Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the  Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Institute for Gender Equality (COM(2005) 81 final — 2005/0017 (COD))
Date: 2005-09-28
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: European organisation, competence of the institution, gender equality, operation of the Institutions, women's rights

31.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/29

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the
European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Institute for Gender Equality’

(COM(2005) 81 final — 2005/0017 (COD))

(2006/C 24/10)

On 22 March 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 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 5 September 2005. The rapporteur was
Ms Štechová.

At its 420th plenary session, held on 28 and 29 September 2005 (meeting of 28 September 2005), the
European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 166 votes to 5, with
7 abstentions.

1. Committee's Conclusions and Recommendations

1.1.2
The EESC, therefore, welcomes every effective instru-
ment which helps to ensure that gender equality will become a
reality.

1.1
The European Economic and Social Committee reaffirms
its keen interest in seeing much more tangible progress in the
promotion of gender equality, as it has repeatedly stressed in
its recent Opinions on this issue (1). Gender equality is — and
must remain — a priority in the European Union's policies.
Although more effort has been invested into promoting gender
equality in the EU in recent years, women remain disadvan-
taged in most areas of activity (2) — this must change. Gender
discrimination against men also exists, although to a lesser
degree, and this must also be resolved. A series of problems
rooted in discrimination (on grounds of sexual orientation, age,
health, disability, ethnicity and so on) and exacerbated by the
gender dimension also fall within this area.

1.1.1 Many different types of gender inequality exist; they
occur throughout the EU and it is vital that they are recognised,
documented, collected and analysed, that lessons are drawn
from them at the Community level and that solutions are
sought.

(1) EESC Opinion on the Proposal for a Decision of the European
Parliament and of the Council establishing a Community action
programme to promote organisations active at European level in
the field of equality between men and women (rapporteur
Ms Warholin, 10.12.2003) – OJ C 80 of 30.3.2004
EESC Opinion on the Proposal for a Council Directive implementing
the principle of equal treatment between women and men in the
access to and supply of goods and services (rapporteur Ms Carroll,
3.6.2004) – OJ C 241 of 28.9.2004
EESC Opinion on the Proposal for a Directive of the European
Parliament and of the Council on the implementation of the prin-
ciple of equal opportunities and equal
treatment of men and
women in matters of employment and occupation (CESE 1641/
2004, rapporteur Ms Sharma, 15.12.2004)
EESC Opinion on Beijing +10: Review of progress achieved in the
field of gender equality in Europe and in developing countries
(rapporteur Ms Florio, 9.2.2005) – OJ C 221 of 8.9.2005.

(2) COM(2005) 44.

The EESC supports the proposal to establish a Euro-
1.1.3
pean Institute for Gender Equality, (hereinafter ‘the Institute’)
believing it will become an effective instrument — with great
potential — for supporting the efforts of
the EU and the
Member States to make progress in promoting gender equality
in both laws and in practice.

The EESC agrees with the reasons behind the creation of
1.2
an independent institute and with the decision that the Institute
must not replace or weaken the present tried and tested specia-
lised agencies, or those in the process of being established, at
Community level (3). Nor must establishment of the Institute
weaken application of the gender mainstreaming principle in
all the bodies, policies and programmes of the Community: the
EESC is convinced that it will, on the contrary, reinforce this
principle.

1.3
The EESC thinks that the Institute will derive authority
from its objectivity, neutrality, independence, expert experience
and ability to concentrate relevant information in one place
and could become an important instrument for a wide spec-
trum of users. Assuming gender mainstreaming is applied
comprehensively, the Institute will serve a most varied ‘clientele’
— from the most diverse strata of civil society to the EU's
policy-making bodies.

1.3.1 Moreover, the Institute will operate not only within
the EU, but within a broader European context,
including
preparation for further EU enlargements, and internationally. It
will also serve, therefore, to cultivate multicultural
links and
exchanges.

(3) Dublin Foundation, Bilbao Agency, CEDEFOP, Fundamental Rights

Agency.

