate additions in
Articles 15(1) and 15(2) of the proposal.

2.4 Financial framework

as

financial

As well

the overall

in Article 17 of

2.4.1
framework of
EUR 628.8 million for implementing Community activities for
the
the seven-year programming period,
proposal the Commission also sets out minimum percentage
appropriations for each programme section. In the EESC's view,
the Commission fails to clearly set out how the projected
budget figures for the programme as a whole fit with the
current funding situation for the existing Action Programmes.
It would be useful to have comparative data on the ongoing
Action Programmes here, especially so as to be able to estimate
whether adequate allowance has been made for inflation and in
what way and to what extent the current and future enlarge-
ments (EU-25 plus Bulgaria and Romania) have been taken into
consideration in setting the budget. At present only unofficial
information is available from the Commission about this.

C 255/70

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.10.2005

2.4.2
In the context of the current mid-term review of the
Lisbon strategy and given the broad scope of the programme,
the EESC seriously questions the Commission's endeavour to
maintain the budgetary status quo in the policy areas covered
by PROGRESS. The third paragraph of Section 2 of
the
Commission's explanatory memorandum refers to the provision
of ‘modest financial means’ to support the social policy agenda.
The Committee does not understand this reasoning at all; it has
more than once noted the need to allow for ‘Lisbonisation of
the EU budget’ in the context of the financial perspective, since
it must at any rate be made clear that adequate financial
resources will be made available to achieve the objectives of
both the European Employment Strategy and the social policy
agenda. (9) The EESC therefore strongly recommends
that
adequate resources be provided for in the projected budget for
PROGRESS.

2.4.3
In addition, Article 17 sets an upper limit of 2 % of
the total PROGRESS budget (i.e. EUR 12.6 million) for adminis-
trative expenditure and earmarks 10 % (i.e. EUR 62.9 million,
or EUR 9.2 million per year) as a reserve for annual allocation
by the programme
committee between the programme
sections. Although the EESC realises that a degree of flexibility
is required for a seven-year programming period to accommo-
date future developments, we still feel it is important to insist
on the need for full transparency and European Parliament
involvement in such largely autonomous management of ‘flex-
ible’ funds by the Commission and the Member States.

instance, Article 8 establishes

2.4.4
The Committee also thinks that the proposed division
of funding between the different PROGRESS sections should be
more specific. For
‘gender
equality’ as a section of the PROGRESS programme. However,
this
section receives a considerably smaller appropriation
(Article 17) than the other objectives. What is the justification
for this? The explanation that the budget for a gender institute
which is to be set up (EUR 52.7 million) has been deducted
from the PROGRESS programme is not persuasive, not least
since the remit, structure and working methods of the gender
institute have not even been established. The Committee feels
that is objectively quite indefensible to restrict resources in the
sphere of equality and equal opportunities policy in this way,
in view, among other things, of the Lisbon objective on female
employment,
the disadvantaged position of women in the
labour market, wage discrimination and gender mainstreaming.
We therefore urge that the funding earmarked for the Gender
Institute should not be deducted from the total PROGRESS
financial framework, as the current proposal evidently intends,
but that separate funding be provided for.

Commission has been pursuing since 2003 in the spheres of
social protection and employment. The Committee in principle
endorses simplification and rationalisation, provided they really
do result in cost savings, prevent duplication and improve
administrative clarity and transparency.

2.5.2
However, the Committee sees certain difficulties here
with the shift from clearly defined, specific programmes to a
single, much larger programme that may be less easy to
manage. Given the extremely wide range of areas covered by
this new programme, does it make sense for similar objectives
to apply for each programme section? Is the projected budget
even sufficient to cover these? Steps must in any case be taken
to ensure that, in view of the broad scope of the programme,
administrative simplification does not mean forfeiting necessary
priority-setting in the various programme sections. It is impor-
tant to ensure that the declared administrative simplification
results not just in better technical programme management but
also in an appropriate structure that is favourable for the target
groups.

2.6 The programme committee and the role of the Member States

2.6.1
Article 13 of the proposal states that the Commission
is to be assisted in implementing the programme by a single
committee, replacing the current four committees (one for each
action programme). Membership of this committee is to vary,
with different national representatives meeting according to the
matter in hand.

