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 Working together, working better: A new framework for the open coordination of social protection and inclusion policies in the European Union  COM(2005) 706 final
Date: 2006-04-20
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: ESC opinion, European social policy, open method of coordination, poverty, social indicator, social integration

8.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 185/87

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 Working together, working better: A new frame-
work for the open coordination of social protection and inclusion policies in the European Union

the European Parliament,

COM(2005) 706 final

(2006/C 185/15)

On 22 December 2005 the Commission 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 20 March 2006. The rapporteur was Mr Olsson.

At its 426th plenary session, held on 20 and 21 April 2006 (meeting of 20 April), the European Economic
and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 31 votes in favour, no votes against and one
abstention.

1. EESC's position in brief

2. Summary of the Commission document

1.1
The EESC agrees with the thrust of the Communication.
It will reinforce the social dimension of the Lisbon strategy if
the Member States lend more political weight through the new
framework to the goal of modernising and improving social
protection. The social dimension is essential to meeting the
challenges arising from globalisation and an ageing population.
The different objectives of the Lisbon strategy, namely sustain-
able economic growth, more and better jobs and greater social
cohesion, must be equally endorsed and upheld.

The Commission needs to initiate a dialogue with the

1.2
Member States to raise awareness of adequate social policies.

Although the EESC welcomes the initiative,

1.3
it would
point out that account must be taken of the specific character-
istics of the three individual strands, their different stages of
progress, as well as to the differences between Member States.

1.4
One of the three overarching objectives is to ‘strengthen
governance, transparency and the involvement of stakeholders
in the design, implementation and monitoring of the policy.’
Social partners and other key actors from organised civil
society must be much more involved in all key aspects of the
process.

The new framework and its objectives provide a good
1.5
opportunity for the Member States to highlight
the social
dimension in their NRPs setting up and implementing specific
national priorities.

1.6
The EESC should, as part of its ongoing work, follow up
the new framework for open coordination and report on
progress before the Spring summit in 2007.

2.1
The Commission proposes a streamlined Open Method
of Coordination (OMC) for social protection and social inclu-
sion,
in line with its first plans from 2003. Common over-
arching objectives are set out and supplemented by specific
objectives for each of the three strands:

1) the eradication of poverty and social exclusion,

2) adequate and sustainable pensions, and

3) accessible, high quality and sustainable healthcare and long-

term care.

The aim of the proposal is to define a new framework
2.2
to make the OMC a stronger and more visible process, which
is better integrated with the Lisbon strategy. Procedures and
working arrangements (involvement of actors, governance,
timetable, reporting, evaluation, exchanges of good practice,
mutual
information) are to be improved. The new
framework covers a three-year period (2005-08).

learning,

2.3
Based on the common objectives, Member States are to
submit national strategies on social protection and social inclu-
sion by September 2006 so that they can feed into the National
Reform Programmes (NRP) due on 15 October 2006.

3. General comments

In order to enable the Committee to fulfil its consulta-
3.1
tive role, the proposal should have been published before 22
December 2005. The delay has prevented the EESC from
making a proper contribution to the relevant Ministers' meet-
ings and the Spring summit in March 2006.

3.1.1
The EESC has already noted and criticised the short
periods of consultation for other important issues, such as, the
Commission proposal on the integrated guidelines for growth
and employment (1).

(1) See the EESC opinion on The Employment Guidelines: 2005 – 2008,

rapporteur Mr Henri Malosse. OJ C 286, 17.11.2005.

C 185/88

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.8.2006

The Committee emphasises that when launching important
proposals as part of the revised Lisbon strategy, the quality of
the consultative procedure must be upheld.

3.6
Against this background and the continuous alarming
social situation in the European Union, the EESC urges the
European Commission and the Member States to send a clear
and positive message to the citizens of increased efforts to
highlight the social dimension as the third pillar of the Lisbon
Strategy.

3.2
In any case, since the proposal is based on a three-year
cycle, this opinion can contribute to the implementation and
follow-up of the new framework by both the Member States
and the Commission.

3.3
The EESC has recently expressed its views on the
governance of the Lisbon strategy thereby also commenting on
the implementation of the OMC (2). In 2003 the Committee
adopted an opinion on the first Commission proposal on
streamlining (3). It has also expressed its reflections on the use
of the OMC in relation to pensions and health care (4). The
EESC is also currently preparing opinions on other related
topics (5).

3.4
To our regret, only a few of the NRPs submitted in
October 2005 included elements of social protection and social
inclusion. The stakeholders concerned must now design and
implement national strategies and reform programmes in order
to ensure that the social dimension is taken into account. This
opinion should be regarded as a contribution to that process.