C 24/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

31.1.2006

The EESC thinks that in view of the ambitious goal and
1.4
tasks that await the Institute,
its powers and responsibilities
should be more clearly defined in relation to its functions of
research, information, public education and so on. The goals of
data collection and processing need to be specified so that the
Institute can play its full part in the EU policy-making process.
In this context, it should be pointed out that all the Communi-
ty's bodies have to rely on the statistical resources of the indivi-
dual Member States. The Institute should be able to put
forward its views on planned projects. The Institute should also
have an educational role in issues of gender mainstreaming and
have the possibility to submit its views on Community initia-
tives and activities in the field of gender equality.

The EESC takes the view that specifying the Institute's
1.4.1
goals and tasks would substantiate its importance and demon-
strate the need for it to have the necessary resources to fulfil
these aims.

1.5
The Institute must have a strong moral authority and it
is absolutely essential that it operate transparently and have
truly effective links with relevant groups in civil society (set out
in Article 10(1)a)-c)) which have a wealth of analytical experi-
ence and expertise on gender equality and can also directly
reflect the needs of the EU's citizens. The EESC strongly recom-
mends, therefore, that civil society representatives have more
places on the Institute's Management Board (see points 3.7.2
and 3.7.3 below). In this context, the EESC once again high-
lights the important role of the social partners at various levels
in solving the problems of gender equality in the labour
market.

1.9
The EESC is convinced that close cooperation with the
Institute will be of benefit to both parties and declares its readi-
ness to collaborate with the institute on the basis of Com-
munity rules.

2. Introduction and general remarks

2.1
for a
The European Commission issued its Proposal
Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council
establishing a European Institute for Gender Equality on 8 May
2005, and stated, inter alia, in its press release (4) that:

‘The Institute will be an independent centre of excellence at
European level. It will gather, analyse and disseminate reli-
able and comparable research data and information needed
by policy-makers in Brussels and in the Member States. It
will have a documentation centre and a library which will
be open to the public.

The Institute will stimulate research and exchanges of experience
by organising meetings between policy-makers, experts and stake-
holders and it will raise awareness of gender equality policies with
events including conferences, campaigns and seminars. Another
vital task will be to develop tools for supporting the integration of
gender equality into all Community policies’.

2.2
The substantial period of time that separated the first
impulse to create a European Institute in 1995 (5) and promul-
gation of the proposal for a regulation in May 2005 allowed
expert and policy research to be conducted which has enabled
a considered step to be prepared.

1.6
At the same time, the EESC strongly urges that represen-
tatives of Europe's social partners and the relevant representa-
tive NGO have the same standing on the Management Board as
the other members — i.e. that they have the right to vote (see
also point 3.7.4).

2.3
At its meeting of 1 and 2 June 2004, the European
Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs
Council unanimously declared its support for the establishment
of the European Institute (6):

1.7
The EESC considers it essential that funding for the Insti-
tute should be sufficient for it to fully carry out its mission
alongside other Community agencies or programmes also
dealing with gender equality, and not at the expense of these.

The Proposal for a Regulation does not state where the
1.8
Institute will be based. The EESC, however, favours it being set
up in one of the countries that joined the EU in 2004. Some of
these countries have already expressed an interest in hosting
the Institute, and this would also satisfy the need for a balanced
decentralisation of institutions around the EU and would offer
the opportunity for more direct contact with citizens of one of
those countries and for learning more about its experience in
the field of equal opportunities for men and women.

‘Delegations fully supported in principle the setting-up of
such an Institute, while stressing the importance of a struc-
ture that would bring added value but which would not
duplicate existing activities in this area. The need for
budget-neutrality was also mentioned’.

The Council mandated the Institute with:

— questions of coordination;

— centralisation and dissemination of information;

(4) European Commission Press Release IP/05/266 8.3.2005, available

in English, French and German.

(5) Role of a future European Institute, a study for the European Parlia-

ment, Final Report, 15.6.2005.

(6) Council of the European Union, press release 9507/04, 1-2.6.2004.

