EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion

Transcription

1

2 DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT A: ECONOMIC AND SCIENTIFIC POLICY EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion Final report Abstract The objective of the study is to provide an analysis of the Social OMC process at EU and national level, to highlight its strengths and weaknesses and to discuss proposals for improvement as emerging from internal assessments, academic debate and stakeholders' suggestions, focusing in particular on the present and possible future role reserved for the European Parliament. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ May 2010 PE EN

3 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion This document was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. AUTHORS Istituto per la Ricerca Sociale (IRS), Milano, Italy Chiara Crepaldi (coordinator), Davide Barbieri, Paolo Boccagni, Sandra Naaf Flavia Pesce With the collaboration of Donata Gottardi, Santina Bertulessi and Fabio Ravelli RESPONSIBLE ADMINISTRATOR Moira Andreanelli and Laurence Smajda Policy Department Economic and Scientific Policy European Parliament B-1047 Brussels LINGUISTIC VERSIONS Original: [EN] ABOUT THE EDITOR To contact the Policy Department or to subscribe to its monthly newsletter please write to: Manuscript completed in May Brussels, European Parliament, This document is available on the Internet at: DISCLAIMER The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorized, provided the source is acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice and sent a copy. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

4 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy CONTENTS Executive Summary 7 1. An overview of EU cooperation on social inclusion in the framework of the wider social OMC process Chronological analysis Before Lisbon: the preparatory phase of the strategy to modernise social protection (1999) From Lisbon to Laeken passing through Nice: the elaboration of new instruments to promote social inclusion in Europe ( ) Implementation of the OMC in the Member States: the Naps/Inc and the Joint reports ( ) Renewal of the Lisbon strategy: integration of all the policies related to the social sector (social policies, pensions, healthcare and LTC) in the new Strategic Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion ( ) The Lisbon Treaty and social inclusion The evolution of Common Objectives The use of Common indicators in NAPS/incl - NSR and Joint Reports The use of targets in NAPS/NSR and Joint Reports Some considerations on streamlining within social policy The institutional setting and working methods of the social inclusion OMC: the academic debate The social OMC and the key issues of concern for social inclusion policies in the EU: a working balance? Common indicators and targets as means to improve the social OMC Two challenges ahead: enhancing participation and transparency in designing and implementing the social OMC Back to the institutional setting: Strategies, methods and actions reinforcing the social OMC in connection with the revised Lisbon strategy The impact of the social OMC at THE national level OMC Impact on national policies in terms of procedures and governance OMC Impact on national policies in terms of specific policy themes/issues Social OMC in national policy documents: overview and evolution An in-depth analysis of a selected number of Member States Analysis of the interaction of Social OMC with other EU policies and instruments 85 IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

5 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion 4. The involvement of the European Parliament in the social OMC process The European Parliament and the social OMC Some considerations on the formal and actual role of the European Parliament in social policy and in the social OMC and the evolution that has taken place Analysis of the possible strategies for reinforcement of the role of the European Parliament in social inclusion and social protection policies On reinforcement of the role of National Parliaments in the process Analysis of the specific features of the social OMC as an innovative governance method allowing for new participatory models The involvement of stakeholders and in general of civil society Involvement at the national and local level: from the point of view of the institutions Involvement at the national and local level: from the point of view of civil society The visibility of the process Mutual learning as a key instrument for the improvement of EU cooperation Conclusions Main strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and limits of the social OMC process in EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion Proposals for improvement of the main features of the social OMC process as emerging from academic debate and stakeholders' suggestions Reinforcing governance of the process Reinforcing the social OMC working methods Enhancing mutual interaction between the open method of coordination and the Lisbon strategy for growth and jobs, and with other policy fields Enhancing the visibility of the process References 145 ANNEXES 151 IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

6 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AGE CoE CSR EAPN ECT ECJ EES ECHP EMCO EP EPSO ERDF ESF FSJA GDP ILO ISG LFS NAPS/INC NGO NSR OECD OMC OPS SPC European Older People s Platform Council of Europe Corporate Social Responsibility Anti Poverty Network EC Treaty European Court of Justice European Employment Strategy European Community Household Panel Employment Committee European Parliament Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council European Regional Development Fund European Social Fund Area of freedom, security and justice Gross Domestic Product International Labour Organisation Indicators Sub-group European Union Labour Force Survey national Action Plans/Inclusion Non-governmental organization National Strategy Report Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Open Method of Coordination Operational Programmes Social Protection Committee IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

7 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

8 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy Executive Summary Background The Committee on Employment and Social Affairs of the European Parliament (EMPL) has commissioned a study on "EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion", with a view to obtaining a better understanding of the procedures put in place in the framework of the open method of coordination for combating poverty and social exclusion in the EU and the effectiveness of the process in shaping and coordinating national policies. The study will serve as background documentation for preparation of the EMPL Committee's work for the new legislature The objective of the study is to provide an analysis of the OMC process for social inclusion at the EU and national level, highlight its strengths and weaknesses and discuss proposals for improvement as emerging from academic debate and stakeholders' suggestions, focusing in particular on the present and possible future role reserved for the European Parliament. Aim The first chapter of the study presents an overview of EU cooperation on social inclusion in the framework of the wider social OMC process and the developments that have occurred since 2000, in order to obtain a picture of the evolution over the period considered, and the basic choices made on the objectives, indicators, normative and coordination instruments introduced. This part of the study is mainly based on official EU documents. The second chapter presents the academic debate accompanying the evolution of the OMC process and its main achievements. The third chapter analyses the impact of the Social OMC at the national level. Analysis is also made of the interactions of the Social OMC with other policies and of the use of ESF funding for social inclusion purposes, as emerges from the Joint Reports. The fourth chapter focuses on the role and involvement of the European Parliament in the Social OMC process and its possible future evolution. The fifth chapter presents an analysis of the specific features of the social OMC as an innovative governance method allowing for new participatory models with the direct involvement of stakeholders and in general of civil society in the process. The conclusion to the study identifies the strengths and weaknesses, and the opportunities and limits emerging from the analysis conducted. It deals in particular with the opportunities and limits for the European Parliament in exploiting such new channels to accompany and enhance its institutionally-based involvement in the process. An overview of EU cooperation on social inclusion in the framework of the wider social OMC process The OMC was formally established in 2000 during the Lisbon summit, introducing Social inclusion as an additional policy field for cooperation at the European level with the aim of developing greater social cohesion and fighting poverty and social exclusion in the light of the strategic objective of socio-economic development. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

9 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion The OMC has no binding character and is configured as a soft-law instrument, established and developed to support the EU national governments in developing national policies and programmes working towards common objectives, and monitored through common indicators. Its main instruments are: i) common objectives to tackle poverty and social exclusion, ii) common indicators to enable the monitoring of progress towards the common objectives, iii) the National Strategic Reports (NSRs), the National action plans (NAPs) and Joint reports, which present, monitor and assess progress towards the common objectives and the policies implemented at the national level, and iv) exchange of good practices. The common objectives have been modified over the years, also reflecting the learning process employed to tackle the multidimensional and dynamic nature of Social Inclusion phenomena in the framework of the OMC process. The objectives have been extended, including further aspects to be addressed in order to reduce exclusion and poverty at the European level. In short, these developments move on from a policy of fighting social exclusion (before formal implementation of the OMC) to enhancing employment, economic reform and social cohesion (European Council of Lisbon), which disembogued in the set of common objectives on Social Inclusion (Nice European Council), with emphasis on the integration of the gender perspective and consideration of immigrants. With regard to the Indicators, a specific Committee and a subgroup - the Social Protection Committee and the Indicators Sub-group-ISG - have been constituted to set and develop common indicators. These are constantly elaborated, modified and extended by the ISG, and represent an important tool for measuring and evaluating the process at the national and European level. The indicators can be distinguished by level (primary, secondary and additional national ones), as well as quality (performance, policy, context and territorial indicators). The use of statistical data (indicators) as an important tool for measuring the national situations evidenced an urgent need to adopt common definitions to describe in comparable terms the processes and developments achieved in the European countries. The National Action Plans, the National Strategic Reports and the Joint Reports which have accompanied the process since 2002 and are regularly updated, illustrate progress towards the objectives, targets and uses of indicators. However, the reports are part of the learning-process, as the indicators presented are not consistent within the National reports, showing the different national approaches and strategies applied in addressing social inclusion and social protection. Much the same applies to the targets. Many countries have so far failed to formulate any. Among those that have introduced them we see a variety of approaches. The targets can be classified as single overall targets, specific targets, non-quantified targets, time-specific targets, direct or intermediate outcome targets, or/and input targets, and are used differently across the reports. Since its formal implementation, the OMC process has consistently made appreciable progress. Development of the objectives, targets and indicators finally led to the integration of pension and health and long-term care in 2004 as further aspects to tackle the social dimension of poverty and exclusion. In 2006 the three separate strands were streamlined into one integrated OMC for Social Protection and Social Inclusion. The academic debate on the institutional setting and working methods of the social inclusion OMC Altogether, there is no agreement among academics concerning the current extent and consequences of Social OMC implementation. The influence of the OMC framework on national social inclusion policies may be taken to apply in two quite distinct terrains. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

10 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy On the one hand, it is to be considered in terms of a gradual transnational convergence in shared goals, adopted indicators, peer reviewing mechanism, and even in the exchange of good practices. In each of these respects, most scholars judge the current OMC achievements as falling short of initial expectations also as a result of the lack of sanctioning mechanisms and more sharply defined objectives. The huge differences between European welfare states are also blamed for limited convergence in social inclusion policies. On the other hand, OMC influence on social inclusion policies may even be seen in discursive and cognitive terms as an innovative soft law framework, which could be seen to be shaping the mainstream approach and agenda-setting on social inclusion at the national level. Further studies may be necessary to bear out this hypothesis in the medium term. Discrepancies between the former and the latter theses refer to the policy outcomes of OMC implementation, rather than its relevance as a groundbreaking policy vision on social inclusion in Europe. Findings in academic research suggest that the salience of the social OMC in national arenas is often limited, the investments in peer reviewing inadequate despite the increasing availability of figures and methodological tools for comparative analysis. In the second phase of the Lisbon strategy, since 2005, the social OMC framework has been revised in terms of issue prioritarisation, stakeholder participation and procedural streamlining (hence also closer integration with the goals of the other streams, namely pensions and health/long term care). Even so, most scholars seem to agree that the potential for institutionalizing OMC-related learning into national social policies is still largely untapped. In particular, significant progress is still to be made in peer reviewing mechanisms, and in the selection and exchange of good practices. Overall, the nexus between the Lisbon strategy and OMC implementation should be restructured as the EC Impact Assessment itself suggests through a policy strategy capable of reconciling consensual progress and gradual innovations in terms, for instance, of better defined quantitative targets. The impact of the social OMC at the national level Since implementation of the OMC, assessments of its impact appear controversial. While the OMC has influenced both procedural changes in governance and policymaking as well as changes in the themes/issues addressed, its implementation and development are to be considered an ongoing process. Most of the researches and analyses show a fairly positive picture in terms of the development of national policies, but notable weaknesses are also mentioned. Since its implementation the Social OMC has contributed to procedural changes in governance and in the policymaking of Member States, which started to produce more integrated policy strategies and action plans, better coordinated policy actions on social inclusion and social protection in some cases also across policy sectors and levels of government. The Social OMC facilitated better and more comprehensive analysis of the situation in the various countries in relation to social protection and social inclusion, also by providing common instruments, which facilitated the approach of the national policies towards the European objectives. The Social OMC process has also evidenced several weaknesses, such as the lack of openness and transparency of the political process, the dominant role of the bureaucratic actors at the national and EU level and the weak integration of the National policies. Although improvements have been achieved in coordination of activities at the national level, another weak point is the limited bottom-up and horizontal policy learning process, which shows only a few examples of upward knowledge transfer (at the national level) and cross-national diffusion (at the European level) of innovative local practices. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

11 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion Evaluations of the outcomes of the Social OMC attested to improvement in the consistency and effectiveness of the policies established in the latest NSRs, which were in general more strategic than in previous years. The streamlining process has helped to bring forward the global strategy for the common objectives, also by creating a shared understanding of the issues at stake. While the reports showed different national approaches and strategies for addressing poverty and social exclusion in the early stages, over the years improvements have been achieved in terms of convergence of national policies. With the progressive extension of the areas to be addressed (such as child poverty, gender inequalities, pensions, health care and long-term care) in order to tackle poverty and social exclusion, the NSRs have now become more genuinely strategic than they used to be. They also present a number of programmes and initiatives financed by the Structural Funds, and in particular the European Social Fund. The ESF plays an important role in promoting social inclusion, being an important source of investment, especially for activities promoting labour market inclusion for excluded population groups, as well as lifelong learning, gender equality and the integration of ethnic minorities and immigrants. The report shows that over the last few years improvements have been made to coordinate the social inclusion measures and the use of the ES, but the NAPS should place more emphasis on enhancing the role of the ESF in promoting social inclusion. The involvement of the European Parliament in the social OMC process The OMC process is usually criticized for its lack of democratic basis as, on the one hand, it does not provide for any institutionalized role for the European Parliament and, on the other hand, the involvement of National Parliaments seems to be limited in most Member States. Despite the weak role formally attributed to the European Parliament, its involvement in policymaking and the role it has exercised within the Social OMC process have become increasingly robust over the years. From the legal point of view the participation of the European Parliament is limited: although its role has long been only a consultative and supervisory one, it has adopted many resolutions over the last few years, always firmly supporting the concept of a European Social Dimension. Chapter 4 has shown that in the last legislature the European Parliament sought to reinforce its role playing an increasing part in supporting laws on social protection, social inclusion and health care, and long-term care. The Treaty of Lisbon enhances the social provisions of current Treaties in various respects. The legal bases for the OMC can be found in article 137 of the Treaty, complemented by article 144: the Treaty introduces the need to reinforce the working methods of the OMC. First, the new Article 2 on the objectives of the Union contains a much stronger commitment to social justice and solidarity than the current one; a new horizontal "social" clause (Art. 5a) stipulates that, "in defining and implementing its policies and activities, the Union shall take into account requirements linked to the promotion of a high level of employment, the guarantee of adequate social protection, the fight against social exclusion, and a high level of education, training and protection of human health"; inclusion of the legally binding reference to the Charter of Fundamental Rights is also relevant to the Social OMC. Finally, and particularly significant in this context, Article 140 of the Lisbon Treaty makes explicit recognition of the Open Method of Coordination as an EU tool for fostering cooperation between Member States in the area of social policy, and introduces the obligation to inform the European Parliament regularly about developments under the Social OMC. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

12 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy Chapter 4 presents some possible paths that the European Parliament can take in order to enhance its role in policies for inclusion and social protection in the new frame of the Lisbon Treaty. To this end, EP can act on two different planes: fighting social exclusion and enhancing the role of the EP in the OMC area; and fighting social exclusion and enhancing the role of the EP in the area of the ordinary legislative process, as can be seen in the section on proposals. Analysis of the specific features of the social OMC as an innovative governance method allowing for new participatory models A key objective of the Social OMC is the commitment of the Commission and Member States to ensure good governance, transparency and the involvement of stakeholders in the design, implementation and monitoring of policy". This is particularly relevant for the social inclusion strand, given the decentralised nature of policies to fight poverty and exclusion that require "that social inclusion policies are well-coordinated and involve all levels of government and relevant actors, including people experiencing poverty". The possible forms of this involvement are either at the EU level, in the forms of public consultation, at the national level, at the stage of redaction of the NAPs/NSRs and at the local level, in the implementation of policies: partnership and dialogue at the local levels are in fact important tools for delivering social inclusion. Since 2001 the level of involvement of the NGOs and the role they play in civil society have shown steady development in most of the Member States. While the mobilisation and involvement of actors, including people suffering poverty and exclusion, show some progress, there is little evidence of a direct link between mobilisation of actors and the actual impact on policies and practices. Some countries claim that this involvement has already had some impact on the formulation and implementation of social inclusion policies. Still, there is room for further improvement in the quality of the involvement, not least in the implementation and follow-up phases. Coordination between the European, national, regional and local levels needs to be stepped up. The importance of effective monitoring and evaluation is now generally acknowledged, but few details are given about the precise arrangements envisaged. The views held by the organisations of civil society tend to converge on several points, and to diverge from the optimistic views emerging form NAPs/NSRs and Joint reports: there are clear weaknesses in OMC governance which need to be addressed, such as the restricted number of stakeholders involved, inadequate access to the drafts, insufficient interest in developing participative democratic models and more in keeping up the appearances of consultation, lack of impact on the outcomes, lack of feedback as to why proposals are accepted or not, insufficient and inadequate involvement of people experiencing poverty, and lack of follow-up and structured involvement in implementation/evaluation. Without visibility, a process of mutual learning, participation and policy cooperation risks failure. The need to build public awareness of social inclusion and the NAPs and its role in mobilising the relevant actors is recognised, but there are few arrangements in place as yet. Even in those countries where the process has had a significant impact, the general public still have scant knowledge of it. Knowledge at both the national and, in particular, local levels seems limited to a narrow circle of officials, NGOs, social partners and experts. There is broad agreement that increasing awareness of the OMC process is a key strategic challenge for the future. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

13 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion Mutual learning is a key element of the social OMC in promoting meaningful exchange and learning on the common objectives and priorities. According to the Impact Assessment, 1 the OMC process has significantly supported mutual learning. However, all too often it remains a closed debate among a handful of experts, whose expertise does not always cover the priority issues of the OMC, and is not adequately representative in terms of national and local as well as EU experts and other stakeholders in the learning experience. Opportunities for coordinated policies and mutual learning could be further exploited. Member States have recognised the scope for further development of cooperation in the framework of the Social OMC 2. Proposals for improvement of the main features of social OMC process as emerging from academic debate and stakeholders' suggestions Analysis of the academic debate, of the institutional and non-institutional material, and of the interviews and position papers of the various stakeholders has prompted several interesting suggestions and proposals for the reinforcement of social OMC. They have been grouped by main topics, each including a series of specific areas to be addressed. REINFORCING THE GOVERNANCE OF THE PROCESS a) Enhancing the role of the European Parliament in the OMC area The Lisbon Treaty offers the EP some new scope for action. In the sectors indicated by art. 153 the EP and the Council (and no longer only the Council, as originally provided for with article 137 CE) may adopt measures designed to encourage cooperation between Member States through initiatives aimed at improving knowledge, developing exchanges of information and best practices, promoting innovative approaches and evaluating experiences, excluding any harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the Member States. This reference appears to legitimise more direct EP intervention in the OMC top-down stage. During the bottom-up stage the guidelines are implemented by the Member States by adopting the measures deemed most appropriate to the various national conditions. During this stage the EP cannot be called upon to play a direct role, but can, through the relations it is able to develop with the national parliaments, take on an established role as interlocutor of the latter for the purposes of the OMC. For this to come about it is indispensable that the national parliaments take a fuller part in the OMC process than hitherto. Over the medium term, parliaments could gain a more active role and the EP, through the relations established with the National Parliaments, could also have a role, albeit indirect, in the bottom-up stage of the process. b) Enhancing the role of the EP in the area of the ordinary legislative process. The Treaty of Lisbon establishes the competences of the Union in considerable detail. Analysing how the Treaty actually regulates concurrent competences in terms of social policy, we see economic and employment policies receiving far more attention than is dedicated to inclusion policies. Nevertheless, semantically speaking the concept of inclusion policies has a very broad connotation. 1 SEC (2008) SEC (2008) 2169 IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

14 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy Its limits are of very approximate definition and the area of inclusion policies often shows a certain contiguity with that of other sectors (for example, protection of working conditions and access to employment) where the Community has historically intervened with directives and regulations, and in any case with far more incisive tools than the soft kind typically adopted in the OMC. In other words, social inclusion shows many points of contact and even a certain overlapping with such sectors as employment, social protection and the fight against discrimination. These are all sectors that have seen Community intervention with the classical Community tools (directives and regulations). Extending the scope for application of the co-decision procedure being generalised should objectively reinforce the role of the EP. More generally speaking, on the question of regulatory tools to address the challenges raised in the fight against social exclusion, the Commission contrary to the impression one might initially receive does not seem to be set solely on the OMC. The wholesale resort to OMC soft techniques is dictated above all by political difficulties involved in the pursuit of the political consensus necessary to adopt hard law acts. On the occasion of publication of the 2008 Social Agenda the Commission reiterated the importance of making use of all the regulatory tools available, including such as imply adopting binding acts. Thus there are no preclusions vis-à-vis the possibility of adopting more incisive tools. It should just be a matter of arriving at the right mix. c) Enhancing the involvement of national parliaments in the process Some attention should be dedicated to the extent to which the European Parliament could enhance its role through reinforced co-operation with the national Parliaments, seeking to collect and integrate also at the local and category levels. Various indications in this respect are already available and also appear in resolutions of the European Parliament. Looking to the future, the European Parliament, through the Employment Committee, could trace out a participatory/consultative course with the national Parliaments entailing a set annual agenda of meetings, to be held prior to the choices to be made in the field of budget policies and public finance, and providing for a truly significant institutional role, a sort of States General of the institutions of the European Union for social inclusion, with the participation of all parties involved. The States General for inclusion should also be able to formulate decisions and, at the same time, highlight the importance of social inclusion for the European Union and awaken opinion to it. d) Enhancing the involvement of stakeholders at all stages of the OMC process The continuous involvement of stakeholders and more in general of civil society throughout the social OMC policy cycle should be enhanced. This represents a key issue showing several facets that deserve specific attention. The ONGs have expressed their considerations in this respect, calling for: a) wider consultation; b) vigorous civil dialogue at all stages of the OMC process c) meaningful and effective participation with all stakeholders; d) attention to the phase of implementation; e) involvement at the local level. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

15 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion REINFORCING SOCIAL OMC WORKING METHODS a) Introducing monitoring and assessment practices The Social OMC process requires revision of the existing forms of monitoring and assessments: the Lisbon strategy s effectiveness is partly due to its rigorous annual reporting and monitoring cycle. The OMC must be on an equal footing of yearly monitoring, if it is to be treated as an equal partner. b) Setting quantified targets It is hoped on various sides to translate the common objectives progressively into quantified targets, in line with the development of analytical capacity. Progressive definition of EU or national targets, whenever justified on the basis of the evolution of the common analytical framework, would certainly lead to increased political visibility for the process. Specific quantifiable targets could be introduced into the Lisbon targets of jobs and growth on an equal basis in the macro, micro and employment objectives. c) Enhancing mutual learning The development of a common analytical framework would help Member States identify the key challenges they face in common and allow them to learn from each other in the areas that concern them the most. It would also feed into other Community policies, and along this channel there would also be more evidence-based policymaking in other areas. In this way, positive interaction with other policies, including economic policy, would be reinforced 3. To support the mutual learning process certain instruments should be strengthened and expanded such as peer reviews and comparative analysis with specific regional contextualisation in order to provide higher political profile to outcomes. Mutual learning also requires close involvement and opening up to regional and local policymakers, stakeholders and civil society. d) Underpinning policymaking with studies and data The social OMC should make more intensive use of researches, focusing in particular on further development of indicators measuring "feeding in / out". One channel is through PROGRESS. Reinforcing analytical capacity and mutual learning would improve the quality of policymaking in the social area 4. More resources should be added to reinforce the analytical work on all relevant areas of the social protection and social inclusion strategy, allowing for a full use of new social data, and expanding the statistical capacity on all social issues not covered by current EU data sources 3 SEC (2008) SEC (2008) 2169 IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

16 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy ENHANCING MUTUAL INTERACTION BETWEEN THE OPEN METHOD OF COORDINATION AND THE LISBON STRATEGY FOR GROWTH AND JOBS, AND WITH OTHER POLICY FIELDS In the framework of the "Renewed Social Agenda" 5, in July 2008 the European Commission issued a Communication on "A renewed commitment to social Europe: reinforcing the open method of coordination for social protection and social inclusion" 6, proposing to strengthen the social OMC and its visibility by facilitating its interaction with other EU policies and extending to it some of the procedures and working methods used under the Lisbon strategy. In post-lisbon planning provision should be made for more numerous direct and explicit links between the employment inclusion policies and other policies deemed key, also in access to and use of Funds, from the ESF to the Fund for adjustment to globalization, in the revised form recently proposed by the European Parliament. Indications are to be found in the Resolution of 11 th March 2009 on a European Economic Recovery Plan, in which the European Parliament calls on the Member States to adapt new provisions of the regulations of the European Social Fund, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund and the European Regional Development Fund, including simplification of procedures and extending eligible costs to serve employment and social inclusion goals even more efficiently, continuing to support employment in key sectors of the economy and ensuring that when providing such assistance strengthening of social and territorial cohesion remain a priority in order to avoid asymmetrical development within the European Union; hopes for the speedier release of funding targeted at employment support, and for EU support programmes to be geared to helping the most vulnerable groups in society including programmes to guarantee decent living conditions and access to high-quality services of general interest. Important indications are also contained in the European Parliament Resolution of 11 th March 2009 on the input to the Spring 2009 European Council in relation to the Lisbon Strategy: it points out that the open method of coordination, on which the Lisbon Strategy has been based for nine years, has revealed these limitations in the face of new internal and external challenges confronting the European Union; urges therefore that the post-lisbon period be based on a more proactive, more global policy, i.e. on the updating of existing common policies (for trade, internal market, economic and monetary union, etc.) and on new common external policies (energy, climate, development, migration, etc.) (point n. 53). Among the main features of this possible interaction are: a) Better coordination of the Social OMC with the Growth and Jobs Strategy Better coordination with the Growth and Jobs Strategy, based on greater political commitment and visibility of the common social objectives, would reinforce both strategies. More effective cross-cutting coordination is highlighted as essential by various stakeholders. b) Enhancing positive interaction with other EU policies A point on which all the stakeholders agree is the need to make the Social OMC a central tool to connect policies with a strong social impact at the EU and national level. What role should be reserved to the Social OMC in interaction with other policy fields? The Impact Assessment has suggested: 5 COM (2008) 412 final 6 COM (2008) 418 final IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

17 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion giving the Social OMC a prominent role in the implementation of the social agenda; reinforcing the role of the Social OMC in addressing cross-cutting issues; better coordination with the Growth and Jobs Strategy, based on greater political commitment and visibility of the common social objectives. c) Supporting a more dynamic interaction between the EU social inclusion strategy and structural funds Both the joint reports and the positions of the most relevant NGOs underline the importance of shifting the targets and objectives of Structural Funds towards social objectives fighting social exclusion. Joint report 2009 states that due to the potential dramatic impact of the current crisis it is more than ever needed to use structural funds in the EU s efforts to mitigate its social effects The European Social Fund should be used to its full potential in a flexible and timely way to alleviate the social impacts of the crisis, by supporting rapid labour market re-entry of the unemployed and focussing on the most vulnerable. Simplified implementation of Structural Funds and improved coordination with social policies will help. The Commission will issue a regular bulletin to monitor social trends. Reports from Member States could facilitate exchange of information and policy experiences in the Social Protection Committee. ENHANCING THE VISIBILITY OF THE PROCESS The potentialities of the social OMC process to be exploited require widespread vertical and horizontal dissemination of their objectives, aims and key features at the national and EU level. Without visibility a process of mutual learning, participation and policy cooperation risks failure. Enhancing the visibility of the process involves two different areas: the dissemination and information to the wider public and the political visibility of the process a) Enhancing dissemination and information on OMC: wider publication/dissemination of the key messages in the Joint Report would contribute to and support the visibility of the process; more visibility and political impact should be given to the strategy through debates in the national parliaments, media campaigns and transparent governance processes with dissemination of results. b) Increasing the political visibility of the process: progressive definition of EU and/or national targets should be pursued. As illustrated by the example of countries that have adopted them, quantified targets can raise the accountability of governments and help clarify priorities across all relevant policy areas and all levels of government, provided that they are endowed with strong analytical underpinning. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

18 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy 1. AN OVERVIEW OF EU COOPERATION ON SOCIAL INCLUSION IN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE WIDER SOCIAL OMC PROCESS In the new Millennium the European Union has increasingly relied on various forms of intergovernmental policy coordination, or soft law instruments as opposed to binding supranational legislation, to achieve its policy objectives. Of particular interest is the introduction of the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) and its application over a broad range of policy questions. The OMC is a process in which Member States agree to coordinate their policies through exchanges and mutual learning. It is applied in policy areas where the European Union has limited competences on the basis of the EU Treaties but where Member States feel there is an added value in coordination at the European level 7. In the framework of this flexible and decentralised method (which aims at learning from each others experience with no legal constraints on Member States in respect to their legal competences) Member States: Agree on Common objectives which set out shared goals to reinforce the entire process; Agree on a set of common indicators which show how progress towards these goals can be measured; Prepare national strategic reports in which Member States set out how they will plan policies over an agreed period to meet the common objectives; Evaluate these strategies jointly with the European Commission and the Member States (Joint Report). Since 2000 the OMC process has consistently evolved: modifications have been introduced in the objectives, targets, indicators, actors and stakeholders to be involved: as from 2000 the OMC has successively been applied to social inclusion policy, pension policy and health and long-term care policy; in 2006 the three separate strands were streamlined into one integrated OMC for Social Protection and Social Inclusion. The aim of the chapter is to present an overview of EU cooperation on social inclusion in the framework of the wider social OMC process and the developments that have occurred since 2000, thereby highlighting evolution over the period considered as well as the basic choices made on objectives and indicators, and the normative and coordination instruments introduced. The chapter is mainly based on chronological analysis of the main EU Documents, with an overview of the literature (studies and assessments) and debates on these issues, pointing up the main features of the evolution gone through. 7 This simple but clear definition is from The European Older People s Platform, What is the European Union doing in the field of social protection and social inclusion? A Toolkit to improve civil dialogue in the Open Method of Coordination on Social Protection and Social Inclusion, May 2008 IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

19 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion 1.1. Chronological analysis Before Lisbon: the preparatory phase of the strategy to modernise social protection (1999) Until the beginning of the 1990s the European approach towards a common policy was based on binding legislation (or hard laws ) as a means to develop European Integration. With the emphasis on issues like economic development and employment, no common approach had yet been implemented at the European level to deal with social inclusion or social protection policies. The concept of social exclusion was introduced in the Council resolution of 29 September 1989, which mentioned that combating social exclusion may be regarded as an important part of the social dimension of the internal market. By the beginning of the 1990s the concept of social exclusion was getting more attention, also supported with studies and publications on the issue, which extended the concept of poverty to take in the multidimensional and dynamic character of social exclusion. At the European Council held at Maastricht promotion of a high level of employment and social protection was added as one of the tasks of the EC. A Protocol and an Agreement on social policy were added to the new Treaty. During the Maastricht Summit, it proved impossible to get an agreement by all 12 Member States on the changes proposed on the chapter on social policy. The UK, in particular, did not agree with many changes. Instead of abandoning the proposed Social Chapter, the other eleven Member States made an Agreement amongst themselves. This agreement is annexed to the Protocol on Social Policy (Protocol No 14) which states that 'eleven Member States... wish to continue along the path laid down in the 1989 Social Charter' and exempts the UK from participation. This meant that two sets of rules were applied in the social area: the EC Treaty covering all Member States and the Agreement on Social Policy. 8 Two documents represent the basis of a preliminary Community strategy to fight social exclusion at the European Level: Recommendation 1992/441/EEC 9 presents common criteria (Objectives) concerning sufficient resources and social assistance in social protection systems; Recommendation 1992/442/EEC 10 on the convergence objectives and policies. These Council Recommendations allocated responsibility for the social protection system to Member States (MS), but showed that further actions needed to be taken to promote the coordination of social policies at the European level and to adapt the systems to the new social and economic circumstances by modernising them. To this end, it was decided to set common objectives to guide MS policies, while respecting MS autonomy (principle of subsidiarity). The Commission was given the responsibility for periodical follow-up with the publication of three reports on the Social Protection in Europe presenting the MS social systems and describing the developments el=guichett IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