3.5
The EESC agrees with the thrust of the Communication.
It will reinforce the social dimension of the Lisbon strategy if
the Member States lend more political weight through the new
framework to the goal of modernising and improving social
protection. The social dimension is essential to meeting the
challenges arising from globalisation and an ageing population.
The different objectives of the Lisbon strategy, namely sustain-
able economic growth, more and better jobs and greater social
cohesion, must be equally endorsed and upheld.

(2) See the EESC opinion on The road to the European knowledge-based
society – the contribution of organised civil society to the Lisbon Strategy
(Exploratory opinion), rapporteur: Mr Jan Olsson, co-rapporteurs:
Ms Eva Belabed and Mr Joost van Iersel. OJ C 65, 17.3.2006.

(3) See the EESC opinion on Strengthening the social dimension of the
Lisbon strategy: Streamlining open coordination in the field of social
protection, rapporteur Mr Wilfreid Beirnaert OJ C 32, 5.2.2004.
(4) See the EESC Opinion on the Communication from the Commission to
the Council,
the European Parliament and the Economic and Social
Committee: Supporting national strategies for safe and sustainable pensions
through an integrated approach, rapporteur: Ms Giacomina Cassina, OJ
C 48, 21.2.2002, page 101.

(5) See the EESC ongoing work on Social cohesion: fleshing out a European
social model, SOC/237 and on a Proposal for a Regulation of the Euro-
pean Parliament and of the Council laying down the procedure for imple-
menting Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social
security systems, SOC/197.

3.7
The EESC recognises that social protection policies are
mainly the competence of the Member States. However, the
Commission needs to initiate a dialogue with the Member
States to raise awareness for adequate social policies. The EESC
urges Member States to take political responsibility to face the
challenges ahead. The Committee emphasises that achieving
the European objectives set out in the new framework will
depend on the determination and capacity of each Member
State to fulfil
its commitments to promote social progress
within a framework of modernising and making social protec-
tion financially sustainable.

interactions

The necessary

3.8
between
and positive
economic policy, employment strategies and social protection
must be fully exploited. Ambitious social policies based on soli-
darity should be regarded as a productive factor which has
beneficial impacts on growth and employment (6). At the same
time, the sustainability of social policies depends on economic
growth supported by better European coordination of
economic policies.

Although the EESC welcomes the initiative,

3.9
it would
point out that in bringing together the strands, that are at
significantly different stages of progress, account must continue
to be taken of the specific characteristics of the three individual
strands, the different stages of progress, as well as to the differ-
ences between Member States.

Consideration must be given to the differences in quality of
European instruments for coordination of national policies.
Whilst in the area of social inclusion, specific guidelines and
targets — along the lines of the European employment policy
guidelines — make sense, in the area of pensions and health,
European coordination is still largely limited to agreements on
general qualitative goals.

3.10
However, when developing and implementing the
three different strands, Member States should fully exploit the
synergies between them since in many cases they overlap. A
measure taken in one strand may have a direct impact on the
other strands. It is also important for Member States to bridge
the gap between political will and actual implementation.

(6) See the EESC opinion on Communication from the Commission on the
Social Agenda, p. 1.2, rapporteur Ms Engelen-Kefer. OJ C 294,
25.11.2005.

8.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 185/89

4. Specific comments

Involvement of actors

4.1
One of the three overarching objectives is to ‘strengthen
governance, transparency and the involvement of stakeholders
in the design, implementation and monitoring of the policy.’

There is still much too little involvement of social partners and
other key actors from organised civil society. The use of the
OMC in different sectors has not delivered the expected results,
as Member States have not shown any real commitment to the
objectives and actions agreed upon. Similarly, several national
action plans betray shortcomings in particular as regards estab-
lishing clear national objectives and strategies and active parti-
Instead, national plans for
cipation for all relevant players.
employment, social
inclusion and in other areas have been
partly transformed into bureaucratic activity reports.

4.6
The EESC suggests that the Social Protection Committee
(SPC) organise meetings on a more regular and broader basis
with representatives of social partners and other relevant civil
society organisations from both European and Member State
levels. The EESC also believes that the government representa-
tives on the SPC have a strong responsibility both to organise
and take part in consultations with social partners and other
relevant civil society stakeholders in their home countries.

4.7
The EESC should, as part of its ongoing work on the
implementation of the Lisbon strategy (7), involve social part-
ners and relevant civil
society organisations, as well as
Economic and Social Councils where they exist in following up
the new framework for open coordination and reporting on
progress before the Spring summit in 2007. The Committee
should particularly focus on governance and areas where the
genuine involvement of actors has proved successful
in
designing and implementing national priorities.