2.6.2
The question arises of how such a committee should
work and what its membership should be in order to ensure
the general and specific objectives are properly and
that
promptly addressed in each of the five programme areas. Will
not this require a lot more red tape, and above all a need for
considerable interministerial coordination at Member State
level? What implications does this have for small, and in this
case especially, new Member States? Care should be taken in
general that rationalisation at Commission level does not cause
administrative problems for the Member States and that appro-
priate account is taken of the social partners and other civil
society organisations in programme management.

2.5 Rationalisation at Commission level

2.5.1
The objectives of simplification and rationalisation
represent an extension to support policy of the ‘streamlining’ the

(9) See EESC opinion of 9.2.2005: Employment policy: the role of the EESC
following the enlargement of the EU and from the point of view of the
Lisbon Process (rapporteur: Mr Greif), point 6.8.

The EESC also notes that rationalisation must not
2.6.3
result in corner-cutting when implementing the programme,
especially as regards the transparency of the committee's work
in connection with the programme, and the input of
the
Member States into decision-making processes and project
selection. It is at any rate necessary to ensure proper manage-
ment, efficacy and participation, as well as adequate monitoring
and follow-up by the Commission, in qualitative and quantita-
tive terms.

14.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/71

2.7 Simplification for users and access to the programme

2.7.1
According to the Commission, the proposed rationali-
sation should enhance the visibility, clarity and coherence of
the instruments concerned, benefiting above all the end-user.
Potential users should find it easier to apply for funding under
the different sections of the new programme thanks to standar-
dised procedures and harmonised implementing provisions.
End-users are therefore to have access to a ‘one stop shop’; this
is important when, for instance, a project is geared towards the
objectives of more than one programme sector.

2.7.2
However, without knowing the specific implementing
provisions, it is in many cases difficult to establish the extent to
which an idea for rationalising and improving resource distri-
bution combines the different types of objectives: (a) a larger,
centralised programme structure; (b) lean, efficient management
at every level (Commission, Member States, project promoters);
(c) reporting and financial security requirements; (d) as direct
and open access to the programme as possible for all target
groups. This calls for an active strategy with respect to imple-
menting provisions in order to overcome anticipated conflicts
between objectives. The Committee believes that the success of
the new programme will be strongly determined by whether
the heralded simplification also translates into benefits for the
user. The Committee therefore thinks that the implementing
provisions to be adopted (especially the ‘one-stop shop’) will
largely determine whether the objectives of simplification and
rationalisation can really be achieved as an ‘added value’ for
users.

2.7.3
The ‘proximity’ of Community resource allocation will
thus have to be measured above all by how much easier access
to the programme and to projects becomes for informed appli-
cants, and whether it
is possible to prevent project access
becoming restricted. The broader scope of the programme,
experience with other action programmes and Community
initiatives, and current experience with the Commission's new
financial rules, show that measures are needed to ensure that
the implementing provisions do not have a prohibitive effect
on smaller-scale applicants. The question is therefore what
‘compensatory’ measures could be taken here to guarantee that,
despite growing paperwork requirements (e.g. provision of
bank guarantees, credit
tests, audit certificates), PROGRESS
remains not only useful, but also attractive and accessible, for
civil
specialists and
complex accounting systems.

society organisations without project

2.8 Cooperation with civil society organisations

Article 9(2)

2.8.1
(Types of Action) requires that actions
under the heading ‘Mutual learning, Awareness and Dissemina-
tion activities’ should have a ‘strong EU dimension’, ‘an appro-
priate scale’, and ‘real EU added-value’, and restricts responsi-
bility for such actions, inter alia to ‘(sub)national authorities’.
These criteria are vague, leaving considerable room for inter-

pretation. The Committee therefore recommends ensuring that
the strict use of these criteria in calls to tender/applications
does not result
for
instance to large-scale projects and thus to certain target
groups and stakeholders.

in activities being markedly restricted,

2.8.2
In Article 2(5) of the proposal, enhancing awareness
of stakeholders and the general public about EU policies is
given as a general objective of PROGRESS. This can only
succeed if the whole spectrum of relevant stakeholders, at Euro-
pean, national and local level, in the social policy programme
areas are able to continue developing their activities. The
Committee endorses simplification and rationalisation in this
context particularly where they facilitate access for all stake-
holders, not least the social partners and other civil society
organisations, and do not result in more restricted access to
Community funding.