20 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy An important step for the incorporation of social rights into Community policy was taken in 1997 with the Amsterdam Treaty sealing the agreement to enhance social policies and guarantee social rights in relation to employment, living and working conditions, social protection, social dialogue and fighting exclusion as fundamental rights, based on two charters 11 : the European Social Charter signed at Turin on 18 October 1961 and the 1989 Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers (also known as the Social Charter). With the inclusion of these two charters the Treaty of Amsterdam adopted the moral obligations to guarantee the respect of certain social rights 12 considering combating of exclusion and the integration of persons excluded from the labour market among the objectives of the Community and MS: cooperation among the MS to coordinate social policy action was encouraged. The new approach, with coordination between the MS and the EU, was first applied to the area of employment by the European Employment Strategy (EES), inaugurated with the Amsterdam Treaty, but soon extended to the social policy sectors. In 1999 the Commission presented the communication A Concentrated Strategy for modernising social protection 13, following an invitation of the European Parliament to launch a process for the development of common objectives and policies in the social policy field, interactive with the European employment strategy. Reaffirming the need to modernise the social systems, it was proposed to implement a strategy based on exchange of experiences, political debates and identification of best practices. Four key objectives were also established as the basis for cooperation between MS and the EU institutions: To make work pay and provide secure income To make pensions safe and pension systems sustainable To promote social inclusion To ensure high quality and sustainable health care. This approach was approved by the Council in its conclusions of 17 December 1999, which also called for equal opportunities between women and men to be taken into account in all work on these objectives. In order to promote closer cooperation, the Commission proposed a framework for the exchange of experiences, mutual concertation and evaluation of the developments. MS were invited to designate a senior official to be part of the high-level group to be formed to follow through the process, and which would be the focal point for exchange and information. Further, meetings of these officials were to be organized by the Commission to analyse and evaluate the progress made. The High-level Working Party on Social Protection started its work at the beginning of 2000, and was later replaced by the Social Protection committee (see below). 11 Art. 117 of the Amsterdam Treaty, Commission communication of 14 July 1999 A Concentrated Strategy for modernising social protection IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

21 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion From Lisbon to Laeken passing through Nice: the elaboration of new instruments to promote social inclusion in Europe ( ) The Social inclusion process was further formalised in the period, laying the basis for the future elaboration and development of the Open Method of Coordination (OMC). The OMC was first referred to with this name during the Portuguese Presidency in 2000 and introduced at the Lisbon Summit of March 2000, where the decision was taken to apply the OMC also in the social area (poverty and social inclusion). The main target was eradication of poverty by The Nice European Council in December 2000 adopted the social inclusion strategy, agreed to exchange experiences on pensions (an OMC process was launched in this area at the Laeken Summit in December 2001) and presented the common objectives on poverty and social exclusion set by the new built Social Protection Committee (SPC), which had been established in June 2000 composed of a group of senior officials from the relevant ministries in each Member State. 14 The Committee was responsible for developing OMC objectives, targets and instruments and for monitoring the upcoming process and supporting exchange between the MS to facilitate the mutual learning process all important pillars within the OMC. Box 1.1: Coordinating instruments considered in the Open Method of Coordination The Open Method of Coordination applies various instruments: 1) a set of common objectives on poverty and social exclusion agreed at the December 2000 Nice European Council, 2) the National Action Plans to be prepared by the Member States covering a two-year period and the Joint Reports on Social Inclusion. 3) the common indicators for monitoring the process within the MS, agreed upon in Laeken (Dec. 2001) 4) the exchange of good practices across the MS through peer reviews, and the Community Action Programme to encourage cooperation between the MS to combat social exclusion. These instruments have no binding character, but provide MS with a clear agenda. The OMC follows a decentralised approach, implemented at the Member State level but supervised by the Council of the European Union and the European Commission, with the involvement albeit only with limited powers - of the European Parliament and the European Court of Justice 15. Let us consider them more in depth: 1) All Member States committed themselves in Nice to developing their policy priorities in fighting poverty and social exclusion in the framework of four commonly agreed objectives: To facilitate participation in employment and access by all to resources, rights, goods and services a) To prevent risks of exclusion b) To help the most vulnerable c) To mobilise all relevant bodies 14 Nice European Council (2000), Fight against poverty and social exclusion Definition of appropriate objectives. SOC 470, December 2000, Brussels IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

22 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy Given the multiple interaction with other existing processes of policy co-ordination, there was a need to ensure consistency with the Employment Guidelines, on the one hand, and the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines, on the other, to avoid overlapping and conflicting objectives. The Commission started to translate the new strategic vision of the Union into integrated assessment of policy strategies and outcomes in four key domains: economic reform, the information society, the internal market and social cohesion. Furthermore, poverty and social exclusion have begun to take on complex, multidimensional forms requiring the deployment of a wide range of policies as part of an integrated approach. Member States were therefore encouraged to develop a strategic and integrated approach to fighting poverty and social exclusion in their National Action Plans (NAPs/incl.). The fields to be considered by the employment and social protection policies were: housing, education, health, information and communications, mobility, security and justice, leisure and culture. Gender equality was to be mainstreamed in all actions. 2) These objectives were to be considered in the NAPs/incl. of the 15 Member States, to be presented for the first time on 30 June 2001 followed by the Joint Report on Social Inclusion. The Joint Report aims at identifying good practice and innovative approaches of common interest to the Member States on the basis of the National Action Plans against poverty and social exclusion (NAPs/incl.), in conformity with the mandate received from the European Council of Nice. The adoption of this report is in itself a significant achievement. For the first time ever, a single policy document assesses common challenges to prevent and eliminate poverty and social exclusion and promote social inclusion from an EU perspective. It is a key step towards strengthening policy cooperation in this area, with a view to promoting mutual learning and EU-wide mobilisation towards greater social inclusion, while safeguarding the Member States key responsibilities in policy making and delivery. 16 The report places emphasis on the key role of participation in employment, especially by groups that are under-represented or disadvantaged in it, in line with the objectives of the European Employment Strategy. Furthermore, the report takes into full account the achievements of the European Social model, characterised by systems offering a high level of social protection, the importance attributed to social dialogue and services of general interest covering activities vital for social cohesion, while reflecting the diversity of Member States' options and conditions. 3) With the first set of NAPs, Member States were invited to develop, at the national level, indicators and other monitoring mechanisms capable of measuring progress in regard to each of the objectives defined therein. The data presented were not comparable between EU countries and therefore not useful for comparison of the risk of poverty in the different countries or to quantify outcomes. The analysis of the national indicators presented in the NAPs emphasised the need for the formulation of common indicators. 17 To measure the process at the national and EU level, an Indicators Sub-group (ISG) was set up in February 2001, formulating an initial set of indicators on social exclusion and poverty. The Joint Report on Social Inclusion 2002 made use of the 12 indicators formulated by Eurostat. 16 EU Commission, Joint Report on Social Inclusion Atkinson, A., Marlier, E., Noland, B. (2004), Indicators and Targets for Social Inclusion in the European Union. JCMS, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

23 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion Box 1.2: 12 indicators formulated by Eurostat for the Joint Report on Social Inclusion Index of income inequality S80/S20 2. Gini coefficient 3a Risk-of-poverty rate after transfers with breakdown by age and gender 3b Risk-of-poverty rate after transfers with breakdown by most frequent activity status 3c Risk-of-poverty rate after transfers with breakdown by household type 4. Dispersion around the risk of poverty threshold 5. Risk-of-poverty rate anchored at a moment in time 6. Risk-of-poverty rate before transfers 7. Persistence of poverty risk 8. Regional cohesion 9. Long-term unemployment rate 10. Long-term unemployment share 11. Very long-term unemployment rate 12. Early school leavers not in education or training In October 2001 the Social Protection Committee presented the Report on Indicators in the field of poverty and social exclusion 18, prepared by the Indicators Sub-group. The committee presented an initial set of 18 indicators organized in a two-level structure of primary indicators consisting of 10 indicators covering the broad fields of the main elements of social exclusion 8 secondary indicators designed to support the lead indicators and describe other dimensions of the problem. A third level of indicators should be presented by the MS to highlight specificities in particular areas, and to help interpret primary and secondary indicators. No indicators on housing were included, but the NAP were intended to contain quantitative information covering decent housing, housing costs, homelessness and other precarious housing conditions. At the end of the year 2001 the European Council held at Laeken (Belgium) adopted the proposed initial set of 18 commonly agreed indicators. Before endorsement of the indicators at Laeken, a scientific study was carried out by Atkinson et al. (2002) 19 and an international conference on Indicators for Social Inclusion: Making Common European Union Objectives Work was organised by the Belgian Presidency, where the indicators were discussed Social Protection Committee (2001), Report on Indicators in the field of poverty and social exclusion, October Brussels 19 Atkinson, T. ; Contillon, B. ; Marlier, E., Nolan, B. (2002), Social Indicators : The EU and Social Inclusion. Oxford. 20 Atkinson, A., Marlier, E., Noland, B. (2004), Indicators and Targets for Social Inclusion in the European Union. JCMS, Vol 42, No. 1 IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

24 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy Box 1.3: Laeken Indicators (see also Annex 1) Primary indicators low income rate after transfers with breakdown by age, gender, most frequent activity status, household type, tenure status; low income threshold distribution of income persistence of low income relative median low income gap regional cohesion long-term unemployment rate persons living in jobless households early school leavers not in education or training life expectancy at birth self-defined health status by income level Secondary indicators dispersion around the low-income threshold low-income rate anchored at a moment in time low-income rate before transfers Gini coefficient Persistence of low income (below 50% of median income) Long-term unemployment share very long-term unemployment rate persons with low educational attainment In this context MS were asked to: a) Set quantitative objectives for poverty reduction b) Better integrate the gender dimension in their actions c) Place more emphasis on risk to the immigrant population 4) The Commission was also committed to presenting, on the basis of the NAPs/Incl., a report identifying good practices and innovative approaches, and a Community Action Programme to encourage cooperation between the MS to combat social exclusion. Applying the open method of coordination, the Action Programme was drawn up to support cooperation, enabling the Community and the Member States to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of policies to combat social exclusion by: improving the understanding of social exclusion and poverty with the help, in particular, of comparable indicators; organising exchanges on policies implemented and promoting mutual learning in the context of national action plans developing the capacity of actors to address social exclusion and poverty effectively, and to promote innovative approaches. 21 Based on Eurostat EHCP 1997 and LFS IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

25 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion It is at this stage that social protection was included in the process: The Stockholm European Council of February 2001 made reference for the first time to the open method of coordination to be introduced in the pensions domain, while the Goteborg Council of June 2001 endorsed the three broad objectives (or pillars) of the process in terms of the need to ensure the social adequacy, financial sustainability and modernisation of pension programmes in accordance with the changing social and economic conditions. In December, the Laeken Summit launched an OMC process in the area of pensions and adopted the Joint Report on Objectives and Working Methods prepared by the Social Protection Committee and the Economic Policy Committee. Member states were invited to prepare the National Strategy Reports (NSR) on their national pension programmes for September Subsequently the Commission and the Council were to present the Joint Report to summarise common trends in pension policy across the EU for March Implementation of the OMC in the Member States: the Naps/Inc and the Joint reports ( ) After endorsement of the so-called Laeken indicators, MS were asked to include the primary and secondary commonly agreed indicators, and also to include further national indicators (third level) that could help to identify the most urgent fields of actions to tackle poverty and serve as a basis for further developing EU indicators by the ISG. These newly developed indicators were to be included in the 2003 National Action Plans (NAPs/incl.) (covering a two year period ). After revision of the NAPs/incl. and the Joint report, the indicators were to some extent refined, consolidated and extended by the ISG, maintaining the initial structure of primary and secondary indicators and respecting the multi-dimensionality in its scope. In order to describe and analyse the process and endow the objectives set with concrete substance, in 2002 the Spring European Council in Barcelona invited Member States to set targets in their NAPs, for significantly reducing the number of people of risk of poverty and social exclusion by The Joint Report on Social Inclusion issued in 2004 was based on the National Action Plans for social inclusion , which all Member States submitted in July The report was presented to the Spring European Council of According to the Joint report in the second round of NAPs Inclusion the majority of Member States endeavoured to set quantitative targets for the reduction of poverty and social exclusion while others set quantified intermediate targets. Many Member States significantly strengthened their institutional arrangements for mainstreaming poverty and social inclusion into national policy making. The process of encouraging the participation of key civil society stakeholders in the preparation of the NAPs enhanced the relevance of the NAPs and Nice objectives as reference tools for national policy-making. However, while real progress was made according to the analysis in the Joint Report, more needed to be done, and in particular: the introduction of other policy issues such as housing, lifelong learning, culture, e-inclusion, and transport to guarantee a truly multidimensional approach further development of targets, to render them increasingly specific, quantified and ambitious. 23 Natali, D., Pensions Omc: Why Did It Emerge and How Does It Evolve? Paper for the Annual EUSA Conference, Montreal, May 2007 IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

26 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy more emphasis to be placed on achieving and monitoring the efficiency and quality of measures designed to tackle poverty and social exclusion. the progress achieved in mainstreaming social inclusion through strengthening institutional arrangements needed to be carried further, particularly to ensure that social inclusion goals be borne in mind in setting overall expenditure priorities. In 2004, soon after joining the EU, the ten new Member States were asked to submit their first NAP/Inc for the period mid 2004 to end of The Report on Social Inclusion An analysis of the National Action Plans on Social Inclusion ( ) submitted by the 10 new Member States presented four objectives: 1. to outline the nature and extent of poverty and social exclusion in the EU10 and the key challenges that they create; 2. to assess the 10 NAPs/incl. and, in so doing, encourage Member States to develop more ambitious policies and programmes to prevent and tackle poverty and social exclusion; 3. to encourage mutual learning between all Member States by identifying examples of good practice and innovative action; 4. to contribute to creating greater political and public awareness of poverty and social exclusion and the measures necessary to tackle them. In spring 2004 a set of 12 primary and 9 secondary indicators were presented. The newly integrated indicators were: Low reading literacy performance of pupils and In-work poverty risk. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

27 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion Box 1.4: Indicators presented in the Joint Report on Social inclusion 2004 Primary indicators 1 At-risk-of poverty rate 1b new Poverty risk by the work intensity of households; 1c* Poverty risk by most frequent activity status; 1d Poverty risk by accommodation tenure status 2 At-risk-of poverty threshold (illustrative e values) 3 Income quintile ratio (S80/S20) 4 Persistent at-risk-of poverty rate 5 Relative median poverty risk gap 6 Regional cohesion 7 Long term unemployment rate 8a* Population living in jobless households: children; 8b*: prime age adults 9 Early school leavers not in education or training 10 Life expectancy 11 Self-defined health status by income level. Secondary Indicators 12 Dispersion around the at-risk-of poverty threshold 13 At-risk-of poverty rate anchored at a moment in time 14 At-risk-of poverty rate before social cash transfers 15 Gini Coefficient 16 Persistent at-risk-of poverty rate (50% of median equivalised income) 17 New in-work poverty risk 18 Long-term unemployment share 19 Very long-term unemployment rate 20 Persons with low educational attainment 2004 was also the year that saw streamlining of the pension OMC and launch of the OMC in Healthcare and Long Term Care. In April 2004 the Commission Communication Modernising social protection for the development of high quality, accessible and sustainable health care and long term care: support for the national strategies using the "open method of coordination" 24 recommended a) to reform the social protection systems, considering an integrated and coordinated way to meet this challenge: in fact, the Commission Communication Strengthening the social dimension of the Lisbon strategy: Streamlining open coordination in the field of social protection 25 showed that health and elderly care was one of the areas where coordination in the field of social protection should be streamlined to contribute to strengthening the political messages in favour of the modernisation of these systems. 24 COM(2004)304, 21/04/ COM (2003) 261 final IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

28 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy b) to apply the open method of coordination also to the development and modernisation of health care provision and funding, emphasising that the OMC is a flexible tool, respecting the diversity of the national situations and competences and is therefore particularly well adapted to the specific features of health care systems in all the branches of social protection Renewal of the Lisbon strategy: integration of all the policies related to the social sector (social policies, pensions, healthcare and LTC) in the new Strategic Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion ( ) In 2006 the earlier OMCs in the field of social inclusion, pensions and healthcare and long term care were brought together under the name of the Open Method of Coordination for Social Protection and Social Inclusion (Social OMC). The 2006 European Council adopted the new objectives of the OMC for Social Protection and Social Inclusion, which were also confirmed by the European Council of The Commission Communication Working together, working better: a new framework for the open coordination of social protection and inclusion policies in the European Union set out the EU intention of creating a stronger social OMC with heightened focus on policy implementation which would interact positively with the EU Strategy for Growth and Jobs 26. The new method comprised: an agreement on EU common objectives, setting out high level, shared goals to drive the entire process; the definition of a set of common indicators to enable monitoring of progress towards common objectives; the preparation by Member States of national strategic reports translating the agreed objectives into concrete policies; and the joint assessments of progress and of policy efforts by the European Commission and the Member states in the framework of the Social Protection Committee Commission staff working document accompanying the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council. The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions A renewed commitment to social Europe: Reinforcing the Open Method of Coordination for Social Protection and Social Inclusion, Impact Assessment, July 2008, page European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A renewed commitment to social Europe: reinforcing the Open Method of Coordination for Social Protection and Social Inclusion, Impact Assessment, 2008, page 5. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

29 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion Box 1.5: The overarching objectives of the OMC for Social Protection and Social Inclusion The overarching objectives of the OMC for Social Protection and Social Inclusion regard: i) promoting social cohesion and equal opportunities for all through adequate, accessible, financially sustainable, adaptable and efficient social protection systems and social inclusion policies; ii) interacting closely with the Lisbon objectives on achieving greater economic growth and more and better jobs and with the EU s Sustainable Development Strategy; iii) strengthen governance, transparency and the involvement of stakeholders in the design, implementation and monitoring of policy. As for the objectives of the three strands (social inclusion, social protection and healthcare), these focus on: a) ensuring the active inclusion of all; b) guaranteeing access for all to the basic resources, rights and services needed for participation in society; c) ensuring that social inclusion policies are well coordinated and involve all levels of government and relevant actors; d) guaranteeing adequate retirement incomes for all and access to pensions which allow people to maintain, to a reasonable degree, their living standards after retirement; e) ensuring the financial sustainability of public and private pension schemes; f) ensuring that pension systems are transparent, well adapted to the needs and aspirations of women and men and the requirements of modern societies, demographic ageing and structural change; g) guaranteeing access for all to adequate health and long-term care and ensuring that the need for care does not lead to poverty and financial dependency; h) promoting quality in health and long term care and adapting care to the changing needs and preferences of society and individuals; l) ensuring that adequate and high-quality health and long-term care remain affordable and sustainable. Following the agreement to streamline the Open Method of Coordination on Social Protection and Social Inclusion, for the Member States were asked to prepare National Plans for each of the three areas of Social Inclusion, Pensions and Health and Long Term Care and to present them to the Commission in the form of a National Report on Strategies for Social Protection and Social Inclusion in September The Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion 2008 presented for the first time a report including the three strands social inclusion, pensions and health care/long term care. For the first time the joint report included an analysis of how the Member States finance social protection in general and assessment of how the social dimension has been integrated into the Operational Programmes for the Structural Fund Period, in order to see how the structural funds contribute to the common social inclusion and social protection objectives. As far as the indicators are concerned, in June 2006 the Social Protection Committee adopted a new set of common indicators for the social protection and social inclusion process. It consisted of a portfolio of 14 overarching indicators (+11 context indicators) to reflect the newly adopted overarching objectives (a) "social cohesion" and (b) "interaction with the Lisbon strategy growth and jobs objectives", and of three strand portfolios for social inclusion, pensions, and health and long-term care. In this context, indicators were agreed upon taking a consensual approach and using a set of criteria which include comparability based on sound EU harmonised data, policy responsiveness, clear normative interpretation, focus on outcomes, etc. The ISG also agreed on a new typology of indicators with distinction between those that can directly be used for benchmarking, and those that can only be used to monitor progress within a single country. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

30 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy Box 1.6: Overarching portfolio of indicators 28 (see also Annex 2) Overarching portfolio 1a Risk of poverty 1b Intensity of poverty risk 2 Income inequalities 3 Health outcome, inequality in health 4 Educational outcome and human capital formation 5 Access to labour market 6 Financial Sustainability of social protection systems 7a Pensions adequacy 7b Pensions adequacy 8 Inequalities in access to health care 9 Improved standards of living resulting from economic growth 10 Employment of older workers 11 In-work poverty 12 Participation in labour market 13 Regional cohesion 14 More health (To be decided following ISG work on health indicators) Context information: 1 GDP growth 2 Employment rate, by sex; Unemployment rate, by sex, and key age groups; Long term unemployment rate, by sex and key age groups 3 Life expectancy at birth and at 65 4 Old age dependency ratio, current and projected 5 Distribution of population by household types, including collective households 6 Public debt, current and projected, % of GDP 7 Social protection expenditure, current, by function, gross and net 8 Jobless households by main household types 9 Making work pay indicators (unemployment trap, inactivity trap esp. second earner case, low-wage trap). 10 Net income of social assistance recipients as a % of the at-risk of poverty threshold for 3 jobless household types. 11 At-risk-of-poverty rate before social transfers (other than pensions) 12 NAT: Change in projected theoretical replacement ratio for base case accompanied with information on type of pension scheme, and change in projected public pension expenditure Streamlined social inclusion portfolio (see in the annex 2) The indicators to be used for monitoring the social inclusion strand of the Social Protection and Social Inclusion Strategy draw largely on the existing set of "Laeken indicators" in its latest form. The agreed list contains 11 primary indicators, 3 secondary indicators and 11 context indicators In practice, the primary list has been refocused to contain only the most important indicators that describe the various dimensions of poverty and social exclusion IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

31 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion Streamlined Pensions Portfolio (see in the annex 2) The list of streamlined indicators to reflect the three streamlined objectives as regards pensions (adequate pensions, sustainable pensions, modernised pensions) is based on the available set of indicators developed by the ISG (as reflected by the list of indicators and data used for the 2005 National Strategy Reports on pensions and on previous ISG reports on work in progress as regards indicators on pensions in late 2002). The agreed list contains 11 primary indicators, 11 secondary indicators and 5 context indicators regrouped in accordance with the streamlined objective to which they refer. Health Portfolio (see in the annex 2) Preliminary proposal for a set of indicators to use in the 2006 reporting exercise to reflect the common objectives in the area of health and long-term care. For the second cycle of the Social OMC, the objectives agreed upon in 2006 remained unchanged: Member States have been asked to submit integrated National Strategy Reports (NSR) on Social Protection and Social Inclusion in September 2008 using a common framework presented in the Guidance Note with a view to enhancing the effectiveness of the OMC. In April 2008, the Social Protection Committee adopted a new list of indicators for the monitoring of the health care and long-term care objectives of the Open Method of Coordination on Social Protection and Social Inclusion, as well as two new health-related indicators to be included in the overarching portfolio (see Annex 3) The Lisbon Treaty and social inclusion The Treaty of Lisbon, signed in Lisbon on 13 December 2007 and entered into force on 1 December 2009, will change the workings of the European Union (EU). The new Treaty provides for much closer attention to social inclusion than the previous ones, containing references to social inclusion in various parts: Bronzini 29 deems that, dispersed as they are, they need to be read within a common framework and their effectiveness will rely largely on this possibility of being integrated in a comprehensive picture. The Treaty of Lisbon allows the EU to maintain and develop further the social achievements in full respect of national prerogatives. A highly competitive social market economy, full employment and social progress are included amongst the Union s objectives. The coordination of Member States economic policies and employment policies is within the sphere of competence of the Union, which allows for the possible coordination of Member States social policies. Its relevance in terms of social inclusion is well described in the EU website 30 : The Treaty of Lisbon contains a social clause whereby the social issues (promotion of a high employment level, adequate social protection, the fight against social exclusion, etc.) must be taken into account when defining and implementing all policies. Fundamental rights will also be recognised in the Treaty of Lisbon through the incorporation of legally binding reference to the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It contains a section on solidarity, which lists a number of rights and principles directly relevant to the social field, the most relevant of which, in this context, is the right to have access to social security and social assistance. 29 Bronzini G., Il Modello Sociale Europeo nel Trattato di Lisbona, in ASTRID, Le nuove istituzioni europee. Commento al Trattato di Lisbona, a cura di F. Bassanini e G. Tiberi, Il Mulino, Bologna, 2008) 30 IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

32 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy The Charter indicates that the Union recognises and respects the right of access to services of general economic interest as provided for in national laws and practices, in order to promote the social and territorial cohesion of the Union. The Treaty of Lisbon recognises public services as an indispensable instrument of social and regional cohesion. It includes a special protocol setting out key principles for action to promote effective services of general interest, which will offer the right basis for EU action in the future. It refers to services of general economic interest as services to which all in the Union attribute value as well as their role in promoting its social and territorial cohesion. In the Lisbon Treaty the distribution of competences in various policy areas between Member States and the Union is explicitly set out in the following three categories: Exclusive competence The Union has exclusive competence to make directives and conclude international agreements when provided for in a Union legislative act. the customs union the establishing of the competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market monetary policy for the Member States whose currency is the euro the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy common (trade) policy commercial Shared competence Member States cannot exercise competence in areas where the Union has done so. the internal market social policy, for the aspects defined in this Treaty economic, social and territorial cohesion agriculture and fisheries, excluding the conservation of marine biological resources environment consumer protection transport trans-european networks energy the area of freedom, security and justice common safety concerns in public health matters, for the aspects defined in this Treaty Supporting competence The Union can carry out actions to support, coordinate or supplement Member States' actions. the protection and improvement of human health industry culture tourism education, youth, sport and vocational training civil protection (disaster prevention) administrative cooperation 1.2. The evolution of Common Objectives A clear trend can be seen in the evolution of objectives agreed upon within the framework of the OMC process. It can be summarised as follows: from a policy of fighting social exclusion to a new framework for social protection and social inclusion that also tackles pensions, healthcare and long-term care. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

33 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion Before implementation of the OMC the watchword was the fight against social exclusion: The Council acknowledges that combating social exclusion may be part of the social dimension of the internal market and the need of developing integration policies alongside economic development policies (Council resolution of 29 September 1989). At Maastricht the first steps for the creation of an European common vision on fighting social exclusion were taken: the concept of poverty is extended towards a wider concept which considers the multidimensional and dynamic character of social exclusion; the promotion of a high level of employment and of social protection is added as one of the tasks of the EC. With the Treaty of Amsterdam the fight against social exclusion is proclaimed one of the Community objectives and the focus begins to turn to social rights employment, living and working conditions, social protection, social dialogue and combating exclusion, all considered as fundamental rights. Equality between men and women becomes a key issue. At the European Council of Lisbon a new strategic goal for the Union was agreed upon: to strengthen employment, economic reform and social cohesion as part of a knowledge-based economy. An initial set of common objectives on social inclusion was adopted by the Nice European Council. The Lisbon Summit highlighted the essential linkage between Europe's economic strength and its social model: at the heart of the Agenda is modernisation of the European social model. The key challenge is to move from an agenda tackling social exclusion to one that fosters social inclusion and mainstreams it into the heart of all policy making. The objectives set at the 2000 European Council of Nice proved robust and viable: the new priority set is to build on and consolidate the progress made, with a view to further increasing efforts to advance the process launched by the Lisbon European Council: The Council ( ) proposes to the 2002 Copenhagen European Council that the common objectives and implementation arrangements endorsed at the European Council of Nice should be confirmed with the addition of amendments which emphasise the importance of setting targets, the need to strengthen the gender perspective in national action plans and the risks of poverty and social exclusion faced by immigrants. 31 In March 2003 the European Council identified among its priorities: Raising employment and social cohesion, developed in a wider objective defined as Modernising the European social model, which implied More and better jobs for all, Solidarity and social cohesion. The watchword here is: adequate and sustainable pensions even though many other objectives are set: The Union is committed to promoting a high level of social cohesion based on the principles of solidarity and social inclusion. In order to guarantee their adequacy and long-term sustainability, in particular when populations are ageing, the efforts already undertaken by Member States to modernise their social protection systems must be intensified. Healthcare and long term care began to be tackled by the agendas: The European Council welcomes the joint Council/Commission report on health care and long-term care for the elderly and the intensification of the cooperative exchange on this topic 31 IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

34 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy In 2004 the Open Method of Coordination in Healthcare and Long Term Care was launched, focusing on the following objectives: universality, fairness and solidarity in access to care; promotion of high-quality care; guarantee of the financial sustainability of the accessible, high-quality care. In Autumn 2006 a streamlined framework for further development of the Open Method of Coordination for social protection and social inclusion was set out. Revision of the Lisbon Strategy was envisaged as well as the creation of a stronger, more visible OMC with a heightened focus on policy. The existing open methods of coordination in the fields of social inclusion and pensions and the current process of co-operation in the field of health and long-term care were brought together under common objectives and simplified reporting procedures. These objectives were also confirmed by the European Council of The use of Common indicators in NAPS/incl - NSR and Joint Reports 32 Defining common objectives in terms of social protection and social inclusion implies the formulation of common indicators to compare best practices and measure progress towards these common objectives. The use of commonly agreed indicators to monitor progress towards commonly agreed objectives is an essential component of the OMC policy coordination process. This section illustrates how such efforts have been developed within the NAPs/incl. - NSRs. The NAPs: the first set, and in the consequent Joint Report 2002 As described in the Joint Report 2002, in the context of the first set of NAPs Member States were invited to develop, at the national level, indicators and other monitoring mechanisms capable of measuring progress with regard to each of the objectives defined therein. Most Member States used performance indicators to describe the initial situation and identify the main challenges. However, not all the Member States placed the necessary emphasis on this task. Performance indicators measure the characteristics of the phenomena, reflecting the outcome of policies and the progress achieved in tackling key social problems effectively (for example, the poverty rate, the number of school dropouts); policy indicators refer to the policy effort (for example, expenditure on social assistance; the number of homeless assisted). Some Member States make ample use of policy indicators in their NAPs/incl. (Spain, France, Portugal, Denmark). context indicators were added to place policies in the more general economic and social context (for example, the share of social protection expenditure in GDP). Some Member States pay specific attention to the territorial dimension: for some countries such as Spain, Italy, Belgium and Germany the regional differences are striking and it is important for all the information to be available with regional breakdown. 32 This section constitutes a summary and analysis based on the Joint reports on Social Protection and Social inclusion published on the Commission Website IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

35 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion Other countries stress the territorial dimension, but more in the sense of deprived city areas, and propose indicators to monitor these areas specifically (UK, Netherlands, France). In the absence of commonly defined and agreed indicators at the EU level, Member States tend to use different definitions for measuring and characterising current levels of poverty and social exclusion. It is worth noting that the 2002 Joint Report specifies the following: European level indicators should not be limited to income and employment, but should also cover other key areas for social inclusion, such as health, housing, education, social participation and the situation of specific vulnerable groups. 33 As far as health is concerned, a comprehensive health information system was already in preparation at the time of issue of the Joint report as part of the Community's action programme in the field of public health 34. NAPS/incl and Joint report 2004 Member States were requested to make use of the commonly agreed indicators in the NAPs; they were also invited to use third-level indicators defined at the national level to highlight specificities in particular areas not adequately covered by them, and to help interpret the primary and secondary indicators. All NAPs make use of the commonly agreed indicators. They do so in various ways and to various degrees. Many Member States (Belgium, Greece, Spain, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal and Finland) carry out extensive analysis of the situation of poverty and social exclusion on the basis of both the Laeken indicators and national indicators supporting them or highlighting aspects relevant to their national situation. Indicators are not used for policy monitoring or planning purposes, nor are intermediate targets set for the timespan of the plan. On the other hand, Ireland and the United Kingdom make ample use of the commonly agreed indicators alongside the national definitions of poverty applied in their own national strategy against social exclusion and poverty, but these indicators are not used for the formulation of targets: they are formulated mainly on the basis of national indicators. Also the French NAP provides for ample use of indicators, formulating a wide range of indicators combining common and national indicators, outcome and policy indicators for the plan follow-up. Austria, Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands make only limited use of the commonly agreed indicators, for different reasons. The Danish NAP is very much focused on the most vulnerable groups for which there is no or little coverage in the Laeken indicators. In the Austrian and German NAPs, on the other hand, indicators are seen only as providing a framework for analysis. The Dutch NAP uses the Laeken indicators only for the purpose of benchmarking its performance against the performance of the other EU countries; in developing its strategy, it makes ample use of national, mainly policy-related indicators. 33 Joint Report on Social Inclusion COM (2000) 285 final of IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