4.8 Transparency

4.2
The EESC is convinced that a greater participation of
organised civil society in all steps of the process will increase
the quality of the NAPs. This will ensure that citizens' concerns
and aspirations are taken into account in the plans.

For participation to be meaningful, the stakeholders must have
early access to key documents on policy issues. Transparency is
also needed when the EU Commission and the Member States
analyse and evaluate the new framework, for instance when
carrying out peer reviews and identifying indicators.

that

The Commission rightly states

the OMC can
4.3
promote involvement for social policy making. Consensus on
reforms to achieve modernisation of social protection with
financial sustainability must be agreed with social partners and
other relevant civil society stakeholders. The EESC is in favour
of extensive involvement in all phases; from policy-shaping to
implementation and evaluation. However, participatory deci-
sion-making does not exonerate elected lawmakers from their
responsibility to promote social progress and a high level of
social protection.

The EESC recognises that

4.4
the OMC has progressed
differently in the three strands that the new framework relates
to. Although still not sufficiently, the OMC on social inclusion
has been more participatory than the OMC on pensions. The
involvement of social partners and other key actors in the latter
strategy has been very limited. Notwithstanding the urgent
the EESC
need to improve the OMC on social
strongly emphasises the Commission's view regarding the need
for greater
involvement of stakeholders in the two other
strands.

inclusion,

by

4.5
In contrast to the limited participation in the OMC on
pensions, the EESC has noted a much higher degree of involve-
actions
ment
concerning supplementary occupational pensions. This contrast
shows the need for the OMC to be made more attractive and
interesting for all concerned actors.

stakeholders

legislative

European

in

4.9 Mutual learning and good practice

Learning from each other is of paramount importance in all
three strands. Efficient systems for transferring best practice
and exploiting non-legislative measures must be developed. The
exchange of experience and mutual learning must include deci-
sion-makers at all levels. Since social partners and other rele-
vant civil society stakeholders possess unique knowledge and
extensive experience of social policies, they must be involved in
identifying and evaluating the possibilities for transferring best
practice. Horizontal issues that are crucial to the success of the
new framework include models for participatory decision-
making and the involvement of stakeholders. Another major
issue is to find ways and methods to create an inclusive society
for all. Lastly there is a need to reconcile social protection with
competitiveness without marginalising groups outside of the
labour market. In this respect the EESC refers to the current
debates on the lifecycle approach to employment and the
balance between flexibility and employment security (8).

(7) Implementation of

the Lisbon Strategy, contributions following

mandate from the European Council of 22 and 23 March 2005.

(8) See the EESC ongoing work on Flexicurity:

the case of Denmark,
rapporteur: Ms Anita Vium, ECO167 and the EESC opinion on The
road to the European knowledge-based society – the contribution of orga-
nised civil society to the Lisbon Strategy (exploratory opinion), rappor-
teur: Mr Jan Olsson, co-rapporteurs: Ms Eva Belabed and Mr Joost
van Iersel. OJ C 65, 17.3.2006.

C 185/90

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.8.2006

4.10 Peer reviews

4.13 Enhancing visibility

Peer reviews and the exchange of good practice are helpful
instruments because they are concrete and inspire those
involved. The Commission must ensure that social partners and
other relevant civil society organisations are involved in peer
reviews.

4.11 EU Progress programme

about

the modest

Social partners and other relevant civil society organisations
must be eligible to carry out projects in all strands of the new
the EESC expressed
Progress programme.
In its opinion,
the
concerns
programme (9). Our concern has grown following the European
Council decision on the financial perspectives for 2007-13. The
EESC firmly emphasises its earlier call for enough financial
resources to be set aside for all strands of the programme,
including projects related to social protection and social inclu-
sion.

resources of

financial

4.12 Indicators

An analytical approach based on high quality, reliable and
comparable indicators is necessary to provide a sufficiently
detailed,
true picture of progress regarding the objectives.
Research resources are needed to identify the relevant indica-
tors. The reliability of collecting and treating data has to be
guaranteed. While indicators are being established at both
European and national
level, the EESC reiterates its call for
stakeholders to be invited to take part in formulating and eval-
uating indicators. (10). Both the SPC and the Member States
should take such action.

Qualitative indicators must be developed. It is important that
relevant criteria, based on human needs, are reflected in the
choice of indicators in order to measure, for instance, accessi-
bility for all to social protection, quality in relation to expecta-
tions, as well as user involvement and user-friendly treatment.