31.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/31

— the raising of gender visibility; and

— the provision of tools for gender mainstreaming.

— stereotypical presentation of gender

roles of men and
women (in education, the media, public life and the world
of work),

2.3.1
Commission to submit its proposal (7).

The European Council

subsequently

invited the

have in society,

— women's own lack of awareness of the position they could

2.4
The decision to establish the Institute thus came after
the EU's enlargement to include ten new countries and the
EESC considers it important that it operate, from the outset, in
the enlarged EU, which will enable it to take into account a
greater variety of experiences, situations and know-how.

2.5
In its Opinion Beijing +10: Review of progress achieved
in the field of gender equality in Europe and in developing
countries (8), the EESC recently summarised the history and
range of activities in the EU on gender equality. It draws atten-
tion to that Opinion and stresses the importance of realising
that the need for expert reports, analyses and information and
the quality demanded of these is growing due to broader appli-
cation of the principle of gender mainstreaming, which the
EESC warmly welcomes.

2.6
Practical experience reveals new and existing problems,
directly related to gender issues, which the EU and its Member
States face and which the Institute must address:

— inequality in the labour market, particularly segregation in
professions, differences in wages, hazards in the labour
market,

— the career progression of women and their rise to supervi-
sory or management positions, monitoring the situation of
women in management and executive positions,

— reconciling professional and private life,

— access to life-long learning, monitoring the improvement of

women's professional qualification,

— demographic trends in the EU,

— the trade in woman (and children) and their exploitation for

sexual purposes,

— all forms of violence on the basis of gender,

— the insufficient participation of women in decision-making,

— the generally insufficient attention given to gender issues
and continuing inadequate application of the gender main-
streaming principle,

— intercultural issues,

— gender equality within different civil society organisations
and their representative institutions, particularly European
institutions,

— etc.

The EESC has already drawn attention in some detail
2.6.1
in its Beijing +10 Opinion, to which it refers the reader, to a
raft of areas where action should be taken (9).

As has been stressed above, the EESC is aware that
2.7
gender mainstreaming is being applied more widely and
continues to develop. For this reason, the EESC agrees that the
task of concentrating the efforts of Member States and civil
society stakeholders so that they can help Community bodies
in these matters has to be conferred on an independent institu-
tion, which will increase the effect of synergy. The EESC also
considers it important to ensure that the Institute and Com-
munity agencies complement one another and that the prin-
ciple of gender mainstreaming will continue to develop within
the agencies in close collaboration with the Institute. In the
same way, cooperation with institutional mechanisms
for
gender equality must be the norm.

2.8
The EESC recalls that while the establishment of the
Institute is a step forward, this does not rule out the need for
further measures aimed at making progress in implementing
equality of opportunity while meeting all the goals adopted in
Community documents. It will be of the utmost important that
the Institute actively contributes to the fulfilment of the Lisbon
objectives on promoting growth and job creation.

2.9
The EESC is in favour of the Institute being established.
However, it needs to get the best possible reception from civil
society at European, national and local levels, without whose
support it could not get off to a good start. The necessary
resources must therefore be invested in this new institution to
make it credible and trusted. This will enable it to successfully
pursue activities of all kinds and attract the interest it deserves.

3. Specific remarks

3.1
The EESC approves the legal basis on which the Institute
is to be established, namely Article 141(3) and Article 13(2) of
the Treaty establishing the European Union. It agrees with the
reasons set out in the recitals, which also explain that the
Proposal conforms to Article 5 of the Treaty.

(7) European Council, 17-18.6.2004, presidency conclusions, paragraph

43.

(8) Rapporteur: Ms Florio, point 4 – OJ C 221 of 8.9.2005.

(9) Rapporteur: Ms Florio, point 6, Conclusions and work proposals –

OJ C 221 of 8.9.2005.