2.8.3
The EESC is therefore concerned that in the list of
stakeholders mentioned as having access to PROGRESS, NGOs
have been restricted to those operating at EU level. Article 10
(Access to the programme) does not mention NGOs at national
level. Although bodies organised at European level play an
important role, the Committee feels that the main scope for
genuine dialogue, networking, identifying and promoting good
practice, as well as mutual learning, is between organisations
with experience of a particular field and operating at national,
regional and local levels. In the Committee's view, engaging in
transnational activity and enabling the sharing of experience in
the EU is just as important for such organisations as having
official status at European level. The Committee would there-
fore suggest rewording the Commission's text so that any
NGOs engaging in activity of European relevance are eligible.

The Committee therefore calls for appropriate clarifi-
2.8.4
cations and alignment of Articles 2, 9 and 10 in the proposal
for a decision, in order to safeguard one of overarching goals
mentioned by the Commission, namely cooperation with civil
society organisations.

3. Summary

to the Lisbon mid-term review. This

3.1
Overall, the EESC welcomes the Commission's proposal
on PROGRESS 2007-2013, and takes considerable interest in
this initiative particularly in the context of the current contribu-
Framework
tions
Programme is one of the key funding instruments in the sphere
of social policy and employment, extending beyond the time-
the recently adopted 2006-2010 Social Policy
frame of
Agenda. Because of
long-term implications
the Committee has reservations about a number of
alone,
specific points of
require
the Commission document
further clarification and explanation in the proposal for a deci-
sion.

the consequent

that

C 255/72

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.10.2005

3.2
The problems concern in particular: (a) consistency with
other policy areas of the Community, (b) budget allocations
and their distribution, (c) broad access and usefulness to users
(d) transparency
despite rationalisation at Commission level,
and participation in the programme committee, and (e) civil
society involvement.

Brussels, 6 April 2005.

The EESC hopes that, in view of the Lisbon objectives,
3.3
especially those
its
comments on these points will be taken into account in further
decisions on PROGRESS.

concerning the

framework,

financial

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Recommendation
of the Council and of the European Parliament on further European cooperation in quality assur-
ance in higher education

(COM(2004) 642 final — 2004/0239 (COD))

(2005/C 255/14)

On 20 January 2005, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned 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 15 March 2005. The rapporteur was Mr Soares.

At its 416th plenary session, held on 6 and 7 April 2005 (meeting of 6 April), the European Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 144 votes to 2, with 6 abstentions.

1. Introduction

Article 149(1) of the Treaty establishing the European
1.1
Community stipulates that ‘the Community shall contribute to
the development of quality education by encouraging coopera-
tion between Member States and, if necessary, by supporting
and supplementing their action, while fully respecting the
responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching
and the organisation of education systems and their cultural
and linguistic diversity.’

On 24 September 1998,

the Council of Ministers
1.2
approved a Recommendation on European cooperation in
quality assurance in higher education, which ‘called on Member
States to support or establish quality assurance systems and to
encourage higher education institutions and competent authori-
ties to cooperate and exchange experience’. It would be up to
the Commission ‘to support such cooperation and to report on
the implementation of the objectives of the Recommendation
at European and Member State level’.

systems

assurance

The report submitted by the Commission (1) demon-
1.3
strates that major progress has been achieved ‘in establishing
quality
cooperation’;
however it emphasises that this is not yet enough, pointing out
that ‘more far-reaching measures are needed in order to make
European higher education perform better and become a more
transparent and trustworthy brand for the people of Europe
and for students and scholars from other continents’.

and promoting

1.4
In September 2003, European education ministers met
in Berlin as part of the Bologna process, working to bring
about the European Higher Education Area, and concluded that
quality assurance systems, based on a series of essential features
institutions
— such as the evaluation of programmes or
through internal assessment and external review, student parti-
cipation, publication of results and international participation
— had generally speaking been implemented in all Member
States.

(1) Report

from the Commission to the European Parliament,

the
Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions (COM) 620 final of 30.9.2004).