The EESC has on many occasions stressed that communication
between Europe and its citizens is marred by the existing
deficit in relevant and transparent information. Since the new
framework concerns issues close to the citizens,
the EESC
underlines the importance of organising a permanent debate at
all levels to address future challenges and strategic choices in
the areas of social protection, pensions, health care and social
inclusion. In this context, the European Commission must also
enhance the visibility of its own actions. Proposals for how to
promote such a debate within the context of
the Lisbon
strategy can be found in other opinions (11).

5. Supplementary comments on the objectives

The new framework and its objectives provide a good
5.1
opportunity for the Member States to highlight
the social
dimension in their NRPs setting up and implementing specific
national priorities that link with the overall Lisbon objectives,
in full respect of the subsidiarity principle of Member States.
However the EESC urges Member States to make full use of the
guidelines prepared by the EU Commission (12).

5.2 Within the
inclusion strand ‘Eradication of
poverty and social exclusion’, the Member States will draw up
new National Action Plans on social inclusion during 2006.

social

5.2.1
The EESC believes that concrete steps have to be taken
on the priority actions defined in March 2005 by the Council
of Employment and Social Affairs. The EESC recalls the EU
objective that Member States make decisive steps to eradicate
poverty by 2010 (13). In addition, the EESC stresses that policies
to combat social exclusion are important in order to meet the
demographic challenge.

5.2.2
tant to focus on:

For our part, the EESC considers it particularly impor-

— combating poverty, especially amongst children and youth,
within a policy framework that supports children, families
(including lonely parents)
thereby also
preventing a transfer of poverty between generations

and equality,

There is a need to interlink the indicators used in the OMC
with the indicators used in the Lisbon strategy to give a
comprehensive picture of progress.

(9) See the EESC opinion on Proposal

for a Decision of the European
Parliament and of the Council establishing a Community Programme for
Employment and Social Solidarity – PROGRESS, rapporteur: Mr Wolf-
gang Greif, OJ C 255, 14.10.2005.

(10) See the EESC opinion on Social Indicators (own-initiative Opinion),

Rapporteur: Ms Giacomina Cassina, OJ C 221, 19.09.2002.

(11) See the EESC opinion on The Commission's contribution to the period
of reflection and beyond: Plan D for Democracy, Dialogue and Debate
(own-initiative Opinion), Rapporteur: Ms Jillian van Turnhout,
CESE 1499/2005 and the EESC opinion on The road to the European
knowledge-based society – the contribution of organised civil society to the
Lisbon Strategy (exploratory opinion), rapporteur: Mr Jan Olsson,
co-rapporteurs: Ms Eva Belabed and Mr Joost van Iersel. OJ C 65,
17.3.2006.

(12) European Commission working document Guidelines for Preparing
National Reports on Strategies for Social Protection and Social Inclusion.

(13) Lisbon European Council of March 2000.

8.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 185/91

— new and better jobs for the most disadvantaged, also ‘the

working poor’

— promoting gender equality

— promoting equal opportunities for people with disabilities

— anti-discrimination measures

— the integration of ethnic minorities

— combating and preventing homelessness

— access to high quality health and social services, regardless

of income

— the situation of chronically ill people

— guarantee of minimum income, measures to reduce indebt-
edness and access to financial services and micro credits.

‘Adequate and sustainable
5.3 Within the pensions strand:
pensions’, national strategies on pensions were presented last
year. Only fine-tuning is anticipated for 2006.

5.3.1

Priority issues could include:

— the provision of an income in old age, which allows the
elderly to live in dignity, thereby preventing their marginali-
sation

— pension systems providing adequate cover

for groups

employed on new-style contracts and the self-employed

5.4 Within the health and long-term care strand: Accessible
high-quality and sustainable healthcare and long-term care, Member
States will draw up national plans for the first time.

5.4.1
The EESC wishes to emphasise that care services of
high quality and technical standards should be accessible to all.
In order to achieve financially sustainable health-care and long-
term care, preventive health actions are of outmost importance.

5.4.2
include:

Priority issues in the new national action plans could

— preventative health care, both of a medical and non-medical

nature

— health-care in the work-place for all

in order to combat
particularly mental and physical sickness and thus give the
opportunity to prolong the working career

— cooperation between social and health care providers

— the relationship between care providers and the producers

of goods and services to this sector

— services to the dependent population

— quality standards

— training for different categories of social care and healthcare
workers to retain existing staff, and attract new workers to
the sector

— patient rights

— support for individuals to plan their pensions.

— supply of domiciliary health.

Brussels, 20 April 2006.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND