EIROPAS PARLAMENTS Budžeta kontroles komiteja DARBA DOKUMENTS

Transcription

1 EIROPAS PARLAMENTS Budžeta kontroles komiteja DARBA DOKUMENTS par Eiropas Revīzijas palātas Īpašo ziņojumu Nr. 3/2015 (2014. finanšu gada budžeta izpildes apstiprināšana) ES garantija jauniešiem: sperti pirmie soļi, bet gaidāmi īstenošanas riski Budžeta kontroles komiteja Referente: Karin Kadenbach DT\ doc PE v02-00 Vienoti daudzveidībā

2 Introduction Over the last decade, and in particular since the beginning of the economic and financial crisis, the number of unemployed people in the EU has increased considerably. The average unemployment rate for young people aged between 15 and 24 was of 22% in the EU in June 2014, and in some Member States the jobless rate is as high as half of all young people The gap between the countries with the highest and the lowest jobless rates for young people is extremely high. There is a gap of 44 percentage points between the Member State with the lowest rate of youth unemployment (Germany at 7.2% in December 2014) and the Member State with the highest rate, Spain (51.4% in December 2014). Spain is followed by Greece (50.6% in October 2014), Croatia (44.8% in the fourth quarter 2014) and Italy (42% in December 2014). The EU framework to combat youth unemployment was firstly launched in 2010 with the "Youth on the Move" Europe 2020 flagship initiative (COM(2010) 744 final of 15 September 2010). In December 2011, the Commission proposed a "Youth Opportunities Initiative" (COM(2011) 933 final of 20 December 2011) and in January 2012 it announced that it would work with the eight Member States most affected by youth unemployment by establishing "Youth Action Teams" with a view to making better use of the EU funding still available under the programming period. The establishment of the "Youth Guarantee" was adopted by the EU's Council of Ministers in April 2013 (Council Recommendation of 22 April 2013) and further endorsed by the June 2013 European Council (European Council Conclusions, June 2013). In 2014 youth unemployment was still at alarmingly high levels within the EU and needed to be urgently tackled. The Youth Guarantee was created to support young people in finding a job and to implement structural reform to improve school-to-work transitions. It promotes one of four alternative offers - job, apprenticeship, traineeship or continued education - to young people which are neither in employment nor in any education or training and should be delivered by the Member States in accordance with national, regional and local circumstances. The Youth Guarantee scheme is financed through the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI), the European Social Fund (ESF) and from national budgets. The ESF is the most important source of EU financing for it. The Commission latest estimations is that 3,2 billion euro from the ESF are required to match YEI funding. The ESF can finance measures specifically targeting individuals as well as those relating to structural reforms. To top up available EU financial support to the most affected regions, the Council and the European Parliament agreed to create a dedicated 6,4 billion euro Youth Employment Initiative. The YEI funding consists of 3,2 billion euro from a specific new EU budget line dedicated to youth employment which is to be matched by at least 3,2 billion euro from national allocations under the ESF. Unlike the ESF part, the specific allocations for the YEI is not subject to the national co-financing requirement and costs incurred by Member States since 1 September 2013 are eligible for reimbursement on a retrospective basis. The International Labour Organisation has estimated the cost of setting up Youth Guarantees in the Eurozone at 21 billion per year. However, the costs of NOT acting are far higher. The European Foundation for Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound) has estimated the PE v /6 DT\ doc