36 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy It must be recognised that serious practical issues remain to be addressed before the commonly agreed indicators can be used to full advantage to assess performance in practice. Important in this respect are the reliability and timeliness of the relevant data. Several third-level (or national) indicators have been used in the NAPs/incl.: Alongside the commonly agreed indicators, some Member States use different definitions and/or alternative data sources for measuring and characterising current levels of poverty and social exclusion. For example, France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom use national data sources to calculate at-risk-ofpoverty indicators, as they provide more timely results. The sub-national dimension of poverty and social exclusion is in some instances (Belgium, Greece, France and Italy) described through regional breakdown of the common indicators. In particular, Greece distinguishes interestingly between rural and urban regions, highlighting the different nature of poverty and social exclusion in these two areas. Most Member States use policy-related indicators, which can be more easily integrated within development of a policy strategy. Examples of these indicators are: the number of unemployed or long-term unemployed persons who are assisted by some labour market policy measure; the number of available social housing units and the amount of minimum income benefits. The distinction between input-related and performance indicators is not always straightforward and some indicators are better qualified as "intermediate output" indicators. Such indicators express on the one hand the policy effort in favour of those at risk of poverty and on the other hand the impact of social policies as well as the economic context more at large. NAPS/incl and Joint Report 2006 As previously in 2004, in 2006, indicators were used to describe the national situation but to a much lesser extent to refer either to future strategies or as means to review progress in relation to the strategies set out in the 2003 NAPs/incl. Only Belgium, Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK reported on concrete policy measures in respect of plans made and targets set in their previous NAPs. In outlining new commitments many Member States made no use of indicators (Belgium, Germany, Denmark, France, Italy and Luxembourg), or referred to them only briefly and in very general terms (Austria and Finland). However other countries (Spain, Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands and Sweden) used indicators as benchmarks for future improvement in their social inclusion situation. Most of the indicators considered stem from the set of Laeken indicators. The United Kingdom made a much more elaborate use of indicators, various Laeken indicators being complemented with tertiary indicators. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

37 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion NSR and Joint report 2007 There is some increase in the use of indicators and targets and national strategies increasingly allocate resources and responsibility to measures tailored to the targets and objectives, but this is still not done systematically 35. Most Member States draw on the EU's lists of overarching and social inclusion indicators to describe the social situation, often focusing on the key indicators most relevant to their strategy. A number of countries also base their assessment on full review of the overarching and social inclusion indicators. The EU-based indicators are often supplemented by national outcome indicators, used as an alternative to the EU measure, or to cover populations such as specific vulnerable groups (immigrants, ethnic minorities, the disabled, people living in deprived areas, the homeless), or to cover dimensions that are not yet covered by EU indicators (housing, persistent poverty, socio-economic gaps in life expectancy, etc.). Member States also use national input or output indicators that are often more timely and directly related to specific policy measures. In many cases, these policy-related indicators are accompanied by targets. Some Member States have been more successful than others at pointing out how the quantitative assessment presented is used in policy making, in terms of identifying priorities, monitoring progress and, in some cases, setting targets. Box 1.7: Cases of good practice in the development of integrated indicators 36 The UK report is an example of good practice on how indicators can be used for policy making in all three strands of action of the overarching indicators: in addition to the fact that monitoring on the basis of indicators and targets has been part of its social inclusion strategy since the late 1990s, the UK has made an effort to link its national monitoring exercise to thorough assessment of the newly adopted EU indicators (including summary tables), thereby assessing UK performance in the EU context. The France report is another good example of how common EU indicators and supplementary indicators can be used in policy making. National priorities are accompanied by the relevant indicator(s), both to justify their selection as priorities (outcome indicators) and to monitor progress (both outcome and input/output indicators). A nationally defined set of indicators consistent with the EU common indicators has been agreed upon to monitor social cohesion. NSR and Joint report 2008 The Joint Report 2008 focuses on child poverty, pensions (together with longer working lives), health and long-term care. Taking direct reference from the report: With regard to child poverty, it considers the fact that standardised indicators have been adopted in a growing number of Member States on the needs of schools in impoverished neighbourhoods or deprived areas (UK, Sweden, Ireland, Belgium). Several Member States concentrate on reducing the number of early drop-outs by setting specific targets (Portugal) or introducing monitoring and evaluation based not only on statistics but also on evidence-based experiments (The Netherland) and specific indicators (EL). 35 Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion Source: Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion 2007 IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

38 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy The join report considers Health indicators at the EU level to be very patchy and in need of improvement (the Indicators Sub-Group of the Social Protection Committee is currently working on developing common indicators for the Healthcare and Long-term Care strand of the OMC). Indicators of the quality of care are used to assess and evaluate the quality of the services provided in both institutional and community settings. Concerning long-term care, the indicators mainly refer to the quality of supply. Considering that the bulk of care in the home setting is provided by informal carers, structural indicators of staff ratios and adequate training do not reflect this situation. The use of outcome indicators for quality monitoring still remains underdeveloped in the majority of Member States The use of targets in NAPS/NSR and Joint Reports 37 The development of effective strategic plans for tackling poverty and social exclusion in the context of the common objectives agreed upon by all Member States calls for clear targets to be achieved if significant progress is to be made towards the overall goal of eradicating poverty and social exclusion. NAPS and Joint Report 2002 In the first set of NAPS, as described in the Joint Report 2002, some Member States set specific targets on the basis of the analysis. Two categories of targets can be distinguished: Some Member States focused on a single overall target: reducing poverty levels (Ireland), halving the number of welfare recipients (Sweden), increasing the number of people in employment (Denmark). Other Member States set themselves a series of specific targets, either "administrative" (Netherlands) or on specific outcomes (UK), or a mixture of the two (Portugal). Most other Member States, while not setting specific targets, implicitly identified the indicators to be used for monitoring through their analyses. Only Austria and Germany made no specific mention of indicators (apart from reference to the recent Government report on poverty and wealth). NAPS and Joint report 2004 The conclusions of the Barcelona European Council invited Member States "to set targets, in their NAPs, for significantly reducing the number of people at risk of poverty and social exclusion by 2010". This invitation was elaborated upon in the Common Outline agreed for the 2003/2005 NAPs/incl. by the Commission and Member States, which stated that quantified targets should be set for reducing the number of people at risk of poverty and social exclusion. Many broad, non-quantified targets are set in the NAPs. Only a few Member States have set ambitious, achievable and time-specific quantified targets for the reduction of the number of people at risk of poverty and social exclusion across a range of relevant policy domains. 37 This section constitutes a summary based on the Joint reports published on the Commission Website IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

39 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion A more common approach has been to set either intermediate outcome targets indirectly linked to the reduction of poverty and social exclusion or input targets related to policy efforts (see table below). Table 1.1: Use of Quantified Targets in the NAPs/inclusion EU Source: Joint Report on Social Inclusion 2004 The Member States which most consistently and systematically set quantified targets derived from the priorities and objectives they set in their plans are Ireland, France, Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden and the UK. A number of Member States are less systematic in setting quantitative targets across the full range of the common objectives. In general targets are more common in the area of employment/unemployment and this may reflect targets already set in the employment process. Missing from the NAPs are signs of recognition of the importance of linking policies, addressing poverty and the social exclusion of disadvantaged people consistently, with an integrated approach at the local level, from identification of the key risks and challenges to establishment of clear priorities through assessment of the effectiveness of existing responses and target setting. 38 1) Direct Outcome Targets are those targets that directly indicate a reduction in poverty and social exclusion in a key policy domain (i.e. unemployment, low income, poor housing/homelessness, educational disadvantage, poor health). They are subdivided into targets based directly on Laeken indicators and targets based on other national measurements. 2) Intermediate Outcome Targets are those outcome targets which may indirectly contribute to a reduction in poverty and social exclusion (e.g. reduction in number of people depending on assistance payments; general increase in employment levels; reduction in level of sick leave); 3) Input Targets are those targets which aim at an increase in policy effort (e.g. increasing the number of homeless assisted; ensuring that all immigrants can participate in an integration programme). IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

40 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy NAPS and Joint Report 2005 The analysis of the National Action Plans on Social Inclusion ( ) submitted by the 10 new Member States lacks a specific section on the presence of targets in the plans, but clearly states that to achieve the overall aim of social inclusion process, i.e. achieving a decisive impact in the eradication of poverty by 2010, much more will be needed at both the national and EU level: in this context particular stress is placed on setting more ambitious targets: The process would be significantly strengthened by Member States identifying the issues that are crucial for them and setting quantified outcome targets for each of these 39. NAPS and Joint report 2006 Only a few countries (in particular Ireland and the UK, but also to some extent Belgium) offer evidence of clear arrangements for monitoring and assessing the implementation and impact of the NAPs on an ongoing basis and it is likely that in several Member States the lack of such arrangements compromised the possibility of producing a rigorous and informed implementation report. While a number of countries held one-off consultations while preparing their reports this is no substitute for having an ongoing, formal monitoring and evaluation system in place. The confusion between monitoring and evaluation in many reports also suggests that several Member States may need not only to put appropriate institutional arrangements in place but also to invest in developing analytical capacity. NSR and Joint report 2007 There is some increase in the use of quantified targets, but there are significant differences between Member States. Some have either put forward no targets at all or presented so few that they hardly seem likely to give meaningful direction to the plan. Several Member States have, however, put forward a broader set of targets. The most systematic use of targets seems to have been made in the reports by Ireland, the UK, the Netherlands and Portugal. Overall, there is very little information on evaluation arrangements. Sometimes an evaluation plan, report or conference is mentioned, and the challenge will be to determine the causal impact of interventions. Evaluation tends to be scheduled at the end of the planning period to feed into the next strategic cycle. Various tools are used surveys, conferences, seminars, consultation processes, etc. and procedures may be formal or informal. Often stakeholders and independent experts are involved (more so than in the case of monitoring). NSR and Joint report 2008 Social Inclusion and Social Protection policy remain high on the policy agenda for most Member States and some have even reinforced their commitments by setting quantitative targets to reduce poverty. France has set a new objective to reduce poverty by one third within the next 5 years (2.1 million). 39 Report on Social Inclusion An analysis of the National Action Plans on Social Inclusion ( ) submitted by the 10 new Member States IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

41 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion The Netherlands has set a target of 200,000 extra people in employment by the end of the 4-year government term. More in general, most Member States have made significant efforts to use the structural funds to target not just the "Growth and Jobs" priorities but also the common social objectives. In Finland the new government has made it clear that it regards the ageing population, changes in the labour market and globalisation as major challenges, and is reforming its social protection systems accordingly. The Slovenian Government has made efforts to enhance its approach to Employment by amending the Employment and Insurance Act. As already seen in the section concerning indicators, the Joint Report 2008 focuses in particular on child poverty. In this respect the main focus is on education and early dropout from school. Some Member States set quantified objectives and targets in this area. The UK has set priority objectives and key outcome-based performance targets. Keeping children at school longer and investing in their education contributes to improved educational outcomes and therefore better performance in the labour market. Some Member States have adopted specific policies and set quantitative targets to increase the number of places available and the number of teachers in pre-school education (Ireland, Italy, Poland, Spain). Some have policies to improve access to pre-school education with special focus on urban disadvantaged areas (Ireland, France) and disadvantaged rural areas (Poland). Several Member States follow up measures for reducing the number of early dropouts by setting specific targets (Portugal) or introducing monitoring and evaluation based not only on statistics but also on evidence-based experiments (the Netherlands) and specific indicators (EL). It may be recalled that in 2003, in the framework of the Education and Training 2010 work programme, Member States committed themselves to reducing the EU early school leaving average to a maximum of 10% by Even if some progress has been registered since, substantial efforts are still required to meet such a target. Currently, the EU average for early school leaving is around 15% - in some countries (Italy, Spain, Portugal, Malta) the average is above 20% Some considerations on streamlining within social policy The 2005 Commission Communication "Working together, working better: A new framework for the open coordination of social protection and inclusion policies in the European Union set the basis for further development of the Social OMC through the creation as from 2006 of a streamlined OMC framework. Since 2006 Member States have introduced a new form of policy coordination by streamlining the work they were already doing in the fields of social inclusion and pensions, and agreed to extend the OMC to the field of health and long-term care. The aim was twofold: to develop a stronger process and to integrate it better with the EU growth and jobs objectives (the so-called renewed Lisbon Strategy). The new streamlined OMC on social protection and social inclusion (Social OMC) aims to cover three specific policy strands: Eradication of poverty and social exclusion, Adequate and sustainable pensions, IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

42 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy Accessible, high-quality and sustainable health and long-term care. The streamlined method OMC is designed to encourage Member States to take a more strategic, comprehensive and cross-cutting approach in their reporting while still allowing the specific characteristics of each strand to be taken into account. 40 The Joint Report 2007 assessed the national reports and concluded that joint consideration of the full set of common social objectives was helping to improve the consistency and effectiveness of policies. In general, the national reports were more strategic than in previous years, focusing on a limited selection of priorities and presenting a global strategy for achieving the common objectives. Let us consider three interesting examples from NSR as assessed by the joint report: Ireland: As regards policy co-ordination and the involvement of all actors, there are further welcome developments in the Ireland approach. Towards 2016 provides, for instance, that a 'streamlined national social inclusion report will be prepared annually by the Office for Social Inclusion, with the purpose of monitoring and reviewing progress at each stage of the life cycle. This development is welcome and should help to ensure that social inclusion issues receive due weight in policy development and implementation. Portugal: Great efforts have been made to streamline the extensive list of occasionally overlapping and redundant measures, while increasing their clarity, attributing responsibilities, establishing schedules for implementation and allocating financial resources. These efforts need to be further pursued and improved, for example by setting precise deadlines and clear measurable monitoring and impact indicators for the various priorities. Slovenia: The priority, namely ensuring care for the elderly, combines the objectives of all three strands of the streamlined open method of coordination in the fields of social protection and social inclusion. The measures will be achieved as part of the implementation of the Strategy for Protection of Elderly up to 2010, which is being drafted. It will cover activation of older workers, ensuring socially adequate and sustainable pensions, and a variety of measures in the field of health and long-term care for the elderly. In addition, the National Programme for Social Protection covers maintaining and developing the existing services for social protection of the elderly (institutional care, network of daily care, domestic help services, sheltered housing, etc.). According to the Joint Report 2008 the first cycle of the streamlined open method of coordination (OMC) has shown that the common social objectives agreed upon in 2006 have been of help to the Member States in designing their policies. Aiming at long term goals, they remain valid and their continuous implementation is crucial to the success of the Lisbon strategy. Focusing on key themes in 2007 was an innovation in the OMC. It has increased understanding, promoted mutual learning and encouraged better monitoring and more focussed reporting. Member States and the Commission will implement refined working methods for reinforced delivery on European and national Strategies with a view to the OMC cycle and beyond. 40 European Commission, Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A renewed commitment to social Europe: reinforcing the Open Method of Coordination for Social Protection and Social Inclusion: Impact assessment SEC (2008) 2169 IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

43 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion According to the recent Impact Assessment 41 A preliminary assessment of that experience shows that this method has served the purpose of creating a shared understanding of the issues at stake while providing Member States with helpful indications of the specific challenges to be addressed in order to achieve the common goals., while according to other independent evaluations the streamlined framework of the Social OMC is often not reflected in NSRs. Here is one example: from an assessment made by The European Older People s Platform: 42 the links between social inclusion, social protection, and health and long-term care processes were missing, demonstrating ( ) poor internal co-ordination between the various ministries involved in the drafting of the reports. ( ) As the European Union moves towards a greater interaction between economic, employment and social policies, there is a need to synchronise actions implemented in these different areas. ( ) This cross-policy coordination is expected to improve coherence between these policies and to help achieve the Lisbon objectives. A preliminary overview of the Joint Report 2009 presents the case of 3 targeted policies where an integrated and streamlined approach has appeared to be particularly fruitful. What is especially interesting is that a new need is emerging, namely the necessity to streamline employment policy, too: Child poverty: Most Member States are planning to reinforce their strategies and follow a more multidimensional and integrated approach. Many have mainstreamed child poverty in areas such as minimum income and wages, reconciliation of work and family life and family-friendly services. Roma people face manifold disadvantages and are among the most excluded in European societies. In the new reports Member States with a sizable Roma minority have upgraded their coverage of the problem and, in general, there is a better recognition of the challenges it entails. Actions taken or announced focus mainly on desegregation, access to employment, addressing educational disadvantage and improved access to basic services such as housing and healthcare. However, in most countries a comprehensive policy framework is still lacking, due also to the nonavailability of data and an insufficient knowledge-base. As in the 2006 NSRs, most Member States have active inclusion among their priorities. However, inclusive labour markets, access to quality services and adequate income are dealt with separately in most cases, whereas most of the disadvantaged people suffer from manifold disadvantages and integrated responses are essential. Coordinated social and employment services are needed to tackle obstacles to full and lasting participation in society and the labour market. More attention must therefore be paid to optimising the interaction between the three strands and ensuring that due account be taken of each. Many Member States have begun to introduce housing as an additional policy area. 41 Ibid. 42 The European Older People s Platform, What is the European Union doing in the field of social protection and social inclusion? A Toolkit to improve civil dialogue in the Open Method of Coordination on Social Protection and Social Inclusion, May 2008 IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

44 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy Homelessness is one of the most severe forms of exclusion and enhanced efforts in some Member States must be extended to include a greater supply of affordable housing. Comprehensive, multidimensional strategies aim to address the various aspects of the proble specifically, while another approach focuses on measures integrated within wider policy frameworks, e.g. relating to housing, employment, and health. Supported housing combining the objective of independent living with personalised social support is receiving much attention. Several countries have set targets to reduce homelessness or reinforce support structures. Lack of reliable data still hampers efforts to define and monitor effective policies. Promoting financial inclusion is crucial to prevent homelessness, particularly in the current circumstances; appropriate support and advice must be ensured for people facing eviction or repossession. Summary of Chapter 1 The OMC was formally established in 2000 during the Lisbon summit, introducing Social inclusion as an additional policy field for cooperation at the European level with the aim of developing greater social cohesion and fighting poverty and social exclusion in the light of the strategic objective of socio-economic development. The OMC has no binding character and is configured as a soft-law instrument : the process is based on a decentralized approach, involving albeit with different weight and with different roles the European Commission, the EU Member states, the European Parliament, Civil Society representatives, as well as other EU institutions. Its main instruments are: i) common objectives to tackle poverty and social exclusion, ii) common indicators to enable monitoring of progress towards the common objectives, iii) the National Strategic reports (NSR), the National action plans (NAPs) and Joint reports, which present, monitor and assess progress towards the common objectives and the policies implemented at national level, and iv) exchange of good practices. The common objectives have been modified over the years, also reflecting the learning-process for tackling the multidimensional and dynamic nature of the Social Inclusion phenomena in the framework of the OMC process. In short, these developments move on from a policy of fighting social exclusion (before the formal implementation of the OMC) to enhancing employment, economic reform and social cohesion (European Council of Lisbon), which disembogued in the set of common objectives on Social Inclusion (Nice European Council), with emphasis on the integration of the gender perspective and due consideration of immigrants. With regard to the Indicators the Social Protection Committee and the Indicators Sub-group-ISG have been constituted to set and develop the common indicators. These are constantly elaborated, modified and extended by the ISG, and represent an important tool for measuring and evaluating the process at the national and European level. The indicators can be distinguished by level (primary, secondary and additional national ones), as well as quality (performance, policy, context and territorial indicators). The use of statistical data (indicators) as an important tool for measuring the national situation evidenced an urgent need to adopt common definitions to describe in comparable terms the processes and developments achieved in the European countries. The NAPs, the NSRs and the Joint Reports which have accompanied the process since 2002 and are regularly up-dated, illustrate the progress towards the objectives, targets and uses of indicators. They show different national approaches and strategies for addressing social inclusion and social protection, with a more or less effective use of indicators and targets : many countries have so far failed to formulate any. Development of the objectives, targets and indicators led finally to the integration of pensions and health and long-term care in 2004 as further aspects to tackle the social dimension of poverty and exclusion. In 2006 the three separate strands were streamlined into one integrated OMC for Social Protection and Social Inclusion. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

45 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion 2. THE INSTITUTIONAL SETTING AND WORKING METHODS OF THE SOCIAL INCLUSION OMC: THE ACADEMIC DEBATE This chapter analyses the prospects for further improvement of the institutional settings and working methods of the social inclusion OMC. While dealing with the same topics as chapter I, it reconsiders them in the light of the debate in the literature, with a view to assessing the state of the art in the present functioning of the OMC, and on the scope for further improvement. Building on the European Commission s Impact Assessment (SEC (2008)2170), which is itself the result of extended consultation with the relevant stakeholders, the chapter approaches the following areas of interest: the possible introduction of quantitative targets; definition of common principles and the use of legal acts; enlarged participation and improved transparency; the prospects for reinforcing the links with the Lisbon strategy and for monitoring the whole implementation process The social OMC and the key issues of concern for social inclusion policies in the EU: a working balance? As the previous sections showed, OMC implementation is based on iterative benchmarking of national progress towards common European objectives and organized mutual learning (Armstrong et al., 2008). The debate on the consequences of the measures developed so far, whether at the national or EU level, is both open and contentious (cf. Dieckhoff and Gallie, 2007 and Zeitlin, 2009, among others). In a nutshell, while most accounts focus on the limited impingements of the OMC in the realm of national policy-making, some authors also emphasize its relevance at the cognitive level. The argument, in this perspective, is that the OMC will gradually shape the terms in which the social inclusion issues are approached and, possibly, in which new policies are implemented. In principle, the new centrality of social inclusion in the EU policy discourse is unanimously hailed as a key factor, setting the Lisbon strategy apart from past developments. Still, the sceptics argue that the Social OMC policy process as a whole is timid and key elements are weak, as Daly (2007) puts it. Coming in for criticism are not only the rhetoric of modernizing social protection, exposing a vision of social policy which is basically functional to the EU market integration, or, for that matter, the subordination of social inclusion issues to those of economic growth and job creation. A more radical criticism involves the possibility that the OMC, rather than promoting a significant policy transfer, might turn out as a merely symbolic provision. For some, the weakness of Social OMC as a policy method lies in the lack of sanctioning mechanisms, in its far too vague objectives, and even in peer pressure being far from strict. Notable, too, is the risk that national reports remain purely procedural matters, concerned more with technical details than with the substantive issues at stake. As a result, given the poor scope for peer critical reviews (let alone mutual learning), Member States have little to fear from the Joint Reports (Daly, 2007). IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

46 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy Other authors would contend, however, that symbolic politics is seldom merely symbolic (Jacobsson, cit. in Mabbett, 2005). To begin with, a soft law approach is not an inherent reason for failure just as EU hard law cannot be automatically expected to meet with the Member States full compliance (Trubek and Trubek, 2005; Souto-Otero et al., 2008). In a sense, the start of the Social OMC may be regarded as progress in its own right, as it involves a policy realm i.e. welfare-related policies with no further scope for supranational harmonization, or for expanding the community method. Given this premise, the OMC is a convenient formula for placing issues high on the EU agenda whilst preserving national autonomy (Borrás and Jacobsson, 2004). Once the focus is not only on substantive changes in policy-making or governmental procedures, but also on cognitive and discursive shifts, along with changes in issue salience and political agendas, the scope for OMC influence is much wider. As Zeitlin (2007) puts it, the Social OMC has helped to reframe national policy thinking by incorporating EU thinking and categories into domestic debates; exposing domestic actors to new policy approaches, often inspired by foreign examples; and questioning established domestic policy assumptions and programmes. The emphasis, here, is on the OMC less as a normative than as a cognitive tool, potentially paving the way for a communal trend in the drection of reform across Europe. Evidence in this respect, in the field of social inclusion, is for now scant (Mabbett, 2007; Radulova, 2007). It should, however, be remembered that changes in the terrain of cognitive framings and in the representation of social issues, such as those that the OMC may be fuelling across the EU, can be duly appreciated only in the medium or long run (Kroeger, 2009). Altogether, while most scholars would recognize the positive impact of the social inclusion OMC as a policy vision, the same does not apply to its outcomes, as of now, as a method of policy-making (Daly, 2007). Whatever the judgement of the OMC accomplishments, the picture of national policies for social inclusion in the EU is highly differentiated, as the literature shows (e.g. Ferrera et al., 2002). Very significant differences exist on a national basis in terms of welfare arrangements and traditions, and even of understandings of the scope and forms of social protection (Borrás and Jacobsson, 2004). Even so, attention can be focused on the communal challenges, involving major social inclusion issues applying across the European countries (Council of the European Union, 2009; Dieckhoff and Gallie, 2007). Chief among these is the scope for (and contents of) active welfare policies and flexicurity measures; inclusion and non-discrimination of ethnic minorities and immigrants; the overexposure to poverty and vulnerability of children; the sustainability, and even more the acceptability for national constituencies, of welfare benefits to the most vulnerable, as in the third general objective of the European strategy against social exclusion, at the Nice Council (2000). 43 In the face of the challenges applying across the Member States, as well as the issues peculiar to each of them, the Social OMC development has resulted in a broad perspective for policy learning and benchmarking at different levels. Distinction between EU-relevant social inclusion indicators and nationally-based indicators now needs to be highlighted, even within the perspective of a communal understanding of social exclusion as a multidimensional social process (Atkinson et al., 2004). 43 The other three objectives being to facilitate participation in employment and universal access to resources, rights, goods and services; to prevent social exclusion; to mobilize all relevant stakeholders (cf. Atkinson et al., 2004; Daly, 2006). IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

47 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion 2.2. Common indicators and targets as means to improve the social OMC A fundamental way ahead to improve the social inclusion OMC lies in the construction, refinement and comparative application of solid indicators with respect to the common targets to be achieved. This section analyses the academic debate on progress made so far in designing indicators, and subsequently identifying targets, for social inclusion. It also provides a comparative review of their current implementation, judging both from the availability and reliability of data sources, and from their applications in national reports. The strengths and limitations of a consensual approach will be assessed, along with the initiatives already developed and the potential scope to finalize them into a common, EU-relevant framework. The development of a specific set of social-inclusion related indicators was first prompted by a study commissioned in 2001 to a group of eminent scholars in the field, lead by Anthony Atkinson (see Atkinson et al., 2004, for a synthesis). In the 2001 Laeken Council version, such indicators approached social inclusion as a multidimensional goal, to be pursued with relevant policies on economic poverty, employment, health and education. Without detailing further the contents of each indicator (see Chapter 1), let us recall the distinction between the primary and secondary indicators, supposed to be relevant to each Member State, on the one hand, and the third level indicators regarding specific national issues (albeit consistent with the broader framework), on the other hand. At each of these levels, the relevant indicators consistently with the subsidiarity approach informing the OMC apply to the final outcomes of national policies, rather than to the methodologies and the means involved in their implementation (O Connor, 2005). In the Atkinson group s expectations, a peer assessment of Member States performance in social inclusion, on the basis of sound indicators, should allow for significant progress in three respects: in the ways of implementing effective national policies; in highlighting and exchanging good practices and, possibly, in the middle term, in a terrain of policy convergence. In fact, the assumption that the agreed indicators should necessarily impinge on policy agendas, once their validity is recognized, has proved questionable. It actually mirrors a rather technocratic view of the policy process, as Mabbett (2007) remarks. The same objection applies to the development of measurable, cross-national targets, and hence of benchmarking. As a very preliminary step, national targets should be ambitious but achievable, relevant, intelligible, quantified and measurable, and time specific (Atkinson et al., 2004). So far in Social OMC implementation, however, Member States have generally reacted weakly to the Commission s calls to invest in target-setting that is, for a more concrete focus on the exact targets to be accomplished (Daly, 2007). Generally speaking, the use of focused policy targets, in some countries at least, seems to reflect the pre-existing welfare arrangements on a national basis, rather than a significant OMC influence (Mabbett, 2007). Yet, moving from broad indicators to reasonably measurable targets is a promising, albeit challenging way ahead for Social OMC implementation, well beyond the 2010 deadline of the Lisbon strategy. As the latest Joint Report puts it, while the decision on setting national quantified targets and their definition remains a core responsibility of the Member States, the positive role of the social OMC could be further strengthened by evidence-based national target-setting (Council of the European Union, 2009). IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

48 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy Common utilization of well-defined targets, over and above a broad commitment to the eradication of poverty, is necessary for progress in social inclusion to be measured, and compared, across Member States (Dieckhoff and Gallie, 2007). To be sure, enhancement of quantitative targets on a national basis would represent an advance in its own right. At the same time, the scope for more ambitious target-setting at a communal level is still relatively limited, given the huge disparities applying to social exclusion rates and patterns, as well as to the reach, coverage and impact of social policies and welfare schemes, across EU countries. Altogether, communal target-setting in the field of pensions (and, of course, of labour market participation) is by now far more advanced than it is for social inclusion strategies. With regard to the latter realm, the latest Joint Report on Social Protection and Inclusion emphasises child poverty as an especially promising issue for target-setting on a coordinated basis also as a result of the 2007 OMC priority focus on the matter. With a view to implementing a multidimensional and integrated approach to this issue, 22 member states are reported to have set specific targets on children poverty, in most cases (16 of them) working also on the basis of EU-agreed indicators (Council of the European Union, 2009). On the other hand, rather less progress has been made, so far, in target-setting for social policies addressing other disadvantaged categories from migrants and ethnic minorities to homeless or disabled people. Considerations and policy options following the academic debate: In the light of the experience so far acquired in the area, it appears imperative to tackle definition of common principles, following the methodological procedure applied to arrive at identification of the Common Principles on Flexicurity, which can be summarised thus: drafting by a group of experts of a document serving as proposal of the Commission, to which are attached both the procedure typologies, on the basis of certain characteristics deemed decisive, and a set of indicators, dependent on the choices of the Member States. It is particularly important to bear this procedure in mind. Above all, it serves as a reminder that the tight schedules set by the Commission and Council (6 months from presentation of the proposal to its adoption by the Council) have obliged the European Parliament to speed up parliamentary procedure and approve a resolution of considerable importance in terms of contents but overdue in terms of the Council s decision-making and consolidation of the directions decided upon. It is also important as a reminder of the criticism and political and technical resistance encountered in classification of indicators, not always suited to represent the facts upon which regulatory decisions are taken. To avoid such risks a few precise and stringent quantitative targets can be identified five at the most for each Member State over an established time-span, to be chosen among a series of objectives depending on the initial situation. Such was the case with the Lisbon Strategy guidelines, where, for example, for the macroeconomic line an annual reduction of 0.5% deficit/debt is set. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

49 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion 2.3. Two challenges ahead: enhancing participation and transparency in designing and implementing the social OMC Working on the basis of the new agenda of common objectives drawn up in 2006 (European Commission, 2005), attention is now being paid to two crucial issues: in the first place, participation of the relevant stakeholders including, along with national governments, local authorities, NGOs and the recipients themselves; in the second place, the visibility and transparency of the processes being implemented, with special focus on the scope for monitoring them. Both these issues are a precondition for the success of the OMC s flexible and participatory approach, under which the currency of exchange between Member states is knowledge and norms, rather than law or legal tenets (Daly, 2006). Significantly, transparency and the involvement of stakeholders are emphasized both in the overarching objectives of the social protection and inclusion OMC, and as a specific precondition for the social inclusion strand, with a view to the eradication of poverty and of social exclusion. Nevertheless, a recent Commission Summary of the impact assessment highlights a lack of political commitment and visibility and a need for more involvement of regional and local actors in the social OMC process (SEC(2008)2170). Enhancing participation and transparency is fundamental both for the effectiveness of the social inclusion OMC, and for its legitimacy in the eyes of the relevant stakeholders. On the one hand the influence on national policies of the non-binding OMC framework, and of its broad objectives, is hard to assess: OMC processes do not necessarily result in new [national] legislation or justiciable obligations, rendering the concept of Member State «compliance» problematic (Zeitlin, 2009). The evolution of Member States social policies, moreover, is also contingent on domestic policy-related factors, not necessarily connected to the OMC s broad agenda (Kroger, 2009). 44 On the other hand, a case can be made for the reliance on «output legitimacy» i.e. the perceived effectiveness of the policies implemented to be no more sufficient for the legitimacy of EU policies, long impaired by a legitimacy deficit (Radulova, 2007). Hence the relevance of a broad societal participation is a precondition for the democratic legitimation of the OMC, as a tool of governance (id). Indeed, the mid-term restart of the Lisbon strategy (see below) was also driven by the perceived need to enhance national ownership and participation by non-governmental actors in the reform agenda (Armstrong et al., 2008). However, judging from the analyses of the first round of National Action Plans subsequently realized, no significant change in the OMC implementation in terms of visibility and civil society participation has as yet taken place: In most Member States... involvement of non-state and subnational actors was often confined to formal consultation and/or information exercises, with limited opportunity to influence substantive policy direction or content (cit.). Even so, other scholars argue that the Social OMC has been able to mobilize the European civil society, with special focus on anti-poverty networks, more than any other EU policy tool (Zeitlin et al., 2005; Zeitlin, 2009). 44 The domestic conditions within each Member State are a key variable in accounting for the OMC local impact: The effectiveness of external pressure through the OMC depends primarily on other causal mechanisms, notably socialization, mutual learning, and creative appropriation by domestic actors (Zeitlin, 2009: 13). However, even as Member states selectively appropriate OMC categories and goals, according to their domestic agendas, they at a minimum acknowledge and reinforce the discursive legitimacy of common European objectives and policy approaches (cit.: 19). IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

50 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy As far as transparency is concerned, responsibilities for the monitoring of OMC implementation were defined from the very outset in vague inter-state cooperation terms, leaving a marginal scope of action for the Commission. In Kroger s (2009) critical account, Member States resisted it [the Commission] engaging in independent evaluation by means of the Joint Reports, refusing any kind of hierarchical ranking and benchmarking. [...] Also, Member States resisted the ambition of the Commission to engage in increased target-setting. Whether in terms of stakeholder participation or of transparency and visibility, empirical research generally reports a limited salience of the Social OMC in the national arenas, along with inadequate investments in peer review programmes: Overall... there was no political will to use the OMC as a domestic policy-making instrument. Rather, NAPs started as and remained governmental reports, a sort of beauty contest, to the EU (Kroger, 2009). In strictly methodological terms, however, the scope for comparative analysis hence also for peer-reviewing, has been significantly expanded over the last few years. Since 2006, as a matter of fact, EU-SILC data have been available for all the EU-25 member states. This database, produced through the European Survey on Income and Living Conditions, is a fundamental source concerning the income related aspects of social exclusion all over Europe (cf. European Commission, Monitoring progress towards the objectives of the European Strategy for Social Protection and Social Inclusion, staff working document, 2008). More progress is still to be made on the monitoring, in comparative terms, of all the elements of social exclusion which cannot be reduced to income indicators alone Back to the institutional setting: Strategies, methods and actions reinforcing the social OMC in connection with the revised Lisbon strategy Analysis of the EU s social policy from a regulatory viewpoint, following Hatzopoulos, allows for a twofold approach: from the viewpoint of the means used (some EU actions take the form of hard law instruments, while others are only put forward through funding programmes or soft coordination) and from the viewpoint of the objective pursued (some EU initiatives aim at creating proper EU social policy, integrating to that of Member States, while other initiatives are restricted to coordinating national social policies). It is true that most hard law measures tend to create new social norms, while soft law is mostly used for coordination purposes, but the two distinctions do not fit perfectly. According to Hatzopoulos 45 If the above distinction is applied to the fields of EU social policy ( ) a broad and imperfect dichotomy may be drawn. On the one hand, the EU is pursuing its own social agenda in the fields of a) free movement of workers, b) safety and security in the working place and c) non discrimination. On the other hand, the EU is striving to coordinate national policies in the areas of a) employment, b) training and education and c) social cohesion. This broad distinction is only approximate, since hard and soft law are not mutually exclusive and that EU policies are often accompanied by coordination of national ones. Hard law has received a new light by the late activism of the ECJ, in the direction of securing social rights. 45 Hatzopoulos V., Current Problems of Social Europe, Research Papers in Law, 7/2007 IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

51 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion Soft law, for its part, has been offering increasingly credible solutions and has been attracting attention, since the launch and the formalization of the Open Method(s) of Coordination. Box 2.1: The role of the Court of Justice 46 The ECJ has shown social awareness in many fields of EU law. Starting with the Defrenne judgments, the ECJ developed a rich body of case law concerning a) gender equality, b) the equitable application of Regulation 1408/71 on the mobility of pension and healthcare rights, c) the application of Directive 80/987 on the protection of employees in the event of insolvency of their employer, d) equal terms of access in education, training and relative benefits etc. However, in the recent case law of the ECJ we can distinguish three trends, which clearly illustrate the irresistible evolution of the internal market from a purely economic area to one where the law takes into account the social parameters of the unifying process: the complete abolition of reverse discrimination in the free movement of persons, the enhanced portability of health care rights and the full recognition of professional qualifications. The introduction of the European citizenship by the Treaty of Maastricht (1992) is very important. In a series of recent judgments the ECJ recognized that the relevant EC provisions grant EU citizens autonomous rights, independently from the Treaty freedoms on free movement. Rights accruing from citizenship, as it were, by hypothesis embody the social principle. Hence, the direct application of the Treaty provisions on citizenship entails the generalization of the principle of equal treatment and the abolition of reverse discrimination, leads to the consecration, under EU law, of the fundamental right to family life and goes as far as the recognition of rights of a purely social nature, such as access to the welfare system of other Member States. (...) Many case laws demonstrate that the principle of equal treatment coupled with the rights of citizenship occasionally serve the ECJ as means of positive action, whereby social benefits are being recognized to beneficiaries on a territorial not a national basis. In this way the Court takes a step forward from negative integration and promotes solutions leading to positive integration. Solutions which are not unknown to national social systems and which have been crystallized, to some extent, in Directive 2003/109 on long term migrants. In this way, equal treatment is more than merely a principle, as it gives rise to concrete subjective rights of second (right to a family life) and of third (social benefits) generation. In order to reach the above results, the ECJ occasionally refers itself to provisions of the ECHR, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the European Social Charter or other texts of international law, but always in an incidental way. The core reasoning of the Court is based on an extensive interpretation of the fundamental Treaty freedoms, complemented by fullyfledged citizenship rights and the principle of equal treatment. These developments offer an example of the interaction between the EC judiciary and legislature. This interaction is present in almost all the fields with social relevance. Hence, together with the Court s case law, the elimination of discrimination is also pursued with a series of more recent legislative instruments, namely: a) the citizenship Directive for European citizens and their families, b) the 2000 Directives on non-discrimination, applicable to all resident in the EU irrespective of nationality and c) Directives 2003/86 on family reunification and 2003/109 on long-term residence, for third country nationals. However, neither the Court nor the legislator could intervene in fields where the EC has no competence. Only subsequent to the Maastricht and Amsterdam Treaties has the EC acquired some powers in the social field. These powers, however, are of a limited scope and may only exceptionally serve as a basis for harmonization: the Community can only complement and coordinate national social policies with a major means for achievement of the Lisbon objectives, which is in this scope of the OMC. 46 Hatzopoulos V., Current Problems of Social Europe, Research Papers in Law, 7/2007 IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

52 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy The subsequent Treaty of Lisbon strengthens the social provisions of previous Treaties in various respects: First, the new Article 2 on the objectives of the Union contains a much stronger commitment to social justice and solidarity than the previous one: "The Union shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection, equality between women and men, solidarity between generations and protection of the rights of the child". A new horizontal "social" clause (Art. 5a) stipulates that, "in defining and implementing its policies and activities, the Union shall take into account requirements linked to the promotion of a high level of employment, the guarantee of adequate social protection, the fight against social exclusion, and a high level of education, training and protection of human health." The incorporation of legally binding reference to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which enumerates under Title IV, "Solidarity" a certain number of rights and principles, including "the right of access to social security and social assistance", is also relevant to the Social OMC. Finally, and particularly significant in this context, Article 140 of the Lisbon Treaty gives explicit recognition to the Open Method of Coordination as an EU tool for fostering cooperation between Member States in the area of social policy, and introduces an obligation to regularly inform the European Parliament about developments under the Social OMC. Moreover the legal basis for the OMC and for this initiative can be found in article 137 of the Treaty, complemented by article 144: the Treaty reinforces the need for strengthening the working methods of the OMC. In view of the limited powers that the EC posses in this field and the missed opportunity for more comprehensive competences provided for by the Treaty, action in this field is likely to proceed with new modes of governance within OMC. As Hatzopoulos puts it In this way the EC should gradually adapt its social model in order to cope with ageing populations, restricted public finances and globalised economies. With the profoundly divergent social systems of Member States as starting points, it will be no easy task to face the above challenges with OMC as the main regulatory means. ( ) Three questions at least will need to receive answers in the near future: a) which fields of social policy should be transferred at the European level, and to what extent? b) what social model should European social policy promote? And finally c) how should this model be put to work? These are highly political questions which need strong support to be pushed forward, but the present institutional setting does not appear to be adequate unless the political approach changes dramatically. It was in the second phase of the Lisbon strategy with the so-called Kok report (European Commission, 2004) that the OMC found strength: it recommended that the Lisbon programme be reinvigorated by a closer and exclusive focus on economic growth and jobs, and by intensified peer pressure on Member States (Daly, 2007). Central to the new streamlining strategy, judging from the Commission 2005 communication, are three elements namely: 1. stricter prioritarisation of the issues to be dealt with; 2. stronger participation of all the relevant stakeholders; 3. increased streamlining, involving the procedural implementation within each policy strand. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

53 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion The first point, according to Dieckhoff and Gallie (2009), is the more promising, in terms of its potential for innovation: prioritisation, resulting in a greater emphasis on economic growth and job creation, as a necessary condition for social inclusion. Some academics argue, however, that this shift has resulted in social exclusion being reappraised as a minor and residual issue supposedly applying to the most disadvantaged only, rather than a matter of concern for the whole of society, to be tackled with universalistic measures. In a sense, the prioritizing of jobs and growth serves to cast social exclusion in a subservient role (Daly, 2006). To be sure, this reorientation has been somewhat countered within the EU institutions themselves, as also by trade unions and NGOs. Still, as Daly argues (cit.), the deep-rooted political hierarchy within the EU has been significantly reasserted involving ( from the highest to the lowest ) the arenas of finance and economics, traditionally construed as more important than matters of employment and social protection. On the other hand, the streamlining of social inclusion with health care and pensions calls for further analyses. Social inclusion issues may indeed lose salience in the face of policy domains with a broader political support constituency and a more deeply institutionalized policy position in EU countries. However, the interaction between the three strands may also create greater scope for their synergies, within an integrated social welfare approach (O Connor, 2005). Altogether, the potential for institutionalizing OMC-related learning into national social policies is still largely untapped (Armstrong et al., 2008; Kroger, 2009; Dieckhoff and Gallie, 2009). Progress in two significant respects should be made for the Social OMC to have greater impact in a strictly policy terrain aside from its cognitive impingements in the predominant approaches to social exclusion and developing relevant policies across the EU: on the one hand, peer review mechanisms should be enhanced and refined. This, however, requires a significant investment of competences and resources at the national level. It also presupposes an inherent interest on the part of national administrations in cooperating with each other (Kroger, 2009). Neither requirement should be taken for granted. Still, they are fundamental for crossnational contact to provide policy learning, or even significant transformations in national policies (O Connor, 2005); on the other hand, there is plenty of room for advance in the rationale for selecting good practices, and even in the theoretical framing of what qualifies as such. Despite its increasing currency, this notion does not seem to rest as yet on any communal definition on an EU basis (Mabbett, 2007). Overall, there is a case for making the OMC-led expectations for benchmarking, through exchanges of good practices, more context specific : it is important to recognize that a policy solution, once identified in a specific institutional context, is not necessarily transferable to and even less necessarily successful in a different political environment (Souto-Otero et al., 2008). On the whole, a case could reasonably be made for a significant restructuring of the nexus between OMC implementation and the Lisbon strategy. As the EC Impact Assessment warns (SEC(2008)2170), however, complete integration of the social OMC into the Lisbon Strategy would make the Growth and Jobs Strategy far too complex to be managed, in terms of policy coordination (and even of legitimacy), among Member States. It thus cannot be regarded, as of now, as a viable policy option. At the same time, assessment of the different policy scenarios for the near future, in terms of their expected impact and feasibility, suggests the need to invest in a comprehensive and IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

54 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy ambitious reinforcement [of the social OMC], within the present structure (option 3, cit: 35). In other words, the EC Impact Assessment argues for a policy strategy that should reconcile, in the short to medium run, two instances: a consensual and incremental progress approach as a condition for the OMC to be accepted and implemented by Member States, and a gradual phasing in of innovative elements, such as more closely defined quantitative targets, based on a shared analytical framework (hence also on greater opportunities for mutual learning). In post-lisbon planning, provision should be made for more numerous direct and explicit links between the employment inclusion policies and other policies deemed key, also in access to and use of Funds, from the ESF to the Fund for adjustment to globalization, in the revised form recently proposed by the European Parliament. Indications are to be found in the Resolution of 11 th March 2009 on a European Economic Recovery Plan, in which the European Parliament calls on the Member States to adapt new provisions of the regulations of the European Social Fund, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund and the European Regional Development Fund, including the simplification of the procedures and the widening of eligible costs to serve employment and social inclusion goals even more efficiently, continuing to support employment in key sectors of the economy and ensuring that when providing such assistance strengthening of social and territorial cohesion remain a priority in order to avoid asymmetrical development within the European Union; hopes for the speedier release of funding targeted at employment support, and for EU support programmes to be geared to helping the most vulnerable groups in society including programmes to guarantee decent living conditions and access to high-quality services of general interest. Important indications are also contained in the European Parliament Resolution of 11 th March 2009 on the input to the Spring 2009 European Council in relation to the Lisbon Strategy: points out that the open method of coordination, on which the Lisbon Strategy has been based for nine years, has revealed these limitations in the face of new internal and external challenges confronting the European Union; urges therefore that the post- Lisbon period be based on a more proactive, more global policy, i.e. on the updating of existing common policies (for trade, internal market, economic and monetary union, etc.) and on new common external policies (energy, climate, development, migration, etc.) (point n. 53). IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

55 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion Summary of Chapter 2 There is no agreement among academics on the current extent and consequences of Social OMC implementation. The influence of the OMC framework on national social inclusion policies may be understood to apply in two quite distinct terrains. On the one hand, it is to be considered in terms of a gradual transnational convergence in shared goals, in adopted indicators, in peer reviewing mechanism and even in the exchange of good practices. In each of these respects, most scholars judge the current OMC achievements as falling short of initial expectations also as a result of the lack of sanctioning mechanisms and more sharply defined objectives. The huge differences among European welfare states are also blamed for limited convergence in social inclusion policies. On the other hand, OMC influence on social inclusion policies may even be seen in discursive and cognitive terms as an innovative soft law framework, which could be seen to be shaping the mainstream approach and the agenda-setting on social inclusion at a national level. Further studies may be necessary to bear out this hypothesis in the medium term. Disagreements between the former and the latter theses involve the policy outcomes of OMC implementation, rather than its relevance as a groundbreaking policy vision on social inclusion in Europe. Development of common indicators and targets is a key requirement for further progress in the social OMC. An ample set of social inclusion indicators has been developed, and subsequently refined, with a view to enabling peer assessment and monitoring between member states, supported by the Commission. So far, however, the crucial transition from broad indicators to specific, comparable targets has resulted in an uneven and piecemeal process. It has been developed by some states more than others, and it has substantively applied to a few areas of concern only (e.g. children poverty). Further challenges lying ahead for the enhancement of social OMC implementation involve stakeholder participation and process transparency as key conditions for monitoring the process itself. Despite the progress already made, a recent Commission Summary of the impact assessment emphasizes a need for greater commitment on the part of national governments and authorities, on the one hand, and for more active involvement of local actors on the other. Findings in academic research also suggest that the salience of the social OMC in national arenas is often limited, the investments in peer reviewing inadequate despite the increasing availability of figures and methodological tools for comparative analysis. In the second phase of the Lisbon strategy, since 2005, the social OMC framework has been revised in terms of issue prioritarisation, stakeholder participation and procedural streamlining (hence also closer integration with the goals of the other streams, namely pensions and health/long term care). Even so, most scholars would agree that the potential for institutionalizing OMC-related learning into national social policies is still largely untapped. In particular, significant progress is still to be made in peer reviewing mechanisms, and in the selection and exchange of good practices. Overall, the nexus between the Lisbon strategy and OMC implementation should be restructured as the EC Impact Assessment itself suggests through a policy strategy capable of reconciling consensual progress and gradual innovations in terms, for instance, of better defined quantitative targets. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

56 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy 3. THE IMPACT OF THE SOCIAL OMC AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL In the context of the renewed Lisbon Strategy, the aim of this chapter is to describe the impact of Social OMC on national policy, with the awareness that empirical assessment of the Social OMC is extremely challenging when considering a certain number of interrelated aspects. The challenges lie, first of all, in its relative newness and the inter-relation among three different policy fields (some, such as inclusion and employment, already highly institutionalized and others, like pensions, closely tailored on specific national approaches and backgrounds). Secondly, the vertical complexity of the OMC process needs to be dealt with at different levels of governance (European, national, sub-national) within 27 European countries with different histories and traditions, national institutional configurations and the actors own strategies. Thirdly, OMC (as described in the previous chapters) is an iterative and continuous process based on collaboration between EU institutions and Member States, without legally binding sanctions. Thus Member State representatives continuously participate in the definition of OMC objectives, guidelines, targets, and indicators, allowing uploading of domestic concepts and preferences which blurs the causal boundary between the national and European levels. OMC processes do not necessarily result in new legislation or justiciable obligations, rendering the concept of Member State compliance problematic 47. These are all considerations of more than merely theoretical import. Review of the most significant literature shows that researchers often disagree about the extent and the weight of OMC influence 48 as well as what types of influence should count as significant. Therefore, the Social OMC impact at the national level has been evaluated taking into consideration several aspects and criteria as well as numerous influences. However, two different approaches can be identified: 1. one is mainly related to procedural changes in governance and policy making processes (impacts in terms of procedures and governance); 2. the other considers the major changes in themes/issues covered by national political agendas (impacts in terms of policy outcomes). The following sections will deal with the main features of both these approaches as presented in the literature review and in-depth analysis of Country Profiles takenand summarised from Joint Reports on Social Inclusion and Social Protection. 47 Zeitlin, J., Is the OMC an alternative to the Community Method?, For example, the impact of the European Employment Strategy (EES) in Germany has been assessed as mere surface integration by Büchs and Friedrich (2005), while others find deeper cognitive and practical influences on the design of key measures such as the Hartz labour-market reform legislation, as well as on the strategies pursued by employers and other non-state actors (Zohlnhöfer and Ostheim 2005; Heidenreich and Bischoff 2008; Preunkert and Zirra, 2009). IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

57 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion 3.1. OMC Impact on national policies in terms of procedures and governance Most researches and analyses covering procedures and governance aspects present a fairly positive picture, identifying several different aspects that have impacted at the national level within different Member States. Generally speaking, the first and most evident aspect is that 49, thanks to the reporting requirements that OMC as an instrument requires, many of the Member States have started producing more integrated policy strategies and action plans. At the same time, dealing with different issues and themes such as those included in the Social OMC has led several countries to improve policy coordination across different sectors and levels of government. This was particularly true in the case of the new Member States as a result of the Joint Inclusion Memorandum process. Starting from the need to achieve better data collection in in order to formulate appropriate and shared indicators, the Social OMC has also facilitated better and more comprehensive analysis of the situation in relation to social protection and social inclusion at both the EU and national levels. All this has positive implications: a) there are now sounder foundations for developing evidencebased policy; b) with commonly agreed indicators it is now possible for Member States to compare their performance; c) over time there has been a growing exchange of learning and good practices among Member States. In any case, Social OMC can be taken as a tool able to provide stimulus in the national political arenas. Borras 50, for example, finds that all the OMC procedures are stimulating political debates at the national level. This is generally due to at least three dynamics identified ( ). Firstly, the OMC procedures seem to stimulate political debates at the national level because some topics might be controversial in the eyes of public opinion and of party politics, and hence become the object of vivid political debates at the national level ( ). Secondly, because the targets set ( ) might be used actively by politicians at national level with specific political purposes ( ). Thirdly, and linked with the previous two remarks, the OMC procedures stimulate national political debates precisely because the European integrated guidelines are quite open. The OMC objectives and indicators might under specific circumstances stimulate new political debates at the national level, for example, when they touch upon nationally controversial policy areas. It is inescapable to acknowledge that the decentralized form of new governance instruments might be also opening up for new political opportunities and dynamics at the national level. 51 Moreover, Zeitlin 52 (2009) underlines that the Social OMC is a promising governance instrument for EU policymaking as it is well suited to pursuing common European concerns while respecting national diversity. It also highlights a positive move in procedural shifts in governance and policymaking arrangements in various respects. According to his analysis, the OMC has contributed in most Member States to: 49 See, in this respect, the analysis carried out in Commission staff working document accompanying the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council. The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions A renewed commitment to social Europe: Reinforcing the Open Method of Coordination for Social Protection and Social Inclusion, Impact Assessment, July 2008, 50 Borras S., New Governance Instruments as Means of Depolitization? The Input-Output Legitimacy of the Open Method of Coordination in the EU, Borras S., New Governance Instruments as Means of Depolitization? The Input-Output Legitimacy of the Open Method of Coordination in the EU, Zeitlin, J., Is the OMC an alternative to the Community Method?, IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

58 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy improving national steering and statistical capacities by reinforcing national arrangements for data collection and analysis through (a) the implementation of better and more Europeanized survey instruments, information systems, and statistical indicators; (b) the creation of new bodies and systems for monitoring and evaluating the implementation of social policies; achieving better horizontal coordination and cross-sectoral integration of interdependent policy areas through the creation of new formal coordination bodies and inter-ministerial working groups; enhancing vertical coordination mainly by creating new formal and informal structures for closer coordination between national, regional, and in some cases local governments intensifying the governance of vertical relationships between national/federal governments and regional/local authorities in the context of widespread trends towards the decentralization of administrative and policymaking competences in Social OMC fields; increasing the involvement of non-state actors in domestic social policy-making through the creation or reinforcement of consultative and participatory structures for the involvement of social partners and civil society organizations in policy formation, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation at national and (in some cases) subnational levels. 53 At the same time, also emerging from the literature review is the positive influence on mutual learning (identification of common challenges, fostering statistical harmonisation and capacity-building) 54 that has increased over time. The following example concerns Employment, but it offers suggestions that may also prove useful for social inclusion: Box 3.1 An example of the impact of the mutual learning process at the national level At the time of the EES five-year review in 2002, it was difficult to find extensive evidence of mutual learning in the national evaluation reports and interviews with participating actors (de la Porte and Pochet 2004; Casey and Gold 2005). Six years later, the picture is radically different, as mutual learning is now among the most widely attested findings with regard to the OMC s national influence emerging from official evaluation reports, academic surveys, and case studies. Thus for example, in a recent evaluation of the Integrated Guidelines for Growth and Jobs conducted for DG ECFIN, 70 percent of interviewees reported some mutual learning (Euréval/Rambøll 2008). Similarly, in a qualitative study of the EES based on interviews with national employment policy actors in 28 European countries (including Turkey), almost all respondents in all countries paid tribute to its contribution to mutual learning, though interviewees from southern Europe and the new Member States were more forthcoming about their experiences in this regard than those from some old Member States such as France, Luxembourg, Germany, and Italy (OPTEM 2007). In the mid-term evaluation of the social OMCs, many Member States likewise emphasized that mutual learning and policy exchange lies at the very heart of the OMC (European Commission 2006) This influence has been strongest in social inclusion, where mobilization of all the relevant bodies figures prominently among the EU s common objectives. 54 European Commission, Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A renewed commitment to social Europe: reinforcing the Open Method of Coordination for Social Protection and Social Inclusion: Impact assessment SEC (2008) 2169, 55 See also Nedergaard 2006b, based on a survey of members of the EU Employment, Social Protection, and Economic Policy Committees. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

59 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion However, the OMC effects remain weaker in terms of direct or first-order learning. There are still few examples of direct policy transfer from one country to another, since national reforms typically draw analogical inspiration rather than detailed blueprints from the experience of other Member States, while selectively borrowing, adapting, and recombining elements of foreign programmes and practices to fit their own local contexts. Thus the same interviewees who praise the benefits of mutual learning are no less insistent that other countries experiences cannot simply be transferred exactly as they are without taking the target country s specific situation and level of development into account (OPTEM 2007; cf. Euréval/Rambøll Management 2008). Both the Employment Committee (EMCO) and the Social Protection Committee (SPC) have in recent years conducted external evaluations and internal debates on how to improve mutual learning within the OMC. A number of core principles and procedural innovations have emerged from these deliberations, some of which have already been implemented. Thus peer review/mutual surveillance of national plans and strategy reports within both committees now concentrates on key transversal themes such as flexicurity and active inclusion (selected each year in line with European priorities) in order to foster a more open and focused policy debate. Both groups are also committed to developing a more context- and process-oriented approach to peer review of both good and bad practices, together with analytical frameworks better equipped to cast light on the relationship between policies and outcomes and improved linkages between EU and national debates through improved dissemination of results, wider stakeholder participation, and development of transnational learning networks (Bischoff 2008; SPC 2007; EMCO 2006). 56 Despite these achievements, empirical research also shows that the OMC processes in social protection/inclusion have suffered from significant weaknesses. Chief among these were a lack of openness and transparency, with bureaucratic actors playing a dominant role at both the EU and national levels, weak integration into national policy-making, with National Action Plans (NAPs) serving more as reports to the EU than as operational policy steering documents, and, as noted above, limited bottom-up or horizontal policy learning, with few examples of knowledge transfer upwards and cross-national diffusion of innovative local practices. Yet most of these observed shortcomings arguably stemmed not from any intrinsic weaknesses of the OMC per se, but rather from the procedural limitations of specific OMC processes. Hence a potentially fruitful strategy for improving the effectiveness of existing OMC processes would be to apply to their own procedures the key elements of the method itself: benchmarking, peer review, monitoring, evaluation, and iterative redesign. 57 In this way, the recursive processes of framework rule making and revision characteristic of the EU s new architecture of experimentalist governance may prove capable not only of renewing the Community Method, but also of correcting defects and overcoming blockages in its own institutional arrangements. 56 The main issue which remains controversial is the participation of non-state actors in peer reviews, which is supported by the Commission and the leadership of the OMC committees, but opposed by some Member States. 57 For more extensive discussion of this reflexive reform strategy, see Zeitlin (2005b); Sabel and Zeitlin (2007). IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

60 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy 3.2. OMC Impact on national policies in terms of specific policy themes/issues Running parallel to the impact in terms of governance, OMC can be considered as having effects on national policymaking also with regard to the specific themes/issues envisaged. In this case, the main focus is on the extent to which Member States have engaged in reforms or adopted measures according to the three OMC strands, and what main policy outcomes they have effectively achieved for each of them. According to the literature review, and entering more in detail, the focus here is on what Zeitlin (2009) calls substantive policy changes in its three main articulations: 1. changes in national policy thinking (cognitive shifts). This has been achieved both by (a) incorporating into domestic debates EU concepts and categories (such as a comprehensive approach to fighting unemployment, raising the employment rate, making work pay, flexicurity, active ageing, sustainable social protection, and active inclusion) that were considered part of a common language by OMC; and by (b) exposing policy-makers to new approaches, often inspired by the examples of other Member States and pressing them to reconsider long-established but increasingly counterproductive policies (such as early retirement); 2. changes in national policy agendas (political shifts). This has been achieved mostly by placing new issues on the domestic political agenda (such as activation, prevention, lifelong learning, gender mainstreaming, social exclusion, and child poverty) and/or increasing the salience of efforts to tackle long recognized national problems (like pension reform, early exit from the labour market, child care provision, gender segregation, and integration of immigrants); 3. changes in specific national policies (programmatic shifts), in areas such as activation/prevention, tax-benefit reforms, active ageing/lifelong learning, gender equality, child care, immigrant integration, social assistance, and pension reform. Yet, given the active role of Member States in shaping the development of OMC processes, their relationship to national policy making should be understood as a two-way interaction rather than a one-way causal impact. In any case, considering the impact of Social OMC on national policy-making in terms of outcomes, most of the evaluations gathered are quite positive. In September 2006 Member States presented their first National Reports on Strategies for Social Protection and Social Inclusion with an integrated coverage of the three policy strands of social inclusion, health and long-term care and pensions. These Reports from EU-27 launched the first full cycle of the streamlined and simplified Social OMC. The 2007 Joint Report assessed the national reports and concluded that a joint consideration of the full set of common social objectives was helping to improve consistency and effectiveness of policies. In general, the national reports were more strategic than in previous years, focusing on a limited selection of priorities and presenting a global strategy for achieving the common objectives... A preliminary assessment of that experience shows that this method has served the purpose of creating a shared understanding of the issues at stake while providing Member States with helpful indications of the specific challenges to be addressed in order to achieve the common goals European Commission, Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A renewed commitment to social Europe: reinforcing the Open Method of Coordination for Social Protection and Social Inclusion: Impact assessment SEC (2008) 2169, IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

61 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion On the other hand, there is still room to step up progress and achieve better results. Even if the OMC has served the purpose of creating a shared understanding of the issues at stake and has provided Member States with helpful indications on the specific challenges to be addressed in order to achieve common goals, it also emerges from the literature review that the potential of the method to contribute to making a real impact has not been fully tapped. There are, for example, weaknesses in the EU's capacity to assess accurately both the social situation prevailing in the Member States with respect to the range of social issues, and the action taken to address them, and this hampers the capacity to drive the process in the most effective way. According to representatives of civil society there is a widespread perception that the Social OMC is too weak to deliver convincing results in reducing poverty and reinforcing social cohesion. The perceived reduced emphasis on the social dimension after the mid-term review of the Lisbon strategy is seen as a major explanation for weak implementation and impact. Evidence of the weakness of the impact of Social OMC at the national level is to be seen in the lack of integration into national policy of the strategies presented at the EU level with National Reports and Action Plans serving more as reports to the EU than as operational policy-steering documents. De La Rosa (2005) even went as far as commenting that reports and action plans from Member States are simply legitimising reforms already made. National plans have been described as purely administrative exercises, not demonstrating genuine commitment. Although the coordination process has yielded a number of positive developments so far (efforts towards convergence of national policies, exchange of information and good practices, better knowledge thanks to statistics, definition of common objectives while respecting the principle of solidarity), the European Local Inclusion and Social Action Network (ELISAN), points to the lack of legislative and financial instruments needed for lasting solutions to tackle effectively the many different examples of poverty and precariousness at the local level Social OMC in national policy documents: overview and evolution Both the positive elements and the weaknesses previously pointed out are much more evident when taking into account national diversity and peculiarities given the different level of real implementation of the policies envisaged by the OMC within national contexts, as emerged from analysis of national policy documents. Generally speaking, the first generation of NAPs/incl. shows markedly different national points of departure 60 : each NAP/incl. highlights very different social policy systems across Member States. These are usually combined with different levels of poverty and thus resulted in Member States adopting quite different approaches to tackling poverty and social exclusion. There are differences as regards the extent to which the NAPs/incl. provide comprehensive analysis of key structural risks and challenges, frame their policies in a longer term strategic perspective, and evolve from a purely sectoral and target-group approach towards an integrated approach. The Member States' approach to their NAPs/incl. was also influenced by the political structure of the country and by the way the responsibilities in the fight against social exclusion are distributed between the central, regional and local authorities Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