C 24/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

31.1.2006

3.2
The EESC also agrees that working with the existing
infrastructure — foundations and other bodies — is consistent
with the Council's desire to avoid duplication. The EESC notes
that Recital 12 implicitly includes other institutions and autho-
rities working within the EU, such as Eurostat. The EESC draws
attention to the Communication from the Commission on the
operating framework for the European Regulatory Agencies (10)
and the Draft Interinstitutional Agreement on the operating
framework (11) and notes that
the Institute's place among
existing institutions will also be defined in this context.

3.3
The EESC points out that the English title of the Institute
(Art. 1) — The European Institute for Gender Equality —
reflects its mission unambiguously and is open to the widest
connotations (ethical, moral, aesthetic, sexual, etc.). However,
we know from experience that the word ‘gender’ has no precise
equivalent in a number of EU languages. Translations should
therefore be worded to come as close as feasible to the original.

3.4
As far as the Institute's goals are concerned, the EESC
thinks Article 2 should include a clear reference to promoting
the principle of gender mainstreaming.

3.4.1
The EESC also considers that the Institute should be
tasked with helping employers' and workers' organisations and
other elements of organised civil society in their work on
gender equality. This aim should be clearly stated and taken
into account.

3.5
The EESC thinks the tasks in Article 3 are just as impor-
tant as the goals and should be expanded as set out in point
1.4 of this opinion.

3.5.1
The EESC asks for social partners to be explicitly
mentioned in Art. 3(1a). In this context it should be noted that
the European social partners have recently adopted a Frame-
work of Actions on Gender Equality.

3.5.2
The EESC stresses that the Institute's benefits will be
more apparent if it regularly issues, in addition to the annual
report,
information related to achievements made under, for
example, the Framework Strategy on Gender Equality. It should
also publish, amongst other things,
its work programme as
well as its annual report (Art. 3(1e)).

3.5.3
The issues that the Institute deals with will also require
appropriate working methods. These should be tailored to
different types of gender inequality and discrimination, and so
should use comparative methods (benchmarking), case studies,
vertical (sectoral) data collection, gender budgeting, monitoring,
etc. It goes without saying that the Institute must also collabo-
rate with specialised agencies and institutions in this regard.

3.5.4
The EESC notes that (1d) of the same Article states
that the Institute will conduct research in ‘Europe’, a reference
to its broader operation within the EEA, as part of future enlar-
gement and in the countries of the Council of Europe.

The EESC would want — in keeping with the objec-
3.5.5
tives set out in Article 2 and the Recital — to add the national
or regional level to Art. 3 (1g). This would make it possible to
involve other stakeholders, such as local and regional govern-
ments, which have an important role to play in spreading
awareness of gender equality issues among the public at large.

The EESC agrees with the Institute being independent of
3.6
national bodies and civil society (Art. 5). It considers, however,
that it should also be independent of the Community's institu-
tions, which will enable it to take a more objective approach
towards them. Not least for this reason, the EESC proposes
increasing the number of civil society representatives on the
Management Board to ensure the Institute's greater indepen-
dence.

3.6.1
The EESC agrees with and supports the principle that
the Institute will work freely and independently with institu-
tions in the Member States. It thinks members of the Advisory
Forum should be made responsible for obtaining and delivering
information in time (see point 3.8.2 below). This could be a
suitable role for bodies which are to operate in the Member
States under the Directive to consolidate directives on equal
opportunities (12).

As far as the Institute's bodies are concerned, the EESC
3.7
appreciates the efforts to make the Management Board an
operational body that can ensure the Institute reacts flexibly to
changes and demands.

3.7.1
The EESC takes the view, however, that the Commis-
sion must only appoint members of the Management Board
who are to represent the groups mentioned on a proposal from
those organisations. This should be stated in Article 10.

3.7.2
The EESC stresses that if the Management Board is to
be able to respond appropriately to needs — i.e. to reflect its
responsibilities to the European Commission and the Member
States — and if it is to receive appropriate feedback from civil
society, Europe's social partners and the relevant NGO need to
be effectively and visibly represented at the Community level,
which has — as the Regulation puts it — a ‘legitimate interest
in contributing to the fight against discrimination on grounds
of gender and the promotion of gender equality’. Moreover,
there is no reason why such an involvement of civil society

(10) COM(2002) 718, 11.12.2002.
(11) COM(2005) 59, 25.2.2005.