3 economic loss in the EU of having millions of young people out of work, education or training at over 150 billion in 2011 (1.2% of EU GDP), in terms of benefits paid out and lost output. The YEI is part of the overall ESF programming and approved either in specific YEI Operational Programmes or as part of ESF Operational Programmes as a priority axis or even as part of a priority axis. It is concentrated on regions experiencing youth unemployment rates above 25% and on young people not in employment, education or training. Assessment Taking into account the above mentioned elements, the role of the Commission is to encourage Member States to make best use of the ESF and the YEI to support the set-up and implementation of Youth Guarantee schemes as policy instrument for combating and preventing youth unemployment and social exclusion. In addition the Commission is required to monitor the design, implementation and results of the YG schemes, analyse the impact of the policies in place and address, where appropriate, country-specific recommendations to Member States. On the other hand, the Member States commit to submit their Youth Guarantee Implementation Plans to the Commission for assessment. The Court assessed in this audit whether the Commission provided appropriate support to five Member States (Ireland, Italy, Lithuania and Portugal - which had Youth Action Teams - and France) in setting up the Youth Guarantee scheme and reviewed possible implementation risks. The audit period went from April 2013 to June 2014 and included information provided until February The Court observed that the Commission produced guidance on designing Youth Guarantee scheme and provided it to Member States within five months after the adoption of the Council Recommendation in April It produced a template with key elements for building a comprehensive implementation plan and published "Frequently Asked Questions" and organised thematic events. The Commission also carried out a comprehensive and timely assessment of the draft Youth Guarantee Implementation Plans (YGIPs) submitted by Member States and identified many shortcomings in those drafts. However, there are three elements which the Commission have not properly tackled. The ICT/digital skills which were identified as having great potential for the creation of sustainable jobs; the principle of mutual obligation which foresees on one side the existence of individual responsibility in finding a route into economic activity through one of the offers received and on the other the provision of unemployment or social assistance benefits until the person gets a reasonable offer; and the principle of mutual learning between all the parties involved at national regional or local levels in combating youth unemployment. The Court observed as well that not all Member States submitted a revised YGIP following the Commission's assessment identifying shortcomings. Moreover, the Court pointed out that the Commission assessment of YGIPs was not sufficiently co-ordinated with its assessment of the ex-ante conditionality for ESF/YEI operational programmes, which sets the strategic policy framework for promoting youth employment. DT\ doc 3/6 PE v02-00

4 When analysing the enforcement, the Court identified a number of risks to the effective implementation of the Youth Guarantee scheme. Firstly, the risk that the total funding may not be adequate as there are no real figures for the cost of implementing the Youth Guarantee in each Member State and no impact assessment carried out for those schemes. In addition, the Court did not find any robust estimation of costs for specific measures, like the sources of funding and its allocation to the different key reforms and measures in a financing plan, of the Youth Guarantee schemes. With the particular challenge of verifying the regularity of the YEI expenditure, that have been incurred since September Secondly the lack of definition of good-quality job offer may hamper the effectiveness of the Youth Guarantee. Thirdly, a comprehensive Youth Guarantee monitoring and reporting framework is still being developed. Currently the Commission monitors the implementation of YG through the multilateral surveillance of the Employment Committee 1 within the framework of the European Semester. However, the results are not reported to the European Parliament and, even if some specific indicators were developed, as they are not mandatory, they result into varied input from the different Member States. Furthermore, the Country Specific Recommendations related to youth unemployment were not measurable and depend on political commitment at national level. In addition, as the reporting on the nationally funded part of the YG is not covered by the reporting obligations, there is the risk of having an uncompleted overview of how and to what extent the YG as a whole contributes to tackling youth unemployment. Finally, the Court has examined the relevance of the YEI result indicators as set out in the ESF Regulation and considered that some of them could be more detailed when approving future ESF/YEI Operational Programmes or amending the existing ones. European Court of Auditors (ECA) conclusions The Court concluded that the Commission provided adequate and timely support to the Member States in the process of setting up the Youth Guarantee, and carried out a comprehensive and timely assessment of the draft YGIPs submitted by the Member States, having also identified several shortcomings. Some aspects lacked proper assessment. The Court identified a number of risks relating to the adequacy of the total funding and the nature of a good-quality offer, as well as monitoring and reporting arrangements for the Youth Guarantee scheme. ECA recommendations In light of its findings and in order to improve the effectiveness of the EU funding of the EU Youth Guarantee, the ECA recommends that: 1 An advisory committee for Employment and Social Affairs Ministers in the Employment and Social Affairs Council. PE v /6 DT\ doc

5 1. The Member States should provide a clear and complete overview of the cost of all planned measures to combat youth unemployment under the Youth Guarantee scheme in order that the Commission can assess the overall funding needs; 2. The Commission should promote a set of qualitative attributes that should be fulfilled for jobs, traineeships and apprenticeships to be supported from the EU budget. This could be based on the elements which define a good-quality offer in the Commission Guidance for evaluation of the YEI; 3. The Commission should put in place a comprehensive monitoring system for the Youth Guarantee scheme, covering both structural reforms and measures targeting individuals. The result of this monitoring should be reported to the European Parliament and the Council. Referenta ieteikumi iespējamai iekļaušanai ziņojumā par gada budžeta izpildes apstiprinājuma sniegšanu Komisijai atzinīgi vērtē Revīzijas palātas īpašo ziņojumu ES garantija jauniešiem: sperti pirmie soļi, bet gaidāmi īstenošanas riski ; norāda, ka Revīzijas palāta izvērtē iniciatīvu tās īstenošanas vidusposmā, un atzinīgi vērtē Revīzijas palātas centienus agrāk sākt ES līdzekļu izmantojuma izvērtēšanu; uzsver, ka garantija jauniešiem ir nozīmīgs faktors, lai reaģētu uz jauniešu bezdarbu; atzinīgi vērtē to, ka ES valstu un valdību vadītāji ir nolēmuši piešķirt ES līdzekļus EUR 6,4 miljardu apmērā (EUR 3,2 miljardus no Eiropas Sociālā fonda un EUR 3,2 miljardus no jaunas budžeta pozīcijas); norāda, ka šāda rīcība uzskatāma par labu sākumu, tomēr ar to nepietiek, lai sekmīgi īstenotu garantiju jauniešiem, tāpēc prasa Komisijai nodrošināt iespēju rast papildu finansējumu, lai septiņu gadu laikposmā atbalstītu garantiju jauniešiem; uzskata, ka garantijas jauniešiem shēmas finansēšana ir ļoti sarežģīta, jo tā ietver dažādas iespējas izmantot Eiropas Sociālo fondu un Jaunatnes nodarbinātības iniciatīvu; prasa Komisijai sniegt dalībvalstu iestādēm norādījumus, pienācīgi ņemot vērā to, ka vietējām, reģionālajām un valsts iestādēm ir dažādas problēmas saistībā ar shēmas īstenošanu un ka tādēļ tām ir vajadzīgas īpašas pamatnostādnes; uzskata, ka Komisija ir sniegusi daudz līdzekļu, lai nodrošinātu minētā pasākuma efektivitāti cīņā pret jauniešu bezdarbu, tomēr pauž nožēlu par to, ka dalībvalstu centieni īstenošanas koordinēšanā bija ievērojami vājāki; norāda lai efektīvi īstenotu garantiju jauniešiem, ir ne vien jānodrošina finansējuma pieejamība, bet arī līdzekļu sekmīga apguve; tādēļ pauž nožēlu par to, ka vairākos Eiropas reģionos ESF apguves spēja ir ļoti zema; prasa dalībvalstīm administratīvo resursu un cilvēkresursu jomā nodrošināt prasmes atbilstīgi izmantot piešķirtos līdzekļus garantijas jauniešiem īstenošanai; DT\ doc 5/6 PE v02-00

6 prasa Komisijai izstrādāt visaptverošu uzraudzības sistēmu, kas ietver standartu kopumu, lai novērtētu garantijas jauniešiem pasākumu īstenošanu un izvērtētu to, cik sekmīgi tie īstenoti dalībvalstīs; turklāt aicina Komisiju apsvērt iespēju Eiropas pusgada procesā iekļaut obligātus mērķus jauniešu bezdarba apkarošanai; norāda, ka ES nav kompetenta pieņemt saistošas tiesību normas attiecībā uz aktīvu darba tirgus politiku, tomēr uzsver, ka Komisijai ir jāsniedz dalībvalstīm labākās prakses piemēri garantijas jauniešiem īstenošanai; lai nodrošinātu pietiekamu īstenošanas līmeni un pozitīvu ietekmi ilgtermiņā, prasa dalībvalstīm nepieciešamības gadījumā ierosināt institucionālas pārmaiņas un sadarboties ar vietējām kopienām, izglītības iestādēm, valsts nodarbinātības dienestiem, vietējiem ražotājiem un uzņēmējiem, arodbiedrībām un jauniešu apvienībām; atzinīgi vērtē attiecībā uz grozījumiem Regulā Nr. 1304/2013 par Eiropas Sociālo fondu iesniegto Komisijas priekšlikumu palielināt sākotnējo priekšfinansējuma summu, ko izmaksā darbības programmām, kuras atbalsta, izmantojot Jaunatnes nodarbinātības iniciatīvu, nolūkā sākotnējo priekšfinansējumu līdzekļu piešķīrumam no Jaunatnes nodarbinātības iniciatīvas gadā palielināt no aptuveni 1 % līdz 30 %; norāda lai nodrošinātu to darbības programmu raitu īstenošanu, kuras atbalsta, izmantojot Jaunatnes nodarbinātības iniciatīvu, Komisijai būtu jāapņemas priekšfinansējuma summu dalībvalstīm izmaksāt tūlīt pēc šīs regulas stāšanās spēkā; uzskata, ka darba tirgus piedāvājuma puses politika ir jāskata saistībā ar izglītības, jaunatnes un labklājības politiku, kā arī plašākā makroekonomikas kontekstā. PE v /6 DT\ doc