62 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy However, whatever the variations in this regard, most Member States recognised the need to complement national plans with integrated approaches at the regional and local levels, recognising the importance of a multilevel governance to tackle social exclusion. There are also differences as regards the extent to which the NAPs/incl. provide comprehensive analysis of key structural risks and challenges, frame their policies in a longer-term strategic perspective and evolve from a purely sectoral and target-group approach towards an integrated approach. Gender issues make a scant showing in most NAPs/incl., mentioned only sporadically. To a large extent, the different emphasis in these aspects across NAPs/incl. reflects the different points of departure mentioned above. The second generation of NAPs/incl. 61 shows, first of all, that new NAPs are generally broad in scope, reflecting the multi-dimensional nature of poverty and exclusion and covering a wider range of policy fields, notably the provision of basic services like lifelong learning, health, and housing. They still reflect the diversity of national strategies pointed out above and the different degrees of development of social protection systems, but at some time, many Member States have significantly strengthened their institutional arrangements for mainstreaming poverty and social inclusion into national policy-making and, there is also much greater emphasis on extending this process to the regional and local levels. The process of encouraging the participation of the key civil society stakeholders (NGOs, social partners and business community) in the preparation of the NAPs has also been improved. Going into closer detail, the NAPs/incl. of 2003 reflect a less optimistic climate for tackling poverty and social exclusion than was the case at the time of the first NAPs in June 2001: a number of countries remain generally confident that they will sustain recent positive economic trends and that these will contribute to a reduction in poverty and social exclusion (Germany, Spain, Ireland, Italy, UK). Others appear confident but in some cases with some additional attention being given to particularly vulnerable groups (Belgium, Denmark, Filnand Luxembourg, The Netherland, Austria, Sweden). A number of other Member States appear more pessimistic and note an increased challenge, particularly in relation to growing unemployment (Germany, France and Portugal). Significant efforts have been made over the past two years in a number of countries to strengthen efforts in several areas. As a result some positive trends are beginning to emerge. In some countries (Ireland, UK) there appears to be real progress in reducing the numbers at risk of persistent or long-term poverty, and in various countries significant steps forward can also be seen in reducing child poverty. An important feature of the 2003 NAPs is the increased attention given to regional and local variations in the levels of poverty and social exclusion and how the underlying causes of poverty and social exclusion can vary from region to region (Belgium, France). In particular, declining regions with negative migration, high unemployment and increasing dependency ratios (Finland, Portugal) contrast with problems of congestion in growing regions where issues of accommodation loom larger. 61 Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

63 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion Also the issue of marginal rural areas with ageing populations, poor services and higher dependency levels is highlighted (Ireland, Greece, Portugal, UK), while particular concentrations of poverty and multiple deprivation in specific communities in cities are recurrent themes. Another issue that features more prominently in the 2003 NAPs is the significant role that gender inequalities can play in poverty and social exclusion. However it is less clear whether this reflects an increase in the actual impact of gender or just a greater awareness of the issue. National Plans in most cases highlight the multidimensional nature of poverty and social exclusion. However, the extent to which they go on to address the broad range of policy domains outlined in the common objectives in an integrated and comprehensive manner varies significantly, while interaction and integration of these actions are less evident. Belgium, for example, has developed a genuinely multidimensional approach to social inclusion, while attempting to adopt measures on specific areas (justice, culture, education and training, sports and leisure, family policy) and tackle the problems of the most vulnerable (homeless, children in care, victims of human trafficking, illiterate persons). The French and Irish Plans are also fairly comprehensive, covering a broad range of actions in the different policy areas affecting social inclusion. The Irish Plan also shows a well-balanced, wide-ranging strategic approach. While it sees employment as the major route out of poverty, it recognises that not everyone can use the labour market to this end. Therefore, a number of targets are set in relation to the provision of adequate income support structures and special programmes are targeted at specific groups who have particular difficulties (people with disabilities, Travellers, ex-prisoners, homeless, migrants and ethnic minorities). The UK strategy to tackle problems of poverty and social exclusion is also broad and comprehensive. In other countries, the multidimensionality of poverty and social exclusion is combined in a strategy pursuing an effective inclusion policy by setting limited and appropriate political objectives. While many measures are planned to continue and reinforce a universal social welfare system, there are measures on specific areas and attempts to tackle the problems of the most vulnerable. The Finnish plan responds to the common objectives with a number of concrete and targeted measures, while improving the universal system. Sweden is following a mainstreaming approach combining the overall aim of including the total population in a universal social welfare policy system and health services (and avoiding targeted systems) with a greater awareness of the need to ensure that the most vulnerable groups are fully integrated into the regular system. Some other countries, whether or not they have universal social welfare systems, adopt a more individualised approach targeting those most at risk, or justified on the basis of analysis of their specific situation and the challenges to be faced. The development and implementation of NAPs/incl. in 2005 clearly shows the intention to increase efforts to tackle poverty and social exclusion. In particular, the strong political commitment demonstrated by the new EU10 Member States has given fresh impetus to the process and, more generally, underlines the relevance of the OMC. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

64 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy The approach adopted by the Member States still varies widely depending on the initial situations, the welfare regime and the experience of developing anti-poverty strategies, even if most Member States have continued to develop a comprehensive approach to tackling poverty and exclusion covering a wide range of policy fields. Institutional arrangements for mainstreaming social inclusion concerns into national policy-making are being enhanced. More attention is being paid to the co-ordination of different government departments and levels so as to achieve a more integrated response. Finally, increased attention is being paid to encouraging the participation of key stakeholders (social partners, NGOs and enterprises) is also the year of the first Joint Report on adequate and sustainable pensions. It appeared that most EU15 Member States had already made significant progress in curbing future trends in public pension expenditure and adopted further reforms. These reforms were often accompanied by measures to prevent poverty by strengthening minimum income guarantees for older people. The Implementation National Action Plans (NAPs) of 2006 submitted by the EU 15 and NAPs updates (submitted by four of the EU10 States) show progress in several fields but no significant improvements in the situation are to be seen: they show clear evidence of an implementation gap between what Member States commit themselves to in common objectives and the policy effort to implement them. Most of the national reports confirm the focus on key policy priorities such as increasing labour market participation, modernising social protection systems, tackling disadvantages in education and training, eliminating child poverty and enhancing assistance to families, ensuring decent housing, improving access to quality services and overcoming discrimination while increasing the integration of people with disabilities, as well as ethnic minorities and immigrants. With regard to adequate and sustainable pensions, the second round of National Strategy Reports on pensions submitted in July 2005 shows substantial progress in reforms since the 2003 Joint Report. The 2006 National Reports are also the first to deal with health and long-term care, following the 2004 Council decision to extend the OMC to the areas of health and longterm care. The aim of ensuring access remains a fundamental challenge, together with pressures on public spending. In relation to long-term care, not all Member States have incorporated the future care challenge into their social protection systems or expanded social services to address it. One common response is the emphasis placed on promoting prevention, healthy lifestyles and healthy ageing. In relation to quality of provision, reforms promote the development of indicators and setting quality standards, practice guidelines and accreditation systems. The 2007 NSR Reports are more strategic than in previous years, focusing on a more limited set of priorities while continuing to recognise the multidimensional nature of exclusion, tackling their priority issues from many angles. Two fundamental aspects stand out: equal opportunities with respect to education, including pre-school and adult education, promoting parents' labour market participation. Measures to make work pay are being taken and reconciliation of work and family life is being facilitated through improved access to quality childcare and flexible working arrangements. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

65 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion This also raises the question of promoting a more equitable sharing of domestic work and care responsibilities. Member States are increasingly focusing on "active inclusion" to strengthen social integration. There is a clear trend towards making benefits more strictly conditional on active availability for work and improving incentives through tax and benefit reforms. Some Member States are also developing a more structural approach to housing exclusion and homelessness, looking to prevention and housing quality. Moreover, several Member States are adopting a more holistic approach to the integration of migrants and the social inclusion of ethnic minorities, also singled out as priority categories. This involves addressing educational disadvantages and developing language skills, but also fighting discrimination and promoting participation in civic life more broadly. With regard to healthcare and long-term care, in this first year of coordination the reports document striking differences in health outcomes among and within Member States. All the countries are firmly committed to ensuring access to adequate healthcare and longterm care. Regional disparities in provision result not only from geographical factors but also from institutional features. With regard to adequate and sustainable pensions, general structural reforms have taken place in most countries in the past decade and continued in some Member States also in In any case, there is a clear recognition that sustainability and adequacy go hand in hand. Unsustainable pension systems jeopardise pensions and conversely inadequate pensions generate unforeseen demands to avoid pensioner poverty. Considering the last National Strategic Reports of , the Social OMC first strand, which aims at fighting poverty and social exclusion, is the one that, having a longer tradition and being more suitable than the other to a European approach rather than a national one, has so far achieved better results in terms of policy outcomes. This does not mean that the European targets have already been met in all Member States, but it means that the attention posed by the OMC has boosted national efforts and supported the common determinants of socio-economic poverty, harmonising policy options and interventions. Such, for example, is the case of child poverty. The child poverty risk has not diminished since 2000, but most Member States that had already made this issue a priority in 2006 in response to the European Council's call for decisive action are actually now planning to reinforce their strategies and follow a more multidimensional and integrated approach. Many have mainstreamed child poverty in areas such as minimum income and wages, reconciliation of work and family life and family-friendly services. Drawing on the improved evidence-base, 22 Member States have set targets in relation to child poverty, 16 of them using EU-agreed indicators. Nevertheless, a few have also set intermediate targets for their specific challenges (jobless households, families most at risk, intensity of poverty, childcare). Various other target groups are also being increasingly tackled within national strategies. This is the case, for example, of migrants as well as disabled people, considered a priority in most of the National Strategic Reports. With regard to migrants, it is to be noted that several Member States are now attempting to create synergies between inclusion policies and antidiscrimination measures. 62 Joint Report on Social Inclusion and Social Protection IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

66 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy On the other hand, with regard to the disabled there is still room for creating synergies and reducing the possibility of leaving disability mainstreaming as a limited and little practised approach. The lack of synergies among different instruments and policy interventions is still a problem also when considering national approaches to active inclusion. Inclusive labour markets, access to quality services and adequate income are dealt with separately in most cases, whereas most disadvantaged people suffer from multiple disadvantages and integrated responses are essential. This is particularly true of minimum income, which, even if already implemented in most of the Member States, still shows the need for closer links between out-of-work benefits and in-work support, in order to create the right incentives, while at the same time ensuring adequate income support and preventing inwork poverty. Running parallel to minimum income initiatives, particularly relevant measures have been taken by many Member States to support job retention or speedy re-entry into employment, and promote adaptability, by offering opportunities to acquire or upgrade skills and develop personalised action plans outlining pathways to the labour market. Nevertheless, other issues/themes are still neglected or, at least, not dealt with yet in firmly and effectively by many Member States. Such is the case, for example, of alcohol and drug addiction, but also of homelessness which, even if considered in most National Strategic Reports one of the most severe forms of exclusion, has not seen enhanced efforts to include a greater supply of affordable housing. Supported housing combining the objective of independent living with personalised social support is receiving much attention. Several countries have set targets to reduce homelessness or reinforce support structures. In any case, the lack of reliable data still hampers efforts to define and monitor effective policies. Another neglected target group is that of the Roma. In the 2008 NSR, Member States with a sizable Roma minority upgraded their coverage of the issue and, in general, there is clearer recognition of the challenges it entails. However, in most countries a comprehensive policy framework is still lacking, also due to the non-availability of data and an insufficient knowledge-base. Also with regard to the second OMC Strand (Adequate and sustainable pensions) the picture is somewhat uneven. Most of the countries report incremental progress in providing adequate pensions. In response to increased longevity, pension system reforms have aimed at raising the employment rate of older workers and decreasing the economic dependency ratios by increasing the pensionable age in statutory schemes and closing early exit routes and incentives to early retirement. This has mostly resulted in a decrease in pension guarantees, with new regulations allowing workers to compensate for this by extending their working lives. OMC work in 2008 has also concentrated on private pension provisions. A number of Member States have taken steps to ensure funded pensions, dealing with coverage and contributions, levels of charges, developing regulatory frameworks for annuities (longevity risk) and investments (financial risk). Finally, with regard to the third OMC Strand (Healthcare and long-term care), virtually all the Member States argue that essential policies contributing to good health and longer working lives include effective workplace health policies, health promotion, disease prevention, curative care and rehabilitation. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

67 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion Nevertheless, inequalities still persist in health status and in life expectancy between different socio-economic groups and different regions. At the same time, the Member States continue in their efforts to improve efficiency and effectiveness by rationalising costs and introducing cost-sharing mechanisms. Several countries have also set out in the direction of privatisation. The national reports show a growing awareness of quality issues among Member States and present different initiatives aiming at providing their citizens with good-quality, safe preventive care and treatment. However, only a few countries have made patient safety, one of the cornerstones of quality, a key priority, and set up appropriate structures and systems. With regard to long-term care, most of the NSRs reaffirm their commitment to ensure universal access to high quality and affordable services. In most of the Member States, the preference is for long-term care in a residential or community setting rather than institutional care, but in many countries institutional care still accounts for more than half of public expenditure in this area. Additionally, there is widespread consensus on the need to address the expected workforce shortages in the long-term care sector (formal care) as well as devising ways to support family or informal carers. The following Country Fiche summarises for each of the 25 Member States the main policy issues arising according to Social OMC over time. Attention focuses on the main changes that have occurred over time in relation to the specific policy issues envisaged by OMC in terms of its first strand (Impact on the eradication of poverty and social exclusion), underlining shifts in approaches and in the focus on social policy among Member States. The Country Fiche is thus able to show the influence of common EU priorities and working methods in the design of national social policies, that is to say if, and if so to what extent, Social OMC Overarching Objectives and mechanisms concerning decisional process are reflected within national policy documents. At the same time, the Country Fiche entails assessment of the overall impact of social OMC in the evolution of national policies. The 25 country fiches can be found in Annex 4. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

68 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion Country Fiche Brief description of the main characteristics and evolution in national policy of social inclusion in the period (not more than 2 pages). Synthesis and evaluation of the main findings according the following scheme: Brief analysis of the main impacts of social OMC in the evolution of national policies for the eradication of poverty and social inclusion An in-depth analysis of a selected number of Member States On the basis of the information collected in the Country Fiches previously defined and attached in Annex 4 of this Report, this section focuses on a selected group of Member States presenting more detailed analysis. These Member States were selected according to geographical/welfare state approaches (the main reference is for the Esping-Andersen model) and development over time (assessment in the Country Fiche) and covers both new and old Member States. The aim is to understand and analyse (i) how the Social OMC has been generally implemented in national policy documents (NAP/NSR), (ii) how Social OMC objectives, instruments, targets and indicators are reflected in the design of national policy documents; iii) how social OMC principles are reflected within national actions and interventions. Subsequent to the first overview already undertaken (see section 3.2.1) on different Member States, we list here the Member States analysed: 1. Finland, as an example of the Nordic welfare system and because of its attention to issues related to health and long-term care; 2. France, as an example of a continental welfare system in which the role of the State is particularly centralised; 3. Ireland, as an example of an Anglo-Saxon welfare system that is in some ways linked to some aspects of the Mediterranean system; 4. Italy, as an example of a Mediterranean welfare system that is experimenting a higher level of institutional autonomy on the part of the Regions; 5. Hungary, as an example of a New Member State of the Eastern area. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

69 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy FINLAND Finland has a strong tradition in promoting social cohesion and social progress based on comprehensive social protection systems, and mutually reinforcing and complementary economic, employment, social and educational policies. The Finnish social security system rests on the basic principles of universal social welfare and health services and a comprehensive income security system. The aim is to provide the entire population with social welfare and health services that are mainly tax-funded and whose organizational responsibility is decentralized, being assigned to municipalities. The emphasis is on preventive measures that have succeeded in ensuring a generally low risk of poverty by international standards. This is the result of economic growth and improved employment rates, but also active measures aimed at improving the quality of coverage of social services; and active labour market policy measures have seen the number of the homeless and long-term unemployed fall and the need for social assistance reduced. In Finland, the level of relative poverty, which refers to the proportion of the population with a low income, is still low compared with equivalent figures for most other EU countries. However, the level of poverty has risen since the mid-1990s. Despite the overall positive developments, a number of negative ones are also evident, in particular high structural unemployment and the increasing difficulty of breaking the cycle of social exclusion. The gap between the demands of working life and the skills and functional capacity of the socially excluded is perceived to have widened. The groups under high risk of exclusion are the long-term unemployed, poor families with children, the homeless, the over-indebted, people with chronic illnesses, the disabled, substance abusers, prisoners and certain groups of immigrants. As underlined by Eurochild 63, low income is most common among single people and single parents. In the past few years, low income levels have also increased among young families with children. Households whose reference person is a student, or someone unemployed or on a full state pension are at the greatest risk of poverty. Those aged 16 to 24 are at the greatest risk of poverty. In 2003, for the first time, the child poverty level was higher than the level of poverty among the entire population. The risks of social exclusion seem to have increased recently, especially among children and young people, as well as among substance abusers. The number of children and young people subject to child protection measures has risen alarmingly. The population s level of education has risen rapidly in the past few decades. At the end of 2004, 38% had upper secondary qualification and one fourth of those aged 15 or over had higher education qualification. Finland has a regionally extensive and free school system, including higher education. In 2004, 95% of schoolleavers were placed in general upper secondary education, vocational training, or voluntary additional basic education immediately in the year they left school. Within this general context, the social OMC process has allowed Finland to organize the policy discussion on social inclusion and strengthened networks at the national level in order to preserve the basic structure of the country s social security system. Finland can be said to belong to the family of Scandinavian welfare states which have often been considered the most advanced welfare states in the Western World. The peculiarity of the Finnish welfare state in contrast to the other Scandinavian countries is its late and fast development as well as the fact that the coverage of social security in Finland has been wide but the level of benefits moderate. As underlined in peer review and social inclusion assessment, before launching the OMC, implemented through the drafting and preparation of the NAP on Social Inclusion, the governments of Finland did not have any specific policies against poverty and social exclusion 64. In fact, it was only with the programme of Lipponen s 2 nd government (for the years ) that the concept social exclusion was mentioned in such an official document. In Finland, the institutional model of social protection is based on collectivity, risks, residence, and individualized rights. These principles explain quite clearly why the NAPs on social inclusion were produced only after the major external input from the EU. The idea of action plan does not fit into the Finnish system of social protection without some institutional and mental adjustment. This adjustment took some time EUROCHILD, Ending Child Poverty within the EU?, A review of the national reports on strategies for social protection and social inclusion, 2nd Edition Updated in May 2007 to include a review of all 27 Member States. 64 Virtanen, Petri Report on Social Inclusion in Finland. First progress Report written for the European Commission, DG Employment. Independent expert report. Peer review and Assessment in Social Inclusion. 65 Ibidem. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

70 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion Specifically, since 2001 the NAP on Social Inclusion has envisaged a number of measures, most of which aim at improving the universal system. The measures include, for instance, a rise in the level of the national pension, rehabilitative work activities, improvement of mental health services for children and youths, establishment of an ombudsman for issues of discrimination and activation of elderly people as well as quality recommendations for their care. The starting point of the NAP was to preserve the basic structure of the Finnish social security system and work mainly within that structure, emphasizing the primacy of work. Improvement of basic income security was also called for. The groups threatened by social exclusion have mainly been catered for within the coverage of services and benefits intended for entire population, but the need to complement the universal system with specially targeted measures was underlined as well. The NAP , following the EU approach, takes a comprehensive and multidimensional approach to social inclusion. Four general policies are highlighted: promoting health and ability to lead an active life, increasing attractiveness of working life, prevention and combating of social exclusion, and ensuring effective services and a reasonable level of income security. In addition to efforts to strengthen the universal system, measures targeted at vulnerable groups are also put in place. The groups threatened by social exclusion are catered for within the coverage of services and benefits intended for the entire population, but the need to complement the universal system with specially targeted measures is underlined as well. Some examples are organizing morning and afternoon activities for schoolchildren, a national alcohol programme, supporting the integration of immigrants, combating violence against women, prostitution and trafficking and a voluntary debt adjustment programme. The most important measures implemented in Finland with a view to reducing social exclusion are measures and reforms to facilitate participation in employment, the National Health Project and the National Development Project for Social Services, the development of pupil welfare and counselling, and the programmes to reduce homelessness. The Structural Funds, i.e. the ESFs, have played a useful role in supporting the implementation of the NAP on inclusion, especially in the fields of employment, education and measures targeting risk groups. In Finland, action to curb poverty and social exclusion is based on the development of extensive social security benefits and services. The measures launched by the government to combat poverty and social exclusion are based on the 2003 government programme. Thus, it can be said that social OMC was closely connected to national actions and interventions. The strategic targets of the programme were presented in the national action plan against poverty and social exclusion for The strategic outlines of the government programme are supplemented and specified by the various administrative sectors own strategies and sectorspecific targets. The implementation of measures launched in previous years and the monitoring of results continue in the main part in 2006 and The NRS lists four objectives (priorities): guaranteeing work opportunities for as many as possible; prevention of social problems and social risks; safeguarding the continuity of measures to prevent and correct social exclusion and poverty; and ensuring the supply of skilled labour in services safeguarding the welfare of residents. In terms of social inclusion, the main objectives are the prevention of social problems and the safeguarding of preventive and corrective measures. A preventive approach is the primary operating model. As for young people, the new youth act which took effect in March 2006 includes a target on social empowerment of young people with measures to improve young people's skills and prevent social exclusion. A social guarantee for young people was also put into place to prevent prolonged unemployment of young people and the linked exclusion threat. As regards the gender perspective, the NRS identifies equality as an important requirement for social inclusion and economic growth. The majority of the structurally and long-term unemployed are men. In fact, most individual recipients of social assistance are men, while most of the single parents receiving this form of support are women. Again, the majority of those receiving the basic unemployment allowance, labour market subsidy and earningsrelated allowance are men. Thus, gender differences of this kind should be further considered in social policy planning and in the implementation of social inclusion programmes. In addition, there are still discrepancies in the lifestyles amongst different groups of people living in Finland 66. Specifically, there are differences in access to health services depending on social class. For this reason, Finland has made this a priority in its programme for Social Inclusion. Working groups have been created in order to analyse policies and policy implementation and an effort has been made to address policies which must be properly and universally implemented in order to be successful. The key objectives for fighting social exclusion are: creating work opportunities, preventing social problems and social risks that can create social exclusion, safeguarding the measures intended to create continuity in the fight against social exclusion, and ensuring the supply of skilled labour in services safeguarding the welfare of residents. With regard to specific disadvantaged target groups, UK Reuters states government policies (as recent as December 2007) support the institutionalization of Roma children 67, if the children are seen with their parents begging on the street. The government places the number of Roma around 10,000, although accurate numbers are difficult to pinpoint as the Roma are constantly moving. 66 Equality mainstreaming: Analysis of National Action Plans on Social Inclusion with regard to Roma (ERIO European ROMA Information Office). 67 Flak, Agnieszka, and Breton, Julie, 2008, Finland s Roma face threat of losing children, pp Available at: IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

71 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy A working group compiled a report for the Ministry of Migration and European Affairs on the situation of Roma street beggers in Helsinki in July of 2008 which specifically explored the need in standardizing the actions of public authorities and the possible need to change the legislation with regards to begging 68. The purpose was an attempt to coordinate the authorities actions in the capital. Proposals included: uniform instructions regarding the social welfare and health authorities, police and the immigration authorities throughout the country. The NSR also gave authorities responsibility over Roma children seen begging obtrusively or caught in criminal behavior. Despite these harsh proposals, a member of the working group and also a Helsinki police officer cited the number of street-begging Roma to be less than a hundred, adding further that no signs of human trafficking have been reported. According to Helsingin Sanomat 69, Finland remains the only EU member state not to have a written Roma strategy towards integration. Harsh fines, threats of deportation and confiscation of earnings are a few of the suggested measures to handle the problem of Roma in the country which could not be applied. At the same time, preventing social exclusion and reducing poverty and marginalisation are among the strategic goals of the national long-term strategies of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health. However, the Finnish Government emphasizes that actions against poverty and social exclusion must be seen as measures complementing the social protection system that covers the entire population, not as measures replacing it. The NSR recognises the challenges posed by ageing of the population as well as globalisation and the need to create and use social innovations. Therefore social protection is and will be examined increasingly from the viewpoint of life phases, with particular attention to children. Among the key objectives of the NAP/Incl is prevention of social problems and social risks with particular attention to early intervention in the problems of children, young people and families with children. The Finnish approach continues to be based on a comprehensive social protection system, including extensive social security benefits and services to meet the challenges created by various social risks. However, the measures described in the NAP/Incl have already been launched by the current government - based on the 2003 Government Programme - and the strategic targets of this Programme have been presented in the previous Finnish NAP/Inclusion to the Commission for The strategic outlines of the Government Programme have since 2003 been supplemented and specified by the various administrative sectors own strategies and sector-specific targets. In practice this means that the overall strategic approach to the fight against poverty and social exclusion for is mainly dependent on the outlines of the objectives and measures against poverty and social exclusion already launched in In the Overall Strategic Approach of the report, it is clearly noted that reduction of poverty and social exclusion of families with children is a key political challenge. Reference is made to those parts of the social protection systems (social benefits and services) that especially target children and families with children, and that are grounded in the legislation as equal rights to all. It is also stated that the government has already implemented reforms that aim to improve the conditions of the most deprived. In the report the cycle of social exclusion is clearly linked not only to unemployment but to the decreased time with the family, which may result in disturbed behaviour among children and young people. Also the number of children and young people subject to child protection measures has risen alarmingly mainly due to growing substance abuse. Particular attention is therefore paid to the prevention of alcohol and drug experimentation and use among children and young people. Increasing attention is being given to child poverty and poor families. This is reflected in a growing number of seminars on the theme, plus studies and reports. With regard to governance, social OMC process helped to involve organisations representing the poor and socially excluded, labour market organisations, research institutes, local government representatives, and social work representatives of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland. It turned out that the first round of the NAP/incl had four major consequences for Finnish social policymaking. It made union endogenous for social policy-making, strengthened the position of NGOs, forced the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, and others to learn a new approach, and caused some constitutional disagreement. However, as said before, cooperation increased between different actors at the national and regional level. There was a ministerial inter-sectoral social exclusion working group from 1999 to 2003, charged with coordinating inter-sectoral measures to prevent social exclusion and planning and proposing new measures to interrupt social exclusion trends. Actors in civil society increasingly began to cooperate with the public authorities in developing measures to combat poverty and social exclusion. 68 Hurme, Kati, 2008, Minister Thors receives beggars report. Available on: 69 Helsingin Sanomat s International Edition, 2008, Beggars cause position of Roma to be taken up by EU. Available at: IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

72 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion There has been growing cooperation between employment offices, local offices of the Social Insurance Institution, the social welfare and health care authorities and NGOs in recent years 70. Regarding coordination between local, regional and national level, the supplementary report to the UNCRC notes that by 2006 child policy programmes had been set up in 107 municipalities by These programmes aim to define clear municipal objectives for enhancing the wellbeing of children, young people and families. Thus, by 2006, 83% of Finnish children were living in a municipality where there were clear objectives for the improved wellbeing of children, young people, and families. The work on municipal child policy programmes started in 1995 on the initiative of Kuntaliitto (hereafter, the Association of Finnish Local and Regional Authorities) (Eläköön lapset [Long live children] - document). The work on municipal level is extremely important as it recognises children as inhabitants of a municipality and as autonomous agents. 70 Joint report on social inclusion 2002; Joint report on social inclusion 2004; Joint report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion 2007.Virtanen, Petri Report on Social Inclusion in Finland. First progress Report written for the European Commission, DG Employment. Independent expert report. Peer review and Assessment in Social Inclusion. 71 EUROCHILD, Ending Child Poverty within the EU?, A review of the national reports on strategies for social protection and social inclusion, 2nd Edition Updated in May 2007 to include a review of all 27 Member States. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

73 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy FRANCE The economic downturn since 2001 seems to have come to a halt in the second half of Constrained employment growth since late 2001 came to a standstill in Unemployment and long-term unemployment actually increased between 2002 and "Administrative" poverty i.e. the numbers drawing RMI (the occupational integration minimum income allowance) - further increased in After a strong resumption of growth in 2004 economic activity slowed down again in The unemployment rate, which continued growing in 2004, has been giving signs of improvement beginning in the mid The persistently high structural unemployment is an important factor in determining the risk of poverty, which is higher for non-eu nationals. GDP growth, which was modest in 2005 (1.2%), increased substantially in 2006 and was estimated to be 2.2%, with increased creation of jobs in the market sector. However, this development includes a surge in low-quality jobs, temporary work, fixed-term contracts or apprenticeships, traineeships and subsidized contracts. The employment rate has hardly risen since 2002 and even declined slightly for men between 2002 and Only the rate of female activity, which has been steadily rising, is approaching the Lisbon objectives. At the two extremities of the age pyramid, the main improvement concerns the age group, whose employment rate has increased substantially since 2000, mainly for demographic reasons, whereas the employment rate of young people has risen only marginally over the period. French demography is marked by a relatively high fertility rate and life expectancy at birth above the Community average. It has to be said that the present crises has dramatically affected the previous figures. The falling unemployment statistics (previous to the crises), albeit from a high level, hide variation from (??) variations due to (??) regional industry crises, rural isolation and urban relegation. There is a particular need to address those most estranged: the long-tem unemployed, those on the social minima, the young and those with various social and professional difficulties. The objectives are to reduce unemployment, raise participation and integrate those segments of the public with involvement challenges. A three prong approach is to increase offers of work by engaging people in difficulty, getting people out of state aid and removing the barriers to work. Within this context, with the Social OMC process it was possible to extend and supplement the approach to the fight against exclusion through a two-pronged medium-term strategy which puts a premium on access to employment, and mobilizes the various public and private-sector stakeholders in order to help people in the greatest difficulty to obtain their rights. This mobilization of the stakeholders makes it necessary to ensure better coordination between the administrative departments concerned, as well as the close involvement of all the relevant partners. The procedure adopted takes account of the multidimensional nature of exclusion and places emphasis on an integrated approach in the various policy fields. It also stresses the importance of more targeted action in regions where poverty and exclusion are most marked. Among the measures contained in the NAP, the following are significant: decentralization of the minimum income guarantee scheme (RMI) and labour market training, the five-year programme for urban renewal, the programme for personal support in the event of over-indebtedness, intensifying the fight against illiteracy and improvements in service delivery and consultation of users of social services. The measures set out in the NAP and in the law for social cohesion for constitute a major new investment in three areas: employment, housing and equal opportunities. France has chosen not to establish an overall objective for poverty reduction but has adopted quantitative objectives which partially cover the range of policies and which often relate more to measures of policy implementation than to policy outcomes. Since 2005 the Plan of social cohesion has been developed and implemented. It assembles state services, local departments, social partners and associations around 3 main issues: employment, social housing and equal opportunities. A new statute for maternal assistance took effect in The number of kindergartens has increased significantly. The proportion of one parent families receiving single parent allowance is growing continuously: +3.8% in 2005, +3.3% in 2004, +3.6% in Other actions to fight poverty and social exclusion are: redistribution of taxes and system for social protection; contract of insertion in the social life (CIVIS); construction of more than 250,000 housing units; preventive health care measures for children in school. The following measures are designed to improve quality of education by providing greater access to school: project for creating a common knowledge base (socle commun des connaissances); 5-year personalised programme for educational progress (programme personnalisé de réussite éducative); public service for professional orientation; the allocation for student housing (ALINE, 2007); civil volunteer service ( Cadets de la République and Défence-deuxième chance ); introducing contrats de professionnalisation. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

74 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion However, according to Eurochild 72, the Committee on the Rights of Children in its concluding observations for France notes inadequate measures taken to improve the position of poor families with children (lack of public housing, restrictions on access to family allocations). It also notes the possible inequalities in health care and services among various regions. The CERC report highlights the threat of reproduction of child poverty, i.e. of being locked into a condition of poverty, and the risk of reproducing poverty is aggravated by the high level of educational failure among low-income families. At the age of 17, 18% of children in families with the lowest income have left school, compared with only 1% for those in the higher income bracket. Despite the variety of actors in the field of education, the UNCRC Committee is concerned about the lack of coordination between them. Every year around 150,000 pupils (6%) leave the educational system without obtaining minimal qualifications. The NAP mentions the so called Sensitive Urban Zones (Zones Urbaines Sensible) where the lag in secondary school is more than 10 points above national average. The Committee also raised concern over the length of family reunification procedures for recognised refugees and the increasing number of unaccompanied minors. They also urged the government to pay more attention to Overseas Territories and Departments. The European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) and the Portuguese Social Research Centre Númena (Centro de Investigação em Ciências Sociais e Humanas) carried out an impact assessment of the France National Action Plan for Social Inclusion for the period of They found serious deficits between the NAP's goals and their actual achievements with regard to the social inclusion of Roma and Travellers in France, which they then published in Many of the outstanding points raised by the ERRC/Numena study remain valid in any analysis of the NAP and are therefore discussed in the following paragraphs. Particular attention is given to (1) access to social assistance, (2) education (3) housing and (4) access to healthcare, followed by a section on recommendations. While Roma are not mentioned in the report, gens du voyage, or travellers, receive attention. The rate of unemployment among Travellers in France is indisputably high and therefore many are dependant on social welfare payments (according to the National Body of Family Allowances (CAF), the average length of dependency on social welfare by the general population in France being 4.02 years. For Travellers, the average length is closer to 10.4 years, according to the ERRC/Numena study). In general, it can be said that during the year, France s priorities were mostly consistent with the European objectives and main challenges: access and return to employment of people who are the furthest removed from the labour market, social and occupational integration of young people, especially those affected by problems of discrimination, subsidised housing and the provision of accommodation. The last two points have been the main social issues in the news since the autumn of The contribution of the social cohesion plan is underlined, especially in terms of employment, with the restructuring of the public employment service, the enhanced accompanying measures, the focus on apprenticeship or the root-and-branch reform of subsidised contracts, which have made a major contribution to the fall in the employment rate over the past year. A wide range of measures are also proposed to fight failure in education. The Education Success Programme (Programme de Réussite Educative) promotes equal chances of success. The Parental Responsibility Contract (Contrat de Responsabilité Parentale) links school attendance to benefits. The Public Orientation Service (Service Public de l Orientation) serves to ensure continuity in education from college to university level. An EUR 800 grant and the choice of college are available for pupils who achieve the highest grades. A Student Living Allowance (Allocation pour l Installation Étudiante, ALINE) is available for students who receive housing benefits. Then there are the Objective internships (objectifs stages) to gain work experience for children from immigrant families. Finally, for those drafting policies, the Ambition Success Network (Réseaux Ambition Réussite) is a forum to share best practices to promote success in education. There are also schemes for developing employment offers, particularly for the younger and older job-seeker. The Youth in Enterprise Contract (Contrat Jeune en Entreprise, CJE) provides contribution reductions for employers who take on the young in fixed length contracts (CDI). The PACTE favors those from difficult areas in appointment to public office. Acquisition of work experience is facilitated with contracts designed to get young into apprenticeships, internships and jobs such as the Social Insertion Contract (Contrat d Insertion dans la Vie Sociale, CIVIS). Voluntary civil service programmes offer a second chance to those who fail in school and are marginalized. The National Foreigner Welcoming Agency (Agence Nationale de l Accueil des Étrangers et des Migrations, ANAEM) provides integration contracts (Contrat d accueil et d intégration, CAI) to help get young immigrants into school or work. With a view to removing obstacles to employment, Access to Rights Departmental Offices (Conseils Départementaux de l Accès au Droit, CDAD) help to provide information and advice on rights and obligations. Also, the Interministerial Housing Development Committee (Comité Interministériel au Développement de l Offre de Logements, CIDOL) provides LOCA-PASS, FSL, Youth Help Funds (Fonds d Aide aux Jeunes, FAJ) and Professional Insertion Funds (Fonds pour l Insertion Professionnelle des Jeunes, FIPJ) to help with housing. 72 EUROCHILD, Ending Child Poverty within the EU?, A review of the national reports on strategies for social protection and social inclusion, 2nd Edition Updated in May 2007 to include a review of all 27 Member States 73 Ibidem. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

75 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy Most of the measures set out in the NSR focus on improving access of young people to the labour market. However, the plan does propose a wide range of social and cultural measures to fight child poverty 74. The key priorities of the NAP are defined by the present challenges to French social policy, namely: - Difficulties in providing professional training (apprentissage) to pupils at risk of dropping out of school; - Difficulties experienced by young people entering the labour market; - Social integration of migrants; - Low number of public housing offers. With regard to governance issues, it can be said that the social OMC process was able to reinforce connections among different Ministries and other key stakeholders. The National Action Plan on Social Inclusion in France is the result of collaboration between several ministries and other actors concerned, namely the Committee of Social Dialogue on European and International Affairs (Comité du dialogue social pour les questions européennes et internationales), the National Council for the Fight Against Poverty and Social Exclusion (Conseil national de lutte contre la pauvreté et l exclusion sociale) and the National Council for Integration Though Economic Activity (Conseil national de l insertion par l activité économique). Mention is made of three bodies consulted, including the National Council for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion (CNLE) and the National Council for Integration through Economic Activity. It was preceded by a national conference (April 2006) prepared with subject-based territorial meetings involving many actors. The renewal of the State's steering work is continuing with ambitious objectives for the period Systematic evaluation of the new measures is announced, as are the creation of a monitoring group for the report at the CNLE and the continuation of the work under way on monitoring indicators, which are already very exhaustive. The most innovative area of work is the association of local-level systems with the committees of the Departments which are to have a coordinating role and be involved in the drafting, implementation and monitoring of the plan's objectives and indicators. This concern for consistency can also be seen in the will to incorporate the integration and inclusion measures into local projects for sustainable development. 74 Ibidem. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

76 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion IRELAND During Ireland's performance was characterised by sustained economic growth, an improving employment rate and continued low levels of unemployment and long-term unemployment. In this context, inactivity levels were relatively high and Ireland was increasingly dependent on migrant workers to meet the demand for labour. Significant increases in incomes from employment, and particularly the growth of two-income households, contributes to the proportion at risk of poverty remaining amongst the highest in the EU, with elderly people, larger families and lone parents particularly at risk. Within this context, the Social OMC Process allowed for great improvement in the strategic approach based on a more complex understanding of the causes of social exclusion, while better addressing the common objectives. As underlined by EAPN Ireland 75, the NAPs Inclusion have achieved a lot in Ireland, particularly in developing clearer strategies and information. They have kept a policy and political focus on poverty, often in a harsh political climate. It is evident in this account of the evolution of Ireland s employment and welfare regime, that Irish policy was profoundly influenced by several aspects of EU policy long before the EES and the OMC. The Structural Funds were very significant, not only in supporting public investment in education, training, social inclusion and infrastructure, but also in promoting a multi-annual programming approach, regional and social partnership and greater use of monitoring and evaluation 76. Traditional EU social policy also had a significant impact on the Irish welfare state, particularly in promoting gender equality. The Irish National Strategy Report can generally be said to contain a coherent strategic approach which builds upon the achievements of the earlier National Anti-Poverty Strategy and the National Plan against Poverty and Social Exclusion Mirroring the outcome of the negotiations on a new Social Partnership Agreement, Towards 2016, it adopts a lifecycle approach which makes for a cogent analysis of the issues being addressed in tackling social exclusion. The four priorities identified - child poverty, access to quality employment, integration of immigrants, and access to quality services are appropriate and consistent with EU priorities and in most cases clear, ambitious but achievable targets are included, again drawing to a considerable extent on Towards The major innovation in Towards 2016 in relation to social policy is the adoption of a life-cycle approach. This divides up the population into three groups: children, people of working age and older people (although it continues to identify people with disabilities as a separate category) and includes a set of policy goals in relation to each group, together with priority actions. The Strategy put in place a set of structures to promote the fight against poverty. These included: A Ministerial Committee, chaired by the Taoiseach (Prime Minister) to oversee the strategy, supported by a senior officials group; Departmental liaison officers responsible for promoting the strategy within each Government Department (Ministry), who came together in an inter-departmental committee. The process is monitored and supported by the Combat Poverty Agency, an independent state agency, and by the National Economic and Social Forum, made up of Government, parliamentarians, local government representatives, social partners, social NGOs and independent experts. Starting from 2001 there have been a large number of quantifiable and time-focused targets. A new framework to tackle social exclusion has been established, with overall coordination and responsibility allocated to a new Office for Social Inclusion. At the same time, a wide ranging consultation process and the establishment of a Social Inclusion Forum have increased civic society involvement. The key objective is to consolidate the economic success of recent years to ensure that high levels of employment are sustained and a more equal society is achieved. On this basis, Ireland started with a particular emphasis placed on access to employment and raising standards of education. While employment is seen as the major route out of poverty, the Plan recognises that not everyone can use the labour market as a way out of poverty. A number of targets are, therefore, set in relation to the provision of adequate income support. Special programmes target groups who have particular difficulties, such as people with disabilities, immigrants, Travellers and ex-prisoners. Other groups, such as the homeless and ethnic minorities are identified as especially vulnerable. A range of social problems are highlighted for particular attention, such as domestic violence, indebtedness, and alcohol and drug misuse. The importance of care systems and preserving family solidarity are also addressed. The 2002 Review strengthened these structures with the addition of a consultative group, involving social partners (which in Ireland means employers, trade unions, farmers and social NGOs), a public social inclusion forum and a stronger role for the Parliamentary Committees on Social and European Affairs. 75 The Irish national Anti Poverty Strategy and the NAP Inclusion, Robin Hanan, European Anti Poverty Network (EAPN) Ireland. 76 O Donnell R., Moss B., Ireland, paper presented at Workshop Opening the Open Method of Co-ordination, Joint Saltsa, Observatoire Social Européen, University of Wisconsin-Madison Project, hosted by the Welfare State Programme of the Robert Schumann Centre, European University Institute (Florence), 4-5 July IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

77 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy Ireland has continued to follow the strategic approach set out in 2003, which takes into account the multidimensional and complex nature of poverty and social exclusion, and is centered on increased employment and employability and improvements in benefit levels and in access to services. A shift in emphasis towards addressing the issue of jobless households (and inactivity) is signaled in the update report. As regards vulnerable groups, progress is particularly evident in relation to people with disabilities and the elderly, as compared with other groups, notably Travellers. The absence of base-line data limits reporting capacity but efforts are underway to address these deficiencies. While progress is being made in raising awareness among policy makers of gender issues, continuing efforts are required to ensure that the gender dimension is fully taken into account in the development and implementation of policies. As regards active social inclusion, the Strategy again reflects the tenor of Towards 2016 which seeks to be more explicit than hitherto in identifying the complementary relationship between social policy and economic policy. This can be seen as also reflecting the greater visibility of flexicurity as a policy driver insofar as the Strategy identifies the importance of effective interaction between social protection and growth and employment. Notwithstanding the absence of explicit child poverty reduction targets, EUROCHILD underlines that 77 the Report identifies a wide range of targets that can impact on child poverty in the areas of income support, childcare, tackling early school leaving, addressing educational disadvantage (notably through the implementation of the 'Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools' programme), and improving health outcomes. A review of child income supports is also to be completed. This is a critical area, given the emphasis on improving access to employment opportunities, since there is evidence to suggest that disincentives to employment within the welfare system have re-emerged as a serious issue. The key targets identified are by and large quantitative, time-limited and demonstrate an integrated approach to addressing child poverty. The second NSR objective focuses on increasing employment participation and access to education among marginalised groups, notably lone parents, people with disabilities, older workers and the unemployed through the removal of barriers to employment on one hand and the implementation of a new case active management service for all social welfare customers on the other. If it is to succeed, this approach will demand a more flexible response in the area of training and education provision if the needs of the target groups are to be adequately addressed (e.g. in terms of affordable and accessible childcare and the removal of rigidities in the scheduling of training). The targets set relate primarily to literacy, employment rates and investment in the Back to Education Initiative and are relatively clear and time-limited. No targets are, however, included in respect of the adoption of a case management approach for all social welfare customers. In 2006, substantial investments were made in employment and training supports for the unemployed and the economically inactive and programmes aimed at facilitating access to learning opportunities for low-skilled disadvantaged workers. The third NSR objective integration of immigrants is clearly an area of increasing relevance in IE, given the scale of inward migration in recent years. The approach outlined is wide-ranging covering service provision, active integration and anti-racist initiatives, but there is an absence of clear targets (other than to increase the number of language support teachers in schools) with continuing data shortages being advanced as the key explanatory factor. The final NSR objective relates to access to quality services and the approach outlined represents a substantial development on earlier Plans. An impressive range of policy domains income support, health, long term care services, transport, accessible ICT, housing and accommodation, improving local environments, and investing in local infrastructure is covered and clear targets relating to housing, health and transport are included The approach taken to gender issues is mixed. A gender perspective is systematically included within the discussion of each policy objective, an approach which demonstrates an increased awareness of the particular issues facing men and women. This does not, however, translate into gender-specific targets. The adoption of the life cycle approach, mirroring that set out in the Towards 2016 Agreement can be characterised as 'gender-blind' with the result that the visibility of gender mainstreaming is diminished considerably. At the same time, as ERO underlines 78, while the Roma people are not specifically mentioned, Travellers and programmes focused towards the inclusion of Travellers are referenced many times throughout this report. These programmes specifically include the travellers, their rights, social inclusion, and assistance. The National Intercultural Strategy, which concluded in 2006, aimed to help meet the needs of asylum seekers, refugees, and migrants upon entry into Ireland, as well as the needs of Travellers. Also, the National Integration Policy focuses on integrating new immigrants by learning from immigrant experiences around Ireland, including their cultural and social needs as immigrants. There is a National Action Plan Against Racism which aims to promote interculturalism as a diversion from racism through public policy, public awareness programmes, and research projects. Currently in Ireland, the initiatives towards social inclusion include an ethnic identifier in order to find ways to assist groups such as Travellers. 77 EUROCHILD, Ending Child Poverty within the EU?, A review of the national reports on strategies for social protection and social inclusion, 2nd Edition Updated in May 2007 to include a review of all 27 Member States. 78 ERIO (European Roma Information Office), Equality mainstreaming: Analysis of National Action Plans on Social Inclusion with regard to Roma, 2007 IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

78 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion By applying an ethnic identifier (using the viewpoint of the ethnic group as the focus), the people working in policy are able to identify the needs of groups more accurately, as well as the outcomes of new programmes. This has already been successfully implemented with regard to Traveller s health initiatives. There have been significant advances regarding Travellers involving local organisations and local authorities 79. Ireland has implemented its second programme for Traveller accommodation which ran from 2005 to Under this programme, local authorities and organisations gathered to discuss their experiences with social exclusion and debate what the key measures should be regarding the accommodation of the Travellers. By sharing stories and experiences, these local authorities and local civil society workers have been able to create more inclusive policies at local level. The success of these programmes could create state-wide success if these policies were implemented on the national level. Ireland has also proposed a number of policies and committees such as the High Level Action Group advisory committee, aiming at furthering employment and targeting the discrepancies of the Travellers. It is composed of local authorities, government officials in several fields including specifically social inclusion, health, community and rural affairs and even Prison officials. This group works to create an employment and training programme for Travellers, encouraging participation in the workforce. Ireland has also developed a programme of better accommodation for Travellers, under the Department of Environment, Heritage, and Local Government. Similar to the aforementioned programmes, this is implemented by the local authorities, ensuring that the aim of providing the travellers with accommodations is met. Also, the local authorities are required to maintain the accommodations as well as refer to recommendations given by local committees regarding the travellers housing. The accommodation programmes include increasing group housing, permanent, temporary, and emergency housing for Travellers. With regard to Governance, Ireland continues to demonstrate a clear commitment to wide-ranging consultation in the preparation of its inclusion strategy, following in this the OMC principle. An extensive consultation process was undertaken, including a public call for submissions, regional public consultations, a meeting of the Social Inclusion Forum and consultation with the local authorities. However, the direct involvement of stakeholders is more limited in the areas of implementation, monitoring and evaluation although the social partners have an oversight role through their participation in the Steering Group for the Social Partnership Agreement. In addition to Eurochild the report from the 2nd periodic report of Ireland to the UNCRC 80, there are several provisions, regulations, and programmes established to ensure children s views are heard in matters affecting them. For instance, the Comhairle na nóg (youth council) and Dáil na nóg (youth parliament) have been established. These institutions are meant to give children and young people a voice at local and national level, and an opportunity to influence public policy and planning. 79 Ibid. 80 Second periodic reports of Ireland to the UNCRC (CRC/C/IRL/2), 2005; Children s Rights Alliance, From Rhetoric to Rights, 2nd Shadow Report to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, March 2006 IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

79 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy ITALY Social exclusion in Italy is concentrated in certain regions of the south, whereas in the north the phenomenon is more limited and the groups affected are more specific. Social exclusion particularly hits large families whose head is unemployed, as well as people with a low level of education and dependent elderly people. The geographical concentration of these risks is very much in the south of the country, where the social system is still centered on financial assistance mechanisms rather than the availability of services. The family, which remains a pillar of the country s social model and enjoys a range of tax benefits and direct aids, still has to make up for the lack of social services. This phenomenon can have negative effects on female employment in spite of a series of initiatives designed to achieve a balance between family life and work (which is still a distant prospect in Italy). The total employment rate has increased over recent years (before the crises), but is still well below the Lisbon targets. The situation is especially bad regarding older workers (aged 55-64) where, in spite of recent increases, the employment rate contrasts with the Lisbon target of 50%. Significant gender gaps and territorial imbalances still characterise the Italian labour market, as well as increasing flexibility especially for younger generations and the persistently large proportion of irregular jobs. The poverty profile has not changed significantly over the years: it is overwhelmingly concentrated in the south and mainly affects large households, households whose head is unemployed, female or poorly educated, and in general families with three or more minors. The at-risk-of-poverty rate increases quite dramatically with the number of dependent children. In general women show a higher at-risk-of-poverty rate, and the difference increases with age. Youth employment rates are particularly low in Italy, among the lowest in the EU; but these do not reflect high schooling rates or high educational attainment levels. In fact, youth educational attainment levels are low compared to other EU countries, although on the increase. The percentage of early school-leavers, although decreasing, is still high and well above the EU average and with a substantial gender gap. The poor performance in terms of educational attainment levels and employment rates signals the difficulties young people meet in the transition from school to work. These difficulties are evidenced by the concentration of unemployment among young people and by the long unemployment spells (long-term unemployment remains particularly high among the young). Within this general context, the social exclusion strategy is based on a combined approach, which includes universal and preventive policies, as well as remedial policies aimed at target groups. At the time the EU strategy on social inclusion was launched, in spring 2000, the issue of poverty and social exclusion was gaining increasing salience in Italy s policymaking 81. Changes were underway to build an integrated system of social services and interventions which was to link and co-ordinate the various levels of social assistance governance and provide citizens with homogeneous benefits across the whole national territory. These efforts aimed at breaking away from a long-standing situation of marked territorial differentiation and paucity of resources hampering Italy s social assistance sector. Largely marginal in the national debate and policy agenda for decades, the issue of poverty and social exclusion came to the fore of the political discourse when, in the mid-1990s, the wider issue of an overarching welfare state reform came under debate as a consequence of changing labour markets, family structures and demographic trends meeting with the now binding post-maastricht budgetary constraints 82. At the time the EU strategy against poverty and social exclusion was launched in Lisbon, the initial conditions were fairly unfavourable: Italy s policymaking in the social assistance field was de facto rather incongruous with the four processual objectives of the OMC, with the partial exception of good planning capability on the part of the Department of Social Affairs. At the same time, though, endogenous dynamics of change were under way that went in the same direction as the OMC, at least as regards the processual objective of institutional capability strengthening. The "National Social Plan" (NSP) adopted in April 2001 constitutes the basis for preparation of the NAP and refers explicitly to the Nice objectives. It is being implemented through regional plans and provides the framework for the new social inclusion strategy. The first product of the Social inclusion process on the Italian side, the National Plan on Social Inclusion , was built around the provisions of the 388/00 framework law, and highlighted all the features of the new system of policy planning. 81 Sacchi S., The Open Method of Coordination and National Institutional Capabilities. The Italian Experience as a Heuristic Case Study, prepared for delivery at the 2004 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, 2-5 of September, Sacchi S., Bastagli F., Italy, Striving Uphill, but Stopping Halfway. The troubled journey of the experimental minimum insertion income, in Ferrera M. (ed.) Welfare State Reform in Southern Europe: Fighting Poverty and Social Exclusion in Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal, London Routledge, IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

80 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion In the words of the European Commission, Italy s Nap/incl contained elements of a national strategy that is being improved in order to reflect new realities or made more coherent 83. However, the Nap/incl did not go much farther than that. It provided an inventory of the main challenges in terms of poverty and social exclusion and of the existing policies to combat them, but did not build on the identification of such challenges nor on examples of virtuous policies to innovate, set targets or undertake commitments. Three path-breaking measures introduced in 1998 which epitomised the new phase of Italian social assistance (a benefit for large families, a maternity benefit for women not entitled to the insurance-based maternity benefit and the experimentation of a minimum income scheme) were given scant consideration in Italy s first Nap/incl, and the Nice objectives were not systematically used to reformulate problem diagnoses and strategic approaches. In particular, the Nice fourth objective (mobilizing stakeholders), so important in order for the new Italian strategy to succeed, did not receive focused attention. However, although disappointing in that it did not set targets nor undertake commitments while tending to assume that policy planning per se would go a long way towards combating poverty and social exclusion, the first Italian Nap/incl. should be assessed against the background of the other Member States Naps/incl. When viewed in such a comparative perspective, some of the faults and weaknesses of Italy s Nap/Incl. appear to have been widely shared across the European Union in the first round of the Social inclusion process 84. Moreover, the drafting of 2001 Nap/incl. overlapped with Italy s general elections, held in May The task of drawing up the Nap/incl. had been assigned to a team internal to the Department of Social Affairs and, although the Nap/incl. was the policy priority at that time, it is a reasonable guess that the electoral campaign involving the Minister might have somewhat diverted the attention of the Minister s staff away from the action plan. The internal dynamics occurring at the beginning of the Social inclusion process would have reinforced the clout of the OMC as regards the national policymaking mode in the social assistance sector. Like all framework laws, however, law 328 was an open law: it established principles and defined priorities, but required for their actual implementation enactment of a rather long list of implemental provisions, involving various institutions at different levels of government. Now, in the two-year span between the first and the second Italian Nap/incl., some new dynamics occurred that upset the implementation of law 328 of 2000 and hindered Italy s adjustment towards the processual objective of institutional capability strengthening in the social assistance sector. They are related to the change of government, to organizational changes concerning the offices vested with social policy at the state level, and to the constitutional reform affecting Heading V of the Constitution, enacted in March 2001 and entered into force in October 2001, after a popular referendum held in the same month. Juridical relations between law 328 of 2000 and the constitutional reform do not seem to have been investigated thoroughly, and the task of monitoring the implementation of the framework law was no longer assigned to any office within the Welfare Ministry starting from Apparently, the government was eager to consider Law 328 of 2000 obsolete and in February 2003 it issued a rather vague White Paper on Welfare which is of little practical use as a guidance document. The White Paper identifies two new priorities : to manage demographic change and to put the family at the core of policy action. However, the way it deals with the role of the family within the welfare system seems completely at odds with the normative conclusions of mainstream contemporary social science research. But the most significant feature of the White Paper on Welfare is that only general priorities are set, while the issue of financial resources necessary to implement such (vague) priorities is dodged completely. A proposal put forward by the White Paper that, if followed, could have helped to overcome social assistance sector governance problems stemming from the constitutional reform is that of establishing an OMC-type mechanism at the national level. This mechanism should have consisted of procedures founded on the establishment of common macro-objectives, the identification of ( ) indicators, the definition of operational goals and implementation times 85, involving all levels of government by means of Regional and Local action plans on social inclusion, with decision-making open, should it be deemed necessary, to all the other actors involved in the system [ibid.]. The objectives were never specified, while the OMC-type mechanism was never implemented. Thus the state backed away from the social assistance sector and consequently from political action to combat poverty and social exclusion even more than would have been congruent with the constitutional reform. When jointly assessed, the internal dynamics taking shape between the first and the second Italian Nap/incl. clearly obstructed the path towards a policymaking mode in the social assistance field more attuned with that envisaged under the OMC 86. The two most promising directions of the process of institutional capability building the strengthening of the planning and the learning components received a heavy blow with the loss of functions at the central level of government and, in particular, organizational changes within the government and the lack of political backing for the fight against poverty and social exclusion. Italy s 2003 Nap/incl. and the way it was made are clear signs of the extent to which such endogenous dynamics of change have acted in the opposite direction from adjustment towards the OMC processual objective of institutional capability strengthening. 83 Joint Report on Social Inclusion, Ferrera M., Matsaganis M., Sacchi S., Open coordination against poverty: the new EU Social inclusion process, in Journal of European Social Policy, White paper on Welfare Ministry 2003, Sacchi S., The Open Method of Coordination and National Institutional Capabilities. The Italian Experience as a Heuristic Case Study, prepared for delivery at the 2004 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, 2-5 of September, IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

81 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy The Italian Nap 2003 reports that most, but not all, regions have approved their regional social plans that are also complemented by local plans developed by municipal authorities. Most regions and local authorities are also reported to have improved their capacity to integrate multi-sectoral, decentralised, stakeholder and partnershipbased approaches into their own planning of social policies. Statistics prove that there has been a slight improvement since the last NAP, with the effects of fiscal relief aimed at larger households and slow but steady favourable trends in the labour largely to be credited, apparently, for the overall slight decrease in the poverty rate. The strategic approach closely follows the 2003 Italian White Paper on Welfare, which identified two basic issues: the demographic effects of Italy s very low fertility rate combined with a high rate of ageing population, and the role of the family as a pillar of the Italian social model. The following policy priorities, expressed in a series of principles and guidelines without specific targets, define Italy s social agenda for the three-year period : to favour the family and raise the national birth rate; to provide better services to disabled people; to fight against extreme poverty; to accelerate the development of the South with launch of ESF-supported territorially integrated plans ; to promote equal opportunities between men and women; and to prevent drug addiction and dependency. Another distinctive feature of the Italian Nap is the focus on the increased flexibility in the labour markets achieved with the recent adoption of a reforming package. The legislative agenda regarding social inclusion progressed during the period (especially as regards the labour market and re-conciliation of work and family life, but with the significant exception of "essential levels of assistance", which have yet to be determined); however, the ongoing process of building a new institutional framework, coupled with the need to contain expenditure, has resulted in some of the envisaged initiatives not being re-financed through the national budget. Measures such as childcare services are therefore being carried out at the regional or local level and their overall impact is uneven, depending on the regional and local authorities' administrative and financial capacity, which is not always adequate to the task. In this respect the ongoing attempt at mapping out social protection expenditure at national and sub-national level may also help determine the areas in which more equity in outcomes could be needed. Thus the contribution of social policies to job creation and the need of specific policies to raise the inclusiveness of employment and to decrease regional disparities have been neglected. The measures identified in the NRS under the five selected priorities, if properly implemented, could contribute to reducing poverty and social exclusion. However, the frequent lack of a sound analytical background and impact assessment of previous policies and the weakness in terms of targets and indicators make it difficult to judge their adequacy. In addition, the allocation of financial resources to specific measures is not always clear. There is a foreseeable risk of fragmented management and difficult evaluability. The eradication of poverty in families with children also is among the priorities of the NSR. The strategy adopted includes reform of the distribution system and adoption of measures for income support (tax measures, monetary transfers, etc.). A point to be underlined is that the results in terms of socioeconomic inclusion and participation of the Roma population in Italy are very low: the Roma are still very much discriminated against in all the segments of everyday life 87. The interventions are weakened by the lack of political will to intervene and confront cases of extreme poverty. Most of all the social systems in the fields of schooling, health care and housing, are unable to deal adequately with national and or ethnic-cultural groups and have not adopted significant reforms to guarantee equality. Moreover, policies concerning the Roma and Sinti are conceived and implemented at a very local level. Here, too, the situation is decidedly uneven, most of such initiatives being concentrated in northern and central Italy, rather than in its southern regions. In public policies the Roma and Sinti are almost always absent. Roma activists and representative bodies are still insufficiently involved in activities regarding the socioeconomic participation of their people. With regard to governance, there is a commitment to better coordination between the central Government and the various regions, which is a basic element for the good functioning of welfare policies because, in fact, the social services are functions of the Regions. A large number of governance instruments are mentioned, such as permanent conferences, programming agreements, co-decision mechanisms, monitoring systems and consultation bodies. However, for preparation of the NSR there was little opportunity to involve many stakeholders (mainly due to the limited time available since the formation of the new government), but some attempts were made to adopt a more systematic and coherent method. 87 Equality mainstreaming: Analysis of National Action Plans on Social Inclusion with regard to Roma (ERIO European ROMA Information Office). IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

82 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion HUNGARY Although the Hungarian economy continued to expand at a rate (4% in 2006 is the Eurostat forecast) well above the European average, employment stagnation persisted. The overall rate reflects an enduring negative trend in the youth employment rate (down from 23.6% in 2004 to 21.8% in 2005) which was counteracted by a further increase in the employment of older people (from 31.1% in 2004 to 33% in 2005 which contrasts however with the 50% Lisbon target). The most serious problem of the labour market, however, continued to be the very low level of activity, despite the rising trend (up by 0.8 percentage points to 61.3% in 2005). Approximately 25% of the children live in households where the income per capita does not reach 60% of the median income. The poverty rate increases with the size of the family - families with three or more children experience particularly high rates of poverty. Child poverty is particularly prevalent in disadvantaged regions, for example, in the North-Hungarian region. The Central-Hungarian region has the highest number of single parents whose children are more likely to be living in poverty. In the Western Trans-Danube region, as compared to 1989, the number of children at risk has increased more than 17 times. Child poverty is a complex phenomenon, mostly influenced by the labour market activity of the parents as well as housing and geographical disadvantages. In addition, the selection mechanisms of the education and training system do not mitigate, but rather reinforce the impact of the family background on the performance of children. In Hungary, only 12.3% of people aged had had no upper-secondary qualification or were not in school in 2005, which is lower than the 14.9% average of the EU-25. However, the drop-out rate is highest in vocational schools not offering a school leaving examination, at almost 15%. About one-fifth of each age-group still leaves education with a low level of schooling. Approximately 20% of young Roma persons do not even finish the eight grades of the primary school; another 20% of them finish the eight grades late, and an additional 40-50% either does not continue the studies after finishing the primary school, or become drop-outs. Although increasing activity creates a favourable context for the implementation of social strategy, stagnating labour demand remains an obstacle to attaining the objective of better access to employment. In addition to growth in te number of jobless, detailed analysis of the poverty rate also seems to indicate that the gains of economic development are not reaching all segments of society. In terms of segmentation, low-skilled people, the Roma, children of lone parent families, large families, women lone parents and disabled persons are the most exposed to poverty. In view of the very low employment and activity rate, attracting more people to the labour market through active inclusion continues to be a major challenge. Although nominal inactivity or unemployment traps are not high, making work pay could be boosted in the lower wage segments. Within this general context, it has to be said that in Hungary the concept of fighting social exclusion became known as the effect of the EU Open Method of Coordination; earlier there was no such wideranging strategy against poverty 88. The NAP/incl. is still a document to produce for the EU and not a strategy in its own right, although the most comprehensive in the social policy field. The governmental structure set up to coordinate elaboration and monitoring of the plan has not become the main coordination structure in the field of social policy. As a result the Hungarian NAP/incl. and the National Strategy Report were only syntheses of the existing strategies, actions etc. of other ministries and departments (formulated during their own public consultation process and accepted programmes by then). Secondly the drafting process of the NAPs practically in isolation, so the NGOs had scant chances of involvement. On this basis, the Hungarian NAP sets out five strategic objectives including employment, access to services and poverty reduction. The priority groups are the Roma, the disabled and children. A wide range of measures target the most disadvantaged, promoting their employment, training and life-long learning, but policy coherence and coordination could still be improved. For example, under the SZOLID initiative, important steps in the revision of cash allowances and personal care services have been taken, though other important elements of the reform plan of the social benefit system remain to be implemented. The elimination of certain disincentives to return to the labour market and the integration of the employment and social services system with ESF assistance are steps in the right direction. However, the social benefits system as a whole, including disability benefits, needs to be further reviewed to make work pay. The NAP and the update present a wide range of measures under the medium-term Roma Programme and the Decade of Roma Integration, but it remains to be seen how progress will be monitored. Measures targeting children broaden their access to free school meals and books and increase the preschool attendance rate. In terms of access to financial provisions, the design of a new family support system has been a significant step in the framework of the government's 100 steps programme. In a number of areas, the lack of targets, deadlines for action, assignment of responsibilities and details of funding will render implementation and monitoring difficult. Attention to Roma people was clearly increased and supported through the social OMC targets. However, as underlined by ERIO 89, despite the efforts made by the Hungarian government to promote integration 88 The NAPInclusion Social Inclusion Forum. Peer Review November 2007, Izabella Márton, Alliance of Social Professionals and Györgyi Vajda, Ministry of Social Affairs and Labour). IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

83 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy into the mainstream education, segregation of Roma children and young people persists. Hungary has taken some encouraging steps towards desegregating the school system in the past few years. These measures of Roma inclusion are necessary but not sufficient to guarantee the right to equal education in Hungary. The Hungarian government faces much entrenched opposition to integrated education in many areas in Hungary among the non- Roma population, who oppose schooling with the Roma. A further field, which is not properly addressed in the Hungarian NAP, is the access of Roma to the health care system. Considering that 5.9% of Hungary s population 90 (excluding Budapest) lives in areas without a local general practitioner, 18.6% of the country s total Roma population live in settlements where there is no direct and immediate access to such services, and the figure approaches 40% in certain Hungarian regions (Baranya and Somogy). Once health care access is available, many Roma face discriminatory treatment. As far as children are concerned, research carried out by the ERRC 91 traces out the situation of Roma children in children s homes, in adoption and in institutions for the mentally disabled in Hungary. In any case, the report demonstrates a significant strengthening of strategic orientation since the 2004 National Action Plan on Social Inclusion. To a large extent the strategy builds on the overall reform agenda of the government across the three strands, and is consistent with the National Reform Programme. Thus OMC principles can be said to be finding their way into national policies. At the same time, the NSR addresses most of the main elements of the three overarching objectives. The linkages between the National Strategic Report and the strategy of growth and jobs are strong (feeding-in), - especially as regards attracting people to employment and active inclusion, as well as through pension and health care reform. On the other hand, while the analysis shows that increasing economic competitiveness should deliver greater social cohesion, it does not allow for the necessary conditions to make this happen. Important policies necessary for the social inclusion priorities, such as incentives to mobility to tackle territorial disparities, are not accentuated enough (feeding-out). While initiating broad reforms the strategy also shows continuity with the previous National Action Plan in focusing on children, disabled persons and the Roma. At the same time the main priorities of the strategy also build to a large extent on the previous strategic approach and interventions, especially in the area of access to employment (active inclusion) and tackling child poverty. In the priority of decreasing regional and territorial disparities the plan focuses on the poorest areas of the country where all social disadvantages, especially in terms of poor access to services, are concentrated. The complex problems of these areas and the focus groups will be addressed through programmes carrying out integrated policy mixes (so called complex programmes) according to the NSR. The intervention logic of coordinated efforts via a range of interventions from different sectors, involving the increased complexity of funding from numerous sources (from both Structural Funds eventually), remains to be seen. The overarching objective of the social inclusion strand is the prevention of further increases in social inequalities, the strengthening of social inclusion and compensation for the disadvantaged in the period of budgetary adjustment. However the third element has only received limited attention in the priorities. For the rest, the specific objectives correspond to the priorities: active inclusion, tackling child poverty and helping the most disadvantaged areas to catch up. Better monitoring of social inclusion through the establishment of an integrated system is an additional objective, in reaction to the lack of any systematic follow up of social inclusion interventions so far. The mainstreaming of inclusion policies is mainly demonstrated by multi-dimensional ( complex ) programmes that bring together various sectors in the implementation of a project. The promotion of labour market integration and decreasing inactivity is based on active inclusion policies in line with the NRP. The priority lists a number of (context) target indicators on employment rates overall, and of women and older people, on overall activity and gender disaggregated activity rates; early school leaving, labour participation and active age population living in jobless households. The employment targets appear optimistic in view of the substantial job cuts in the public sector. The targets in the field of education are not underpinned by far-reaching interventions. The policy mix of the priority is mainly made up of fiscal incentives to work and the promotion of more active job search. In spite of the Government's austerity measures, tax wedge reduction programmes targeting young labour market entrants, parents returning to the labour market and the long-term unemployed over 50 will be continued and expanded. Measures to promote active job search contain the most important reform initiatives in the social strand of the National Strategic Report. These concern the services and benefits that jobless people, and particularly disability pensioners, receive. With intensive support from the ESF, an integrated system of social and employment services based on PES will be established. Employment rehabilitation will also be reshaped with a view to placing greater emphasis on labour market outcomes. At the same time, for those, who have not completely lost the ability to work, the disability pension will be replaced by a transitional benefit attached to rehabilitation services leading to the labour market. Old age pensions will also be reviewed, so that those eligible for early retirement and those working longer receive financial incentives for higher effective exit ages through actuarially proportionate pensions. These policies are 89 Equality mainstreaming: Analysis of National Action Plans on Social Inclusion with regard to Roma (ERIO European ROMA Information Office). 90 European Roma Rights Centre, September 2006, Ambulance Not on the Way: The Disgrace of Health Care for Roma in Europe, Budapest. Available at 91 European Roma Rights Centre, December 2007, Dis-Interest of the Child: Romani Children in the Hungarian Child protection System, Budapest. Available at IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

84 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion complemented by actions designed to make better use of alternative employment opportunities (e.g. social economy). On the other hand, lifelong learning measures and plans to eliminate obstacles to employment and, in particular, to overcome the constant mismatch between the outcomes of the education and training system and labour market demand, do not seem to reflect a coherent approach. Moreover, there are hardly any initiatives promoting geographical mobility. The most important initiatives concern prevention of intergenerational transmission of poverty, as well as tackling poverty through better targeted income redistribution and better access to child welfare services in small settlements and disadvantaged areas. Breaking the cycle of poverty transmission means focusing on preeducation and public education. In this context, the plan to establish integrated institutions providing services for children in both the 0-3 and 4-6 age groups in small settlements where the number of children is decreasing is welcome. Concentration of schools in small settlements with a view to abolishing segregated, poor quality education would be an important step towards tackling segregation and also towards ensuring more equal quality education in public education. However, the plan for the revision of school districts in order to avoid segregation does not seem to have been properly thought out so far. In addition to the better targeted family allowances system, the new calculus for regular social assistance on the basis of consumption units also serves the interests of children. Better and more equal access is promoted through the encouragement of integrated services for children. As underlined by Eurochild 92, combating child poverty is one of the priority objectives in the Hungarian National Action Plan on Social Inclusion (NAP). Hungary has developed an ambitious national action plan against child poverty. It aims to reduce the poverty rate (below 60% of the median income) of the age group 0 to 15 from 17% (2003) to 12% by A Child Programme Office was established in November 2005 and the socalled Short Programme ( ) was adopted in June A long-term 25-year plan is expected to be adopted in However, the failure of the government to commit adequate financial resources threatens to undermine the plan. With regard to Governance, Hungary has made a significant effort to involve all relevant actors in the preparation of the new social inclusion strategy. Consultation should, however, be better coordinated and it should ensure that genuine account is taken of the views of stakeholders concerned. Exactly how stakeholders are to be involved in implementation has not yet been worked out. Although the Government plans to set up an integrated monitoring system to follow up all social inclusion measures, its planning is at an early stage at the moment 93. Although the added value and importance of the involvement of civil society actors are not obvious for all of the decision makers, some kind of processes or/and bodies for consultation are established in most of the government fields (social, environmental etc.). As the dominant government approach is to keep dialogue within formal bounds establishing councils, committees etc. with the involvement of certain number of representatives of civil society, it is a key issue for the government to find the appropriate and empowered civil representatives in order to enable a more extensive collection and use of gender-specific statistics. In parallel with the elaboration of the Joint Inclusion Memorandum (JIM) the Hungarian Government set up the Committee Against Social Exclusion (TKEB), which consists of the representatives of the ministries and the Alliance of Social Professional, the largest NGO in the field of social issues. Both the elaboration of the NAP and the National Strategy Report was coordinated by this committee. The chairperson of the TKEB is the secretary of state of the ministry of social affairs. It is the role of the delegates of the ministries to see to the implementation of the measures within the plan and to provide for monitoring data and information. The ministry of social affairs consulted the draft of the NAP/incl with the social NGOs and social service providers via the Internet and within the circle of a conference. Moreover the Social Council and the Social Committee of the National Interest Reconciliation Commission also negotiated the draft. During elaboration of the National Strategy Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion (NSR), public consultation was more limited, although the Social Policy Council and the Social Committee of the National Interest Reconciliation Commission commented on the draft. However, the consultation process with NGOs was limited, because the NRP was elaborated immediately after the general election and installation of the new government. The government launched important reforms, the details of which were still not known in the period of the consultation process of the NSR. Thus the civil partners were unable to give an opinion on the possible effects of the plan. The Hungarian NGOs welcomed the establishment of a Committee against Social Exclusion, which included representatives of almost all departments, and therefore, became a potentially useful forum for civil servants to discuss and plan social policies within a single structure and to become better acquainted with one another. All departments also participated in writing the NAP. However, regardless of its original plans, the Hungarian government did not manage to broaden the debate to include other stakeholders. Statements were welcomed in an online format, but this restricted participation. Furthermore, the time given to submit comments was inadequate. The NGOs felt that they were unable to have substantial influence on the Plan. It is to be noted that even when governments did not actively involve NGOs, many of the latter made efforts to influence the process. For example, in Romaa, the Association for Actions against Poverty and Social Exclusion, 92 Ibidem. 93 The NAPInclusion Social Inclusion Forum. Peer Review November 2007, Izabella Márton, Alliance of Social Professionals and Györgyi Vajda, Ministry of Social Affairs and Labour). IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

85 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy invited NGOs to study and publicly debate the Memorandum. The European Roma Rights Center (ERRC) provided an input on the final drafts of the JIMs in seven new Member States where Roma issues are most relevant (Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia), aiming to ensure that the new Member States prioritize the Roma issue in their first National Action Plans This EAPN statement is based on the responses by NGOs to the first Round of National Action Plans on Social Inclusion in the new Member States and to the Joint Inclusion Memoranda in the candidate countries. These positions were discussed at an EAPN seminar in Warsaw on 8-9 October 2004, and presented at the Third European Round Table on Poverty and Social Exclusion, in Rotterdam, on October IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

86 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion 3.3. Analysis of the interaction of Social OMC with other EU policies and instruments The following sections present a very brief comparative analysis of whether, and if so to what extent, it is possible in national policy documents (NAPs/NSRs) and, more generally, national social policies, to speak of integration/coordination between OMC and other EU instruments such as Structural Funds. Even if some interactions (mainly indirect) can also be considered with regard to the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) 95, this section focuses mainly on the European Social Fund (ESF), starting from the recognition that the ESF is the main financial instrument through which the European Union translates its strategic employment and social aims into action. At the level of objectives, there are implicit links between OMC for Social Protection and Social Inclusion and ESF in the programming period which can be summarised as follows: the ESF regulations state that the Fund should support measures to prevent and combat unemployment and to develop human resources and social integration into the labour market in order to promote a high level of employment, equality between men and women, sustainable development and economic and social cohesion 96...arrangements may be introduced whereby local groups, including nongovernmental organisations may gain simple and rapid access to Fund support for operations concerned with combating social exclusion 97. The possible role of the Structural Funds, including ESF, in the social inclusion process is also underlined in the Thematic Evaluation of the Structural Funds Contributions to the Lisbon Strategy 98 : the Structural Funds emphasis is on equal opportunities between men and women in particular in connection with the Community Initiative EQUAL on the elimination of discrimination on the labour market on grounds of gender, race, ethnic origin, disability or age. The objective of low unemployment can also be said to concern social inclusion. In this respect, the evidence emerging from the literature review shows that the ESF may have supported OMC for Social Protection and Social Inclusion primarily in the following ways: promoting equal opportunities for all in accessing the labour market, especially in the case of those exposed to social exclusion; 95 The main focus of the ERDF is to promote public and private investments to reduce regional disparities. Support for regional development, economic change and enhanced competitiveness will create new and better jobs, which in turn will facilitate the social inclusion of disadvantaged people. In addition, the ERDF can play a significant role in achieving the common objectives by investing in social infrastructure (education, health, childcare, housing and other social infrastructure) in the Convergence regions. These investments will increase access to social services and to health and long-term care services, thus contributing to the success of the social inclusion and social protection policy. See, Joint Report on Social Inclusion and Social protection, Regulation (EC) No 1784/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 1999 of the European Social Fund, , Regulation (EC) No 1784/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 1999 of the European Social Fund, , Thematic Evaluation of the Structural Funds Contributions to the Lisbon Strategy, Synthesis Report, the Danish Technological Institute, February 2005, page 45 IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

87 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy improving women s access to and participation in the labour market, including their career development, their access to new job opportunities and to start-up of businesses, and reducing the vertical and horizontal segregation on the basis of sex in the labour market99. These objectives are reflected in interventions addressing specific targets in the population. Such is the case, for example, of the long-term unemployed. In this respect the Overview of ESF Evaluations underlined the fact that numerous ESF programmes developed interventions for categories at risk of exclusion, in particular long term unemployed, in the field of developing and promoting active labour market policies 100. Another field that can present implicit links between OMC and ESF is related to lifelong learning as underlined by the evaluation report Overview of ESF Evaluations 101 : Under the Policy Field Lifelong learning a number of programmes offer training in linguistic, social or cultural competences targeting disadvantaged groups. All these aspects appear particularly reinforced when we consider how the social dimension has been integrated in the ESF Operational Programmes for the Programming Period to contribute to the common social inclusion and social protection objectives: the ESF is considered to be able to contribute significantly to achieving the common social inclusion and social protection objectives during the programming cycle and to complement national, regional and local funding activities 102. Of course, given the fact that the scope of the common objectives extends beyond that of the structural funds, ESF support can concentrate on a limited number of specified fields such as: social inclusion of disadvantaged people with a view to their sustainable integration in employment; promotion of longer working lives and active ageing through flexible measures to keep older workers in employment longer; developing human resources for the health care sector and promoting health and safety at work; development of good governance, transparency and stakeholder involvement. As the 2008 Joint Report on Social Inclusion and Social Protection Report underlines The ESF budget for is 76.2 billion, which will be spent on a total of 117 operational programmes (OPs). The social inclusion priority has been allocated almost 10 billion representing some 12.4% of the total funding available. The Member States have generally programmed social inclusion activities either as a specific priority axis or as part of a priority axis in the operational programmes. Uniquely, one of the Spanish OPs will be exclusively dedicated to social inclusion and anti-discrimination. Apart from this direct allocation for social inclusion, there are various other fields for intervention that the ESF operational programmes have programmed to support socially disadvantaged people on their path towards social inclusion. Taking as an example the Joint Report 2008, the most significant contributions of ESF to the promotion of active inclusion can be described as follows: it supports measures and activities to ensure a more effective provision of services and to facilitate access to vocational education and training and lifelong learning opportunities. 99 Regulation (EC) No 1784/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 1999 of the European Social Fund, , Overview of the final evaluations of the ESF co-funded programmes, page Overview of the final evaluations of the ESF co-funded programmes, page Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion 2008 IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

88 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion This focus on life-long learning and addressing skill deficits, especially amongst vulnerable groups, by widening access to life-long learning systems, is a common feature of many of the Regional Competitiveness and Employment Operational Programmes (OPS) including Denmark, the Netherlands, France, Sweden, UK and Sweden amongst others. Lifelong learning activities also target those in work, including workers in low-skilled jobs, older workers, and workers in vulnerable sectors; it supports access to healthcare and other social services, including childcare, to help address the marginalisation of the most vulnerable groups in society. These activities are usually linked to capacity-building measures for the various actors involved in the delivery of social services; it supports the development of pathways to labour market integration as well as supporting social economy measures for specific disadvantaged groups that depend on the scale of funding available, the particular circumstances of Member States and the key challenges they face in developing their labour markets. Finally, it is also important to recognise as a field of intervention reinforcing the governance of social inclusion policies. ESF also acts as a tool for the development of mechanisms for social inclusion policy design, monitoring and evaluation at the national, regional and local levels. Countryspecific challenges were already identified for some Member States in the 2007 Joint Report (for example, for Cyprus, Hungary, Lithuania and Slovakia). In some cases it also supports the development and reform of social services, as in particular in the Czech Republic and in Malta, while in Poland it is used to support the development of service standards in social welfare and the national system of thematic and specialist training. ESF is also cited as pathway towards co-operation between different institutions, such as in the Netherlands, between the labour and income, the unemployment agency and municipalities, and in Italy between education, vocational training, employment and social inclusion services. In France it supports the promotion of territorial partnerships and local initiatives for social inclusion as well as innovative partnerships. Seven German ESF programmes are intended to support awareness raising and joint actions carried out by social partners and NGOs, while Spain is establishing a social inclusion network involving a broad range of partners at the national and regional level for the coordination of social inclusion policies and implementation of the structural fund programmes. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

89 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy Summary of Chapter 3 Since the implementation of the OMC assessments of its impact appear controversial. While the OMC has influenced both procedural changes in governance and policy making as well as changes in the themes/issues addressed, its implementation and development is to be considered an ongoing process. Since its implementation the Social OMC has contributed to procedural changes in governance and in the policy making on Member States, which started to produce more integrated policy strategies and action plans, and better coordinated policy actions on social inclusion and social protection, in some cases also across policy sectors and levels of government. The Social OMC facilitated a better and more comprehensive analysis of the countries situation in relation to social protection and social inclusion, also by providing common instruments (objectives, targets and indicators), which facilitated national policies in approaching the European objectives. This process was supported, on the one hand, by improvement in the collection of comparable data through the establishment of common indicators, which provided a basis for comprehensive analysis of the situation (both at the national and European level) and policy actions to be taken to overcome social exclusion and poverty. On the other hand, the better coordination, both horizontal (through the creation of new formal coordination bodies and inter-ministerial working groups) and vertical (through the establishment of new governmental cooperation forms) in the policy areas and the involvement of non-state actors in domestic social policy-making, stimulated political debate and exchange, especially at national level. The Social OMC process has also evidenced several weaknesses such as the lack of openness and transparency of the political process, the dominant role of the bureaucratic actors at the national and EU level and the weak integration of the National Action Plans into national policy making. The NAPs and NSRs still seem to have limited influence at the national level and serve more as reports to the EU than as operational policy steering documents. Though improvements have been achieved in the coordination of activities at the national level, another weak point is the limited bottom-up and horizontal policy learning process, which show only few examples of upward knowledge transfer (at national level) and cross-national diffusion (at European level) of innovative local practices. Concerning the impacts on national policies in terms of specific policy themes/issues risen, the literature has outlined changes in three fields: i) changes in national policy thinking by incorporating EU concepts and categories into domestic debates and exposing policy makers to new approaches; ii) in national policy agendas, by placing new issues on the domestic political agenda; and iii) in specific national policies in areas such as activation/prevention, tax-benefit reforms, child care, immigrant integration, social assistance, and pension reform. Evaluations of the outcomes of the Social OMC attested to an improvement in the consistency and effectiveness of the policies established in the latest NSRs, which were in general more strategic than in previous years. The streamlining process helped to bring forward the global strategy for common objectives, also by creating a shared understanding of the issues at stake. While initially the reports showed different national approaches and strategies for addressing poverty and social exclusion, over the years improvements have been achieved in bringing the national policies to converge. With the progressive extension of the areas to be addressed in order to tackle poverty and social exclusion, the NSRs are more strategic than in previous years. They also present several programmes and initiatives financed by the Structural Funds, and in particular the European Social Fund. The ESF plays an important role in promoting social inclusion, as it is an important source of investment, especially for activities promoting the labour market inclusion of excluded population groups and the integration of ethnic minorities and immigrants. The reports show that over the last few years improvements have been made to coordinate the social inclusion measures and the use of the ESF, but more emphasis should be placed in the NAPS on enhancing the role of the ESF, as well as the other Structural Funds, to promote social inclusion. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

90 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion 4. THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT IN THE SOCIAL OMC PROCESS 4.1. The European Parliament and the social OMC The OMC process is usually criticized for its lack of democratic basis: on the one hand it does not provide for any institutionalized role for the European Parliament, while on the other hand the involvement of National Parliaments also seems to be limited in most Member States: The question of legitimacy is particularly relevant in the OMC process because the participation of the European Parliament is limited, and national parliaments have hardly any means of overseeing all OMC processes. 103 The Europa Glossary, too, describes the role of the European Parliament as particularly weak: The European Parliament and the Court of Justice play virtually no part in the OMC process 104. Box 4.1: The role of The European Parliament in the evolution of social protection and social exclusion as from the creation of the Community: a self-portrait The EP has always been active in the development of Community action in the field of employment and social policy, with a view to strengthening the European capacity to combat unemployment, improve working and living conditions for the poor and the socially excluded and ensure equal opportunities for women and men. Although the EP's role has long been only a consultative and supervisory one, it adopted many resolutions during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. On the one hand, Parliament supported the Commission's different proposals and, on the other hand, it called for a more active Community policy in the social field to counterpart the increasing Community importance in the economic area. The EP was more closely involved in the preparation of the Treaty of Amsterdam than in previous Treaty revisions. The social provisions in the Amsterdam Treaty reflect many of the recommendations in these resolutions, such as inclusion of the Social Agreement in the Treaty and insertion of an employment chapter, and constitute a successful outcome of the EP's work. In 2003, when the Commission presented the third scoreboard on implementing the Social Policy Agenda, the EP underlined that social security was vital to reduce the risk of poverty. It asked the Commission to provide new initiatives, inter alia with a view to incorporating a social dimension in competition policy, drafting a directive on social protection for new forms of employment and adopting an initiative making it easier to reconcile work and family life. The EP has often called on the Commission and Member States to ensure the correct, full and timely implementation of EC anti-discrimination legislation. The EP played an active role in the mid-term review of the Lisbon strategy. In its resolution of 9 March 2005, Parliament insisted on detailed consultation and on the establishment of joint programming with the European Commission. It recalled that a high level of social protection was central to the Lisbon Strategy and that it is unacceptable that people should be living below the poverty line and in a position of social exclusion; the EP called for the reinforcement of policies to combat poverty and social exclusion, with a view to renewing the commitment for the elimination of poverty by 2010 and asked for an ambitious social agenda. In May 2005 the European Parliament adopted an own-initiative report on the Social Agenda which criticised the lack of practical measures in the programme presented by the Commission and expressed concern that 'the attainment of the ambitious Lisbon Strategy is not being tackled as vigorously as has been claimed elsewhere'; it therefore invited the Commission to draw up a genuine social policy agenda, with specific policy proposals, a timetable and a procedure for monitoring its implementation and insisted on the specification of clear targets and indicators to measure the results of the social inclusion strategy. The EP also considered that the Agenda should provide for the annual monitoring of the safeguarding of fundamental social rights by the Union. Parliament took the view that, although having employment is the most important element in people's integration into society, a sound social policy is nonetheless needed to safeguard the right of all to social protection and the cohesion of the societies of the Member States. Source: European Parliament, Fact Sheets Giering C., Metz A., Laboratory For Integration Opportunities And Risks Of The "Open Method Of Co-Ordination" 2004 Bertelsmann Foundation European Parliament website: Fact Sheets updated 08/ IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

91 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy In order to clarify the role of EP in the OMC process analysis has been made of the relevant literature on the matter, even though in some cases not specifically referring to social inclusion and social protection but more to OMC in general. According to Raunio the European Parliament performs an increasing role in supporting supranational laws, but it is merely consulted (or kept informed) on OMC 106. The following table presents the main elements of the EU Governance Model as presented in his abovementioned paper. Table 4.1: EU Governance Models SUPRANATIONAL LEGISLATION OMC Agenda-setting power Commission Commission or the Council Formal competence EU Member states (but OMC is also used in policy areas that fall under the EU's competence) Decision rule in the Council Increasingly QMV national governments can thus be outvoted; when unanimity applies, national governments have veto power Unanimity, with national governments holding veto power. However, QMV can often be applied in questions in which the Council in supranational legislation also decides by QMV The role of the European Parliament Co-legislator when the co-decision procedure (and also assent procedure) is used; otherwise consultative Consultative Domestic Negotiators at the EU level Policy preparation is mainly delegated to civil servants, but final decisions are taken by ministers in the Council; more important items are always debated in the government National reports and action plans are prepared and presented mainly by civil servants; the input of ministers has been relatively limited National Parliamentary scrutiny The EAC 108 monitors government behaviour specialized committees are increasingly involved In principle the same as in supranational legislation, but so far there is little evidence of national parliaments actively scrutinising OMC processes Information rights of national parliaments Legislative proposals and amendments are sent to national parliaments; governments often also provide MPs with additional explanatory memoranda Documents are sent to national parliaments; but parliaments often have weaker access to non-legislative documents The role of opposition Output To challenge and criticize the Government; but often actively involved in shaping national EU policy, coordinating with the government Binding EU legislation that either requires (directives) implementation by national parliaments or does not (regulations) Less involved in the process; could use the information to attack the government Non-binding recommendations, which may result in new domestic legislation or other measures enacted by national governments or parliaments Policy learning With the exception of directives, the same solution applies across the Union National parliaments can use the information to improve domestic legislation Source: Raunio Tapio, National Parliaments and OMC: Destined to remain Apart? Berlin, 2007) 106 Raunio T., National Parliaments and OMC: Destined to remain Apart? Berlin, Qualified Majority Voting 108 European Affairs. Committee IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

92 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion A document to bear in mind, given its general importance, is the European Parliament Resolution of 4/09/2007 on the institutional and legal implications of the use of "soft law" instruments (2007/2028 INI), and in particular certain parts of it: - whereas the open method of coordination can be of service in promoting the achievement of the internal market but it is regrettable that the involvement of Parliament and the Court of Justice therein is very weak; whereas, because of this democratic deficit in the so-called open method of coordination, it should not be misused to replace the Community's lack of legislative competence and in this way to impose de facto obligations on the Member States that are tantamount to legislation but arise outside the legislative procedures laid down in the Treaty (recital P); - considers the open method of coordination to be legally dubious, as it operates without sufficient parliamentary participation and judicial review; believes that it should therefore be employed only in exceptional cases and that it would be desirable to consider how Parliament might become involved in the procedure (point 4); - calls on the Commission to develop, in cooperation with Parliament, a modus operandi that guarantees the participation of the democratically elected bodies including, possibly, by means of an interinstitutional agreement, and thus more effective monitoring of the need for the adoption of "soft-law" instruments (point 16). The weak role of the European Parliament is very often underlined in the literature: OMC has strengthened the leadership role of the Council and the European Council, intruding thus on Commission s right of monopoly, but on the other hand the Commission has a central role to play through its role as the institution setting objectives and issuing guidelines and recommendations to national governments. The European Parliament has until now been effectively marginalized, and, more worryingly, the contribution of local and regional actors, often identified as the main stakeholders in these processes, has so far been quite disappointing. 109 Both the European Parliament and national Parliaments have been formally absent from the process since the OMC is intergovernmental in nature (although in practice the European Parliament has tried to get involved). The European Parliament has been marginally linked to employment and economic policy. The EU social inclusion strategy, however, has been managed and prepared outside any real democratic process. It is crucial at this stage to set up structures for their participation in the future streamlined strategy in order to improve the legitimacy and effectiveness of the OMC. 110 The OMC process has become very much an exercise between the relevant European Commission Unit, the Social Protection Committee and some European NGO networks. What is missing is a real political commitment to the process from EU Member States. It is important to involve high-level politicians in the process to reinforce its importance. The involvement of the European Parliament could also significantly strengthen the OMC process Raunio T., Learning to Play the Multi-level game? National Parliaments and the Future of the European Integration, Ottawa, FEANTSA Evaluation of the Open Method of Coordination in the field of social protection OMC applied to homelessness: Strong interest, great potential, and results guaranteed Parliaments: European and national 111 Solidar Evaluation of the Open Method of Coordination in the field of social inclusion and social protection Presented by SOLIDAR to the European Commission, June 2005 IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

93 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy Despite the weak role formally attributed to the European Parliament, its involvement in policymaking linked to Social Inclusion-Social Protection and the role exercised within the Social OMC process have become increasingly substantial over the years. Its role has been analysed through the grid of Social OMC overarching objectives which, as pointed out above, regard: I. promoting social cohesion and equal opportunities for all through adequate, accessible, financially sustainable, adaptable and efficient social protection systems and social inclusion policies; II. interacting closely with the Lisbon objectives on achieving greater economic growth and more and better jobs and with the EU s Sustainable Development Strategy; III. enhancing governance, transparency and the involvement of stakeholders in the design, implementation and monitoring of policy. The first of these can be read as content of the policymaking put forward by the EP in the last few years, the second as the actions realised to support interaction between policies and the call to pursue integrated objectives by EP policymaking, and the third as the desirable methods to be applied to reach the expected goals. I WITH REGARD TO THE CONTENT OF THE POLICYMAKING PUT FORWARD BY THE EP IN THE LAST FEW YEARS As far as the content of the policymaking actions put forward by the EP in the last few years is concerned, the following table presents a selection of resolutions adopted by the EU Parliament since Even limiting the focus to those regarding the first strand of action (eradicating poverty and social exclusion), the high level of attention paid can be appreciated: IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

94 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion Table 4.2: Resolutions and Initiatives of the European Parliament The fight against poverty/social inclusion/active inclusion/social protection 1. European Parliament resolution of 9 October 2008 on promoting social inclusion and combating poverty, including child poverty, in the EU (2008/2034(INI)) 2. Declaration of 22 April 2008 on ending street homelessness P6_TA(2008) Proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion (2010) (COM(2007)0797 C6 0469/ /0278(COD) European Parliament's position thereon, adopted on 17 June 2008 P6_TA(2008) European Parliament resolution of 13 October 2005 on women and poverty in the EU OJ C 233, European Parliament resolution on active inclusion of people excluded from the labour market (8/4/2006 report INI/2008/2335) text adopted 6/5/ European Parliament resolution of 15 November 2007 on Social Reality Stocktaking Texts adopted, P6_TA(2007) European Parliament resolution of 23 May 2007 on promoting decent work for all (OJ C 102 E, ) 8. European Parliament resolution of 14 March 2007 on social services of general interest in the European Union (2006/2134(INI)) 9. European Parliament resolution on demographic challenges and solidarity between the generations 23 March 2006 (OJ C 292 E) 10. European Parliament legislative resolution on the Council common position for adopting a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Community Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity - PROGRESS (6282/3/2006 C6-0272/ /0158(COD)) 11. European Parliament Resolution on social protection and social inclusion (2005/2097(INI) 12. European Parliament resolution on social inclusion in the new Member States (2004/2210(INI)) (P6_TA(2005)0244) 13. REPORT: on the social situation in the European Union (2004/2190(INI)) resolution rejected 20. European Parliament resolution of 06 May 2009 on the Renewed social agenda, (2008/2330(INI). 21. Regulation (EC) No 1081/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the European Social Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1784/ European Parliament resolution of 20 November 2008 on the Future of social security systems and pensions: their financing and the trend towards individualisation (INI/2007/2290) 24. European Parliament resolution on Common principles on flexicurity - INI/2007/2209, adopted 29/11/ European Parliament resolution on the mid-term review of the Lisbon Strategy. Mid-term review of the Lisbon strategy, P6_TA(2005) Employment and Social Inclusion: European Microfinance Facility (Progress Microfinance Facility) - COD/2009/0096 Fundamental rights, antidiscrimination 14. European Parliament resolution of 11 March 2009 on the social situation of the Roma and their improved access to the labour market in the EU (2008/2137(INI)) 15. European Parliament resolution of 31 January 2008 on a European strategy on the Roma P6_TA(2008) European Parliament resolution of 10 July 2008 on the census of the Roma on the basis of ethnicity in Italy P6_TA-PROV(2008) European Parliament resolution of 1 June 2006 on the situation of Roma women in the European Union(2) (OJ C 298 E, ) 18. European Parliament resolution of 28 April 2005 on the situation of the Roma in the European Union OJ C 45 E, The situation of fundamental rights in the European Union INI/2007/2145, 14/01/ Common Agenda for integration and framework for the integration of third-country nationals in the Union INI/2006/2056, text adopted 06/07/ Protection of minorities and anti-discrimination policies in an enlarged Europe INI/2005/2008, text adopted 08/06/ European Parliament Resolution on the situation of the Roma in the European Union - RSP/2005/2535, text adopted 28/04/2005 Rights of children 19. European Parliament resolution of 16 January 2008 : Towards an EU strategy on the rights of the child (2007/2093(INI)) Texts adopted, P6_TA(2008) European Parliament resolution on Non-legislative resolution of the European Parliament on Educating the children of migrants, INI/2008/2328, text adopted 02/04/2009 The main elements emerging from analysis of some of the most significant resolutions adopted since 2004 prompt some considerations on the positions expressed by the European Parliament concerning the so-called European Social model. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