(12) COM(2004) 279, 21.4.2004.

31.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/33

representatives could not be proposed. Given that the national
level of social partners will not be represented here, unlike in
the Community's tripartite bodies, it is desirable at least in this
way to guarantee the active involvement of social partners and
the relevant NGO.

that

The EESC,

3.7.3
the number of
therefore, urges
members on the Management Board be increased. It would
suggest raising the number to six members from each party
(Council, Commission, social partners and relevant NGO at
Community level), which would also enable the organisations
mentioned in Art. 10(1) a)-c) to ensure equal representation of
men and women when selecting candidates. It follows, there-
fore, that these organisations would have two seats each.

3.7.4
There is no reason why representatives of the social
partners and the NGO should not have the right to vote. In
order to better ensure independence, autonomy and objectivity
of proceedings, the EESC appeals to the Commission to incor-
porate full voting rights for all representatives of employers,
workers and the relevant NGO. This is consistent with para-
graph 4, which states that ‘Each member of the Management
Board, or in his/her absence his/her deputy, shall have one
vote’.

3.7.5
The EESC considers that the directors of the European
Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Condi-
tions, the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, the
European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training
and the EU Agency for fundamental rights might perhaps also
be able to participate directly in the meetings of the Institute's
Management Board as observers (Article 10(11)). The director
the
the Institute should likewise be able (on behalf of
of
Management Board and/or on the basis of a ‘memorandum of
understanding’) to take part in the proceedings of these institu-
tions.

The EESC respects the fact that the Advisory Forum's
3.8
role will enable Member States to involve relevant bodies and
create a network of experts. Under Article 12, this body will
not have decision-making rights within the Institute and it is
unnecessary, therefore, to state that the three members who
represent interested parties at European level do not have the
right to vote. One might also ask why they are appointed by
the Commission: they should be directly appointed by the orga-
nisations set out in Article 10(1) a)-c).

Brussels, 28 September 2005.

3.8.1
of men and women in the Advisory Forum.

A way must be found to ensure equal representation

As stated in point 3.6.1, members of the Advisory
3.8.2
Forum should have responsibility for ensuring cooperation
between institutions in their countries and the Institute (Art
12(4)).

The EESC has reservations concerning the Institute's
3.9
planned funding. It detects contradictions in what the Council
press release (quoted above in point 2.3 of this opinion) says it
should achieve, namely provide added value by meeting
demanding goals, while at the same time maintaining budget
neutrality.

3.9.1
It is assumed that funding for the Institute will be
partially deducted from the PROGRESS programme funds.
Paragraph 3.6 of
the Draft Proposal's Explanatory Memor-
andum states that: ‘The Institute's activities will be distinct from
those proposed under
the
PROGRESS programme (2007-2013)’. The EESC sees this as an
argument supporting the position expressed in its Opinion on
the PROGRESS programme:

the gender equality strand of

‘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’ (13).

The EESC recommends, therefore, that the necessary
3.9.2
funding for the running and sound operation of the Institute
should be taken into consideration when the EU's Financial
Perspectives are being discussed and should be allocated, at
least in stages, so that the Institute can have the legal and finan-
cial security needed to meet the demands which will be placed
upon it.

3.9.3
The EESC thinks that concentrating work on gender
equality in one place will bring savings at the Community and
levels. The PROGRESS programme draft budget
national
should not,
therefore, be reduced but, on the contrary,
increased by this amount if there is no decision on separate
funding for the Institute.

On no account must the establishment of the Institute
3.9.4
be an excuse for reducing funding of other institutions — for
example, the Dublin Foundation — whose remit also includes
issues such as equal opportunities.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

(13) Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the
Community Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity -
PROGRESS (Rapporteur: Mr Greif) (JO C 255, 14.10.2005, p. 39).