95 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy In order to facilitate consultation, in the further analysis all the resolutions are referred to with the progressive number adopted in table 4.2. In-depth description of the contents of the resolutions cited is in Annex 5. a) A strong social Europe The first substantial element to be considered is that in the last few years EU Policymaking has been firmly committed to reaffirming the importance of a strong social Europe, incorporating sustainable, effective and efficient social and employment policies (20) 112. The EP also insists that well-designed social and environmental policies are themselves key elements in strengthening Europe's economic performance (29); Europe today is a multi-ethnic, multi-faith society: social inclusion and social protection are a basic value of the European Union and a fundamental right for all individuals, regardless of ethnic origin, age, gender, disability, sexual preference and religion. Member States are requested to ensure that their laws reflect that diversity (6). This general scope is composed of specific goals. The most recurrent can be summarised as follows: Fighting poverty and social exclusion represents a major challenge for the Union and its Member States (22) The most disadvantaged and persons at risk of exclusion are regarded as important targets for EP policymaking and are dealt with in a number of resolutions (11) (6) Strengthening the social dimension of globalisation. The principle of the social dimension of globalisation is reaffirmed in a number of contexts, as well as the recommendation to introduce social corporate responsibility (7) (20). With regard to the subjects considered the most relevant to the EU Social Model, the following merit special attention, being cited very frequently in EU resolutions: b) More and better jobs (1)(5)(6)(7)(11)(14)(20)(22)(24)(29) Decent jobs are central to the fight against poverty and social exclusion; A more balanced approach between flexibility, security and decent wages should be introduced; The promotion of the development and implementation of comprehensive ageing strategies aimed at empowering workers to stay active longer and encouraging employers to hire and retain older workers is sustained. c) Education, skills development and lifelong learning (5)(7)(11)(14)(20)(23)(24)(29) Tackling disadvantages in education and training and improving the qualifications of the labour force regardless of age, for men and women and ethnic and national minorities, are key tools for combating unemployment Member States should introduce significant reforms in their educational systems to guarantee access to high-quality education for all employers should be more involved in the process of lifelong learning The EP calls for more effective prevention of and action against early school leaving Integration must be based on the principles of equal opportunities in education, ensuring equal access to quality education. MS should promote an inclusive educational policy under which children are allocated to classes on the basis of educational level and individual needs; 112 The number refers to the resolution considered as indicated in the above box IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

96 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion d) Tackling inequalities and discrimination (6)(7)(11)(22)(24)(25)(27)(29) Gender Equality should be mainstreamed in all policy action; All forms of discrimination and disadvantages should be tackled Specific measures should be adopted to eliminate racial hatred and incitement to discrimination and violence against the Roma; An effective human rights-based immigration policy should be promoted e) Tackling domestic violence and the abuse of children and elderly people (6)(25) f) Attention to children and young people, in particular with reference to Youth unemployment and Rights of children (11)(7)(5)(25)(28) g) Attention to the elderly (6)(7)(11) h) Implementation of adequate, accessible and affordable social services and social protection for all (11), with specific attention to: Services of general interest (5)(20); Minimum income as a desirable measure/minimum wage (1)(5)(6)(20); Conciliation between private/family and working life (7)(11)(20)(22); Support for the social economy and microcredit (20)(29)(30); Pensions (22); Healthcare and long-term care (22). i) Attention to the financial sustainability of social protection systems, and to social justice (11)(20)(22) l) Attention to remote and rural areas (5)(7)(11)(29) II THE OMC SUPPORTS INTERACTION BETWEEN POLICIES AND THE CALL FOR INTEGRATED OBJECTIVES The European Parliament has also been involved in strengthening the interaction between the Lisbon objectives and economic growth, with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion, and with the EU's Sustainable Development Strategy. Some resolutions refer directly to this: 20. European Parliament resolution on the Renewed social agenda - 6 May 2009 (2008/2330(INI)) 21. European Parliament resolution on the input to the Spring European Council 2009 in relation to the Lisbon Strategy - 4 March 2009 ( B6-0107/2009) 22. Resolution of 20 February 2008 on the input for the 2008 Spring Council as regards the Lisbon Strategy (P6_TA(2008)0057) Analysis of the selected resolutions brought the following elements under focus: a) An integrated approach (1)(7)(11)(14)(20) The general approach supported by the EP is integration and interaction between objectives, policies, initiatives, institutions, organisations, etc in pursuit of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

97 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy Of specific interest is the involvement of the European Parliament in supporting the EU Sustainable Development Strategy and the Social OMC. The European Parliament resolution on the Renewed Social Agenda - 6 May 2009 (2008/2330(INI)) in particular deserves specific attention. While referring to the Open Method of Coordination it states that the European Parliament 113 : 80. Considers that there should be a better linkage at the EU-level between economic and social policies, with a reaffirmation of the original Lisbon Agenda goals and the need to ensure that economic and employment policies actively contribute to the eradication of poverty and social exclusion; notes that the Lisbon Treaty establishes that very relevant aspects of social policy should be taken into account when defining and implementing EU policies; 81. Emphasises the need for the adoption of a legally binding charter of fundamental social rights; 82. Considers that there should be a better linkage at the EU-level between economic, environmental and social policies, notes that the Lisbon Treaty establishes that very relevant aspects of social policy should be taken into account when defining and implementing EU policies; 83. Considers that the post-2010 Lisbon Strategy should cover a strengthened OMC and invites the Commission to further encourage Member States to define national quantified targets, namely as regards poverty reduction and social inclusion, particularly supported by new measurable and quantitative indicators; 84. Calls on the Council and the Commission to open up opportunities for a real involvement of the European Parliament in the post-2010 Lisbon Strategy; In the other resolutions analysed the EP can be seen to call on the Commission to encourage Member States to use the Open Method of Coordination in the field of social protection in order to add value to the different social systems; it considers that there is a need to seek greater harmonisation of pension schemes; it welcomes the Council's decision regarding the application of the open method of coordination in the field of health and longterm care; it calls on the European Council to adopt at its Spring 2006 summit an integrated framework in the fields of social protection and integration and to agree on a uniform list of common objectives in the field of social integration, pensions, health and long-term care; it regards the creation of an integrated framework and the streamlining of coordination in the fields of social protection and integration as an opportunity, in the context of the Lisbon process, to boost the social dimension of social protection as having its own independent socio-economic significance as opposed to the coordination of social and employment policy (7). In particular it calls for a more explicit commitment in the next cycle of the Open Method of Coordination in the fields of Social Protection and Social Inclusion, to a dynamic and effective Community strategy setting significant targets and leading to the creation of effective instruments and monitoring of action against poverty, social exclusion and inequality(1) III ON THE DESIRABLE METHODS TO BE APPLIED TO REACH THE EXPECTED GOALS The last overarching objective refers to good governance, transparency and the involvement of stakeholders in the design, implementation and monitoring of policy. Analysis of the selected resolutions evidences the main issues at this level: a) Indicators and assessments to show progress made to the EP (1)(7)(11)(14)(27) The EP points out the need to improve comparable data while also calling on the Commission to submit periodically to the European Parliament and Council an impact assessment report on all the various EU policies (in particular on the promotion of decent jobs for workers both of the EU and of its partner countries (7)), considering that only effective application of methodologies and indicators can show the progress made in implementing the decent job agenda. 113 European Parliament resolution of 6 May 2009 on the Renewed social agenda (2008/2330(INI)) IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

98 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion b) The set of targets (5)(20) The EP notes that Member States should support new measurable, binding and quantitative social targets and indicators for the post-2010 Lisbon Strategy (20); the roadmaps should specify time lines and realistic qualitative and quantitative targets based on specific indicators and on detailed dialogue between the parties involved. (5) c) Development of exchanges of best practices at the Community level The EP suggests fuller cooperation on development of exchanges of best practices at the Community level (7); the EP calls for the creation of a database to evaluate the impact of exchanges of best experiences and the use of resources (14) d) Attention to social dialogue at all levels The EP points out that the social-inclusion process should truly involve key actors at the local or regional level, such as local authorities in charge of social inclusion policies, social partners, NGOs and people experiencing poverty and social exclusion (11) (20) (1) (7) (14) e) The involvement of the European Parliament: The EP reiterates its conviction that its role in applying the open method of coordination in its capacity as the body directly representing the citizens of Europe must be clarified and enhanced in order to give the process democratic legitimacy (11) It calls on the Council and Commission to open negotiations with Parliament on an inter-institutional agreement setting out the rules for selecting the areas of policy to which the open method of coordination is to be applied, and providing for consistent application of the method with the unrestricted and equal participation of Parliament (11) It stresses that such an inter-institutional agreement must contain rules for the participation of Parliament in the setting of objectives and indicators and in access to documents, participation in meetings, observation and supervision of progress, information on reports and best practices, and a procedure enabling the open method of coordination to evolve into a Community method (11) It calls on the Council and the Commission to open up opportunities for real involvement of the European Parliament in the post-2010 Lisbon Strategy It supports the Commission in defining, together with Parliament, a reliable roadmap with clear legislative and budgetary priorities for the three pillars within the Lisbon Strategy, and insists on detailed consultation with Parliament on its content and on the creation of an effective Commission-Parliament mechanism for joint programming (29) 4.2. Some considerations on the formal and actual role of the European Parliament in social policy and in the social OMC and the evolution that has taken place The chapter has described on the one hand the formal role of the European Parliament in OMC as the Treaty articulates it, and on the other hand the actual role, that through its policy making it has carved out from the strictness of its competencies. In short: The formal role: From the legal point of view the participation of the European Parliament is limited; The European Parliament and the Court of Justice play virtually no part in the OMC process: it is merely consulted (or kept informed) on OMC The weak role of the European Parliament is very often underlined in the literature: Both the European Parliament and national Parliaments have been formally absent from the process since the OMC is intergovernmental in nature. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

99 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy The EU social inclusion strategy has been managed and prepared outside any real democratic process. The OMC process has become very much an exercise between the relevant European Commission Unit, the Social Protection Committee and some European NGO networks. The actual role: As can be seen throughout the chapter, in the last legislature the European Parliament tried to reinforce its role in supporting laws on social protection, social inclusion and health care and long term care: Although the EP's role has long been only a consultative and supervisory one, it adopted many resolutions over the last few years, always strongly supporting the concept of a European Social Dimension. It supported the Commission's different proposals and, on the other hand, it called for a more active Community policy in the social field to counterpart the increasing Community importance in the economic area In May 2005 the European Parliament adopted an own-initiative report on the Social Agenda which criticised the lack of practical measures in the programme presented by the Commission and expressed concern that 'the attainment of the ambitious Lisbon Strategy is not being tackled as vigorously as has been claimed elsewhere'; it asked the Commission to provide new initiatives, inter alia with a view to incorporating a social dimension in competition policy, drafting a directive on social protection for new forms of employment and adopting an initiative making it easier to reconcile work and family life. It therefore invited the Commission to draw up a genuine social policy agenda, with specific policy proposals, a timetable and a procedure for monitoring its implementation and insisted on the specification of clear targets and indicators to measure the results of the social inclusion strategy. The EP also considered that the Agenda should provide for the annual monitoring of the safeguarding of fundamental social rights by the Union. Parliament took the view that, although having a job is the most important element in people's integration into society, a sound social policy is nonetheless needed to safeguard the right of all to social protection and the cohesion of the societies of the Member States. The EP has often called on the Commission and Member States to ensure the correct, full and timely implementation of EC anti-discrimination legislation. The EP has played an active role in the mid-term review of the Lisbon strategy. In its resolution of 9 March 2005, Parliament insisted on detailed consultation and on the establishment of joint programming with the European Commission. It recalled that a high level of social protection was central to the Lisbon Strategy and that it is unacceptable that people should be living below the poverty line and in a position of social exclusion; the EP called for the reinforcement of policies to combat poverty and social exclusion, with a view to renewing the commitment for the elimination of poverty by 2010 and asked for an ambitious social agenda. The evolution that has taken place: the case of the FSJA 114 Emilio De Capitani 115 s paper The institutional dimension of the FSJA: the evolving role of the European Parliament, describes the main factors and institutional dynamics that influenced the growing role of the European Parliament in the area of civil liberties and justice, as from the beginning of the eighties. It is an interesting example as this is an area with many contiguous competencies with social inclusion. The analysis evidences a threephased evolution: 114 Area of freedom, security and justice 115 Head of Unit of Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

100 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion - in the first phase (before the entry into force in 1987 of the Single European Act) the European Parliament was practically unable to influence the final content of legislative proposals which were drafted negotiated and concluded between the Council and the Commission; - in a second transitional phase (from the Single European Act to the entry into force in 1999 of the Treaty of Amsterdam) the European Parliament engaged in a strong political interaction with the Commission and its first direct serious bilateral negotiations with the Council in the framework of the first codecision procedures; - and in this current phase (from 1999 to the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon) the Parliament has been able to influence also the agenda setting of the other institutions and their working methods as the final content of the EU legislative proposals notably when issues, such as the promotion and protection of fundamental rights or the issue of security and justice, are at stake. After the first phase, when the European Parliament was merely informed but not involved in the daily business of the legislative negotiations (in this specific area of policy), with the implementation of the Single European Act (1993), in order to strengthen its role, it introduced a fundamental revision of its internal Rules of procedures by re-launching the interinstitutional game. The first move was aimed to push the Commission to choose for its legislative proposal as often as possible a legal basis allowing the association of the EP in cooperation with the Council instead of the simple consultation 116. The second move was the prevision of a double plenary vote on each legislative proposal to open a negotiation space by which to obtain, if necessary, substantial amendments of the Commission proposal. With the double vote the EP was able to influence the Commission and as a consequence the Council: in fact, according to cooperation procedure the Council could practically ignore the EP amendments but could no more adopt at qualified majority the proposal if the Commission does not change the text again. But a new amendment by the Commission against the vote of the EP will become practically and politically impossible because the text will be resubmitted to the EP. By so doing the Commission was placed in an uncomfortable position and the Council was no longer able to obtain practically everything, as it was before. The third move of the Parliament was to engage the two other institutions in the negotiation of the legislative programme, providing a clear calendar of the different readings of the Parliament and of the Council. The experience which followed showed interesting results even though they were very different to what each institution was expecting. The Council became trapped in its internal six-month working plan and the Presidencies were increasingly dependent on the calendar of the new Commission proposals and of the Parliament votes. The Commission established a strict internal planning by regularly informing the other institutions which raised more and more requests of information on the preparatory phase of the Commission proposal. The only institution which remained paradoxically free in its agenda (out of the deadlines established in the Treaty) was the EP who now had all the information needed to press the Commission and at the same time the Council Presidencies to agree the priorities to be debated in the following six months. EP influence on the other institutions agendas became progressively clearer even if no mention of it was in the internal rules of the Council or Commission. 117 With entry into force of the Maastricht Treaty (1993) from an institutional point of view the main achievement of the Treaty was therefore the creation of the so-called codecision procedure where the European Parliament was placed on the same level as the Council in several important domains of the Community competences. 116 See the paper for more detailed explanations 117 De Capitani E., The institutional dimension of the FSJA: the evolving role of the European Parliament, Bruxelles, 2009 IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

101 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy This was a historic moment for the institution, the members and the external world as the European Parliament was finally in the centre of the political scene. After some initial tentative attempts by the general secretariat of the Council to present the new procedure as a sort of strengthened cooperation of the EP to the adoption of a Council decision 118, it was accepted that the European Parliament should be treated by the Commission on the same level of the Council 119. With the Treaty of Amsterdam the European Union proclaimed to be founded on fundamental rights (art. 6 TUE) and stressed its objective to maintain and develop the Union as an area of freedom, security and justice.. (FSJA) (art. 2 TUE). The dialogue between the European Parliament and notably the Council was characterised by an increasing trust in many other domains of the freedom security and justice area. This could be proved by the figure of more than 80% agreements in first reading on the freedom security and justice related codecision procedures during the last legislative term ( ), as it is confirmed by the last activity report of the European Parliament delegation to the Conciliation Committee 120. Compared to the previous legislative term ( ), the number of codecisions of the main committee responsible for this area (the so-called "LIBE" committee) rose significantly from 8 to 38 procedures. Why? EP Activity report 121 accounts for the trend with six reasons 122 : 1. the possibility to conclude in 1st reading following a simple majority vote in Parliament; 2. the greater number and better contacts between the institutions whose representatives now start talking to each other routinely very early in the procedure. ; 3. the higher number of uncontroversial and rather technical proposals; 4. the objective, perceived or political urgency of proposals presented by the Commission also seems to play a role; 5. because the Council Presidencies seem more and more eager to reach rapid agreements during their Presidencies and they seem to favour 1st reading negotiations for which the arrangements are much more flexible than in later stages of the procedure; 6. last but not least, because since the 2004 enlargement it seems to be becoming increasingly difficult to find a Council position among the now 27 Member States, and early input of the Parliament can be seen as a factor facilitating the Council's internal consensus-building. With entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty this trend will inevitably gather momentum in the FSJA domain and codecision will be extended to judicial and police cooperation in penal matters, to legal migration and new a legal basis will be created for integration. For the European Parliament the codecision in the penal and security area will be a new important challenge as long as these domains are (and remain) a domain jealously protected by the Member States which also keeps the intervention of the European Commission at the lowest possible level The Treaty, which makes clear reference to the consultation and cooperation procedure, avoids calling it a codecision procedure, but refers to it with the formula The Council acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251 of the Treaty 119 De Capitani E., The institutional dimension of the FSJA: the evolving role of the European Parliament, Bruxelles, De Capitani E., The institutional dimension of the FSJA: the evolving role of the European Parliament, Bruxelles, European Parliament, Activity Report, 1 May 2004 to 13 July 2009 (6th parliamentary term), According to De Capitani s interpretation 123 De Capitani E., The institutional dimension of the FSJA: the evolving role of the European Parliament, Bruxelles, 2009 IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

102 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion The illuminating case of FSJA suggests exploring the use of codecision procedures in Social Inclusion issues. Let us begin by listing the legal bases to which the ordinary legislative procedure established by the Treaty of Lisbon applies (this ordinary legislative procedure corresponds more or less to the procedure currently laid down in Article 251 TEC, i.e. the codecision procedure). LIST OF LEGAL BASES PROVIDING FOR THE ORDINARY LEGISLATIVE PRODECURE IN THE TREATY OF LISBON (A selection from the list presented in the European Parliament Activity Report specifically referring to social inclusion, social protection and healthcare/ltc 124 ) Services of general economic interest (Article 16 [14] TFEU) (Article 16 TEC) Measures to combat discrimination on grounds of nationality (Article 16 D [18] TFEU) (Article 12 TEC) Basic principles for anti-discrimination incentive measures (Article 16 E [19], paragraph 2, TFEU) (Article 13.2 TEC) Internal market - social security measures for Community migrant workers63 (Article 42 [48] TFEU) (Article 42 TEC: codecision - the Council acts unanimously) Right of establishment (Article 44 [50], paragraph 1, TFEU) (Article 44 TEC) Asylum, temporary protection or subsidiary protection for nationals of third countries (Article 63 [78], paragraph 2, TFEU) (Article 63, paragraphs 1 and 2, and Article 64, paragraph 2, TEC: procedure laid down in Article 67 TEC: unanimity in the Council and simple consultation of EP, with possible switch to codecision following a Council decision taken unanimously after consulting EP) Immigration and combating trafficking in persons (Article 63a [79], paragraph 2, TFEU) (Article 63, paragraphs 3 and 4, TEC: procedure laid down in Article 67 TEC: unanimity in the Council and simple consultation of EP, with possible switch to codecision following a Council decision taken unanimously after consulting EP) Incentive measures for the integration of nationals of third countries (Article 63a [79], paragraph 4, TFEU) Social policy (Article 137 [153], paragraphs 1, except points (c), (d), (f) and (g), and 267, first, second and last subparagraphs, TFEU) (Article 137, paragraphs 1 and 2 TEC) Social policy (equal opportunities, equal treatment and equal pay) (Article 141 [157], paragraph 3, TFEU) (Article 141, paragraph 3, TEC) European Social Fund (Article 148 [164] TFEU) (Article 148 TEC) Public health - measures to tackle common safety concerns in the health sphere68 (Article 152 [168], paragraph 4, TFEU) (Article 152, paragraph 4, TEC) Public health - incentive measures to protect human health and in particular to combat the major cross-border health scourges, and measures to tackle tobacco and alcohol abuse (Article 152 [168], paragraph 5, TFEU69) Measures in the area of economic and social cohesion (Article 159 [175], third paragraph, TFEU) (Article 159 TEC) Structural Funds (Article 161 [177], first paragraph, TFEU) (Article 161 TEC: Currently: unanimity in the Council and assent of EP) As can be seen from the Activity report, in the year a record number of 144 codecision acts had been adopted by the end of April During the 6th legislative term the trend for 1st reading agreements has continued and even been reinforced. It is interesting to note that committees seem to have developed different cultures and practices regarding the stage of conclusion: within EMPL committee 77.8% of the 27 codecisions considered have been concluded at 1st reading, as can be seen in the following chart: 124 The numbers of the articles in the TEU and TFEU refer to those given in the Treaty of Lisbon; the numbers in [...] are those the articles will have in a future, consolidated version of the Treaties (in accordance with the table annexed to the Treaty of Lisbon). IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

103 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy Figure 4.1: Percentage of codecision files adopted at 1st, 2nd and 3rd reading during by committee (all files included) While considering all the codecisions adopted in the last legislature referring to issues somehow related to OMC overarching objectives and strands of actions the following picture emerges: IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

104 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

105 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy 4.3. Analysis of the possible strategies for reinforcement of the role of the European Parliament in social inclusion and social protection policies From the legal point of view as established in the Treaty, the Parliament is bound to have a marginal role in social OMC decision-making procedures, and even under the Treaty of Lisbon the OMC logic remains intergovernmental. An effort has been made to try to identify some possible paths that the EP can take in order to enhance its role in policies for inclusion and social protection. To this end, EP can act on two different planes. 1) Fighting social exclusion and enhancing the role of the EP in the OMC area. Policies to fight social exclusion have found a natural opening in the OMC process, although here the EP has been assigned only a very marginal role. In an area as yet far from fully formalised like the social OMC, it is by no means easy to find solid regulatory reasons on the basis of which a leading role might be claimed for the EP. Here, however, two approaches might be taken: one at the top-down stage of the process, and one at the bottom-up stage. Before going on to analyse these two planes of investigation, we may point out as a general preamble that some scope for greater involvement of the EP could open up subsequent to developments vis-à-vis the Lisbon Treaty. What had hitherto been known as the Lisbon Strategy is to be encompassed within the broader strategy denominated EU 2020 (cf. Commission Working Document Consultation on the Future "EU 2020" Strategy, COM (2009) 647). The more comprehensive the new strategy proves, the more fully defined it will grow in terms of accountability, opening up to verification on the part of the various institutional and social actors involved, including the EP. a) Involving the EP in the top-down stage. The top-down stage of the process sees definition of the guidelines that the Member States will have to look to, the benchmarks to be achieved and the indicators that will apply in assessing performance accomplished. Leading roles at this stage are played by the Council and Commission, as well as the technical committee entrusted with the task of studying the indicators. So far EP has had little to do with this type of dynamics. The Lisbon Treaty, updating the TCE, offers the EP some new scope for action. Take, for example, article 153 (ex art. 137 CE). In the sectors indicated by art. 153 including the fight against social inclusion section the EP and the Council (and no longer only the Council, as originally provided for with article 137 CE) may adopt measures designed to encourage cooperation between Member States through initiatives aimed at improving knowledge, developing exchanges of information and best practices, promoting innovative approaches and evaluating experiences, excluding any harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the Member States. This reference appears to legitimise more direct EP intervention in the OMC top-down stage. Moreover, the less strictly defined nature (as compared with the European Employment Strategy - EES) of the Social OMC could also prove an advantage in that, although it assigns no precise role to the EP, it does not rule out its involvement. Nevertheless, such involvement is excluded by article Lisbon Treaty 148 (ex art. 128 CE), which, in formalising the role of the Council and Commission in the EES area, seems to rule out the possibility for EP to have a say. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

106 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion This is a point borne out by studies in the area. Reflecting on the dialectical relationship between constitutionalism and governance, Kenneth Armstrong has, essentially, the following remarks to make: a) on the one hand, it is true that the hard law of the Treaty creates governance development constraints (which can be positive, since the procedures for application of governance tools see the introduction of certain constitutional values in relation to which the tools should, in themselves, be neutral); b) at the same time, however, in defining the institutional framework and specifying the tasks of the community organisations, the Treaty in effect outlines the empty spaces within which governance can develop and evolve, enhancing the constitutional framework itself. As Armstrong put it, new forms of governance simply pose a challenge to EU constitutionalism: they occupy an unsettled constitutional space. This space is characterized by a range of possible encounters between constitutionalism and governance 125. Thus, if the opening declarations in favour of cooperation between the various community institutions cf. COM (2008) 639 and COM (2009) 15 have real sense, then the Social OMC could represent a preferential meeting ground. I. In the first place, interesting scope opens up for collaboration between the EP and the European Council, especially subsequent to the formal recognition of the latter by the Lisbon Treaty (cf. arts. 235 ff.). We can clarify this point with an example. Of the guidelines serving as reference for the Social OMC over the years, those of major historical importance are proposed among the Conclusions of the Presidency of the European Council: suffice it to consider the importance taken on by the Conclusions of the Presidency adopted on the occasion of the Gotegorg and Laeken European Councils, to mention but two. Moreover, the general OMC model itself, as applied to a wide range of Community social policy sectors, is delineated in 37 of the Conclusions of the Presidency adopted in Lisbon in If this is indeed the case, then the fact that the Treaty explicitly recognises the European Council implies that the EP and European Council must not only enhance the present channels of communication but also find new ones. In this situation, marked by the need to improve the quality of dialogue between the Community institutions so as to implement an integrated strategy for social inclusion, the scope for EP action is opening out. For example, there is no reason why the positions expressed by the EP on certain issues should not be taken into consideration in the course of the European Council s preparatory work, and indeed find some echo in the Conclusions of the Presidency. Thus it is a matter of defining certain rules of conduct which the bodies concerned (EP and Council) should respect, formalising the procedure to be followed in order to ensure that the inter-institutional dialogue be truly effective. In this respect, cf. EP Resolution of 7/5/2009 (Institutional Balance of the EU): the need to improve the interinstitutional cooperation between the European Parliament and the European Council militates in favour of optimising the conditions under which the President of the European Parliament participates in discussions in the European Council, which could possibly be dealt with in a political agreement on the relations between the two institutions; considers that it would be useful if the European Council were likewise to formalise those conditions in its internal rules of procedure ( 16). II. Secondly, Lisbon Treaty art, 160 drawing here on the contents of CE art. 137 makes provision that, for institution of the Committee for Social Protection, the Council is obliged to consult the EP. Given the importance of the Committee for Social Protection in the area of the Social OMC, above all for the (decisive) matter of study of the indicators, the obligation for prior EP consultation must be given its due weight, above all in consideration of the role that Lisbon Treaty art. 153 appears to recognise for the EP. 125 Cf. K. Armstrong, Governance and Constitutionalism After Lisbon, in Armstrong-Begg-Zeitlin, JCMS Symposium: EU Governance After Lisbon, in JCMS, n. 2, 2008, pp IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

107 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy III. As for relations between the EP and the Commission, we may contemplate enhancement of the form of institutional collaboration provided for by Lisbon Treaty art. 159 (ex art. 143 CE), according to which: The Commission shall draw up a report each year on progress in achieving the objectives of Article 151 [ex art. 136 ed.], including the demographic situation in the Union. It shall forward the report to the European Parliament, the Council and the Economic and Social Committee. As ex art. 136 CE is dedicated to Community social policy, the fight against social exclusion (and means to wage it) clearly finds a place among the matters the above-mentioned report must address. This report has not always proved exhaustive, above all with reference to the policies to be pursued through the OMC, and the EP could therefore require it to show fuller focus on the issues closest to the heart of the EP. For example, as far as the present study is concerned the EP could ask for the report to go into greater detail on developments in the application of the OMC in the field of social inclusion, also taking in those aspects that are normally of exclusive Commission competence. b) EP involvement in the bottom-up stage. During the bottom-up stage the guidelines are implemented by the Member States by adopting the measures deemed most appropriate to the various national conditions. Account is given of the measures adopted at the national (and sub-national) level in the national Plans, which are examined and compared in the course of the dedicated peerreview sessions. During this stage the EP cannot be called upon to play a direct role, but can, through the relations it is able to develop with the national parliaments, take on an established role as interlocutor of the latter for the purposes of the OMC. For this to come about it is indispensable that the national parliaments take a fuller part in the OMC process than hitherto. The issue had already been raised by the 2004 Kok Report, in a passage urging the national parliaments to bring OMC into the political debate. Actually, the available studies show that the National Parliaments have been put on the sidelines of the OMC process, which, at the national level, has been guided above all by ministry officials. At the best, the National Parliaments have been informed of the contents of the national plans as a fait accompli, so that the debate took place either after the event or not at all 126. And yet, from the constitutional point of view, the National Parliaments would have every means (of guidance and control of the governments actions) to justify having a say in it when national plans are being drawn up. This, therefore, is a point upon which the EP could insist. Over the medium term, parliaments could gain a more active role and the EP, through the relations established with the National Parliaments, could also have a role, albeit indirect, in the bottom-up stage of the process. Moreover, this logic is by no means irrelevant to the EP, at least to judge by the points made in the Resolution of 7/5/2009 (Relations between the EP and National Parliaments under the Treaty of Lisbon). Here the EP: urges national parliaments to strengthen their efforts to hold national governments to account for their management of the spending of EU funds; invites national parliaments to scrutinise the quality of national impact assessments and the manner in which national governments transpose EU law into domestic law and implement EU policies and funding programmes at the level of the state, regions and local authorities; requests national parliaments to monitor rigorously the reporting of the national action plans of the Lisbon agenda ( 4); 126 Cf. De la Porte, C. and Nanz, P. (2004) OMC A Deliberative-Democratic Mode of Governance? The Cases of Employment and Pensions, Journal of European Public Policy, Vol.11, No.2; Duina, F. & Raunio, T., The open method of co-ordination and national parliaments: further marginalization or new opportunities? Journal of European Public Policy, 2007 n.14 IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

108 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion deems it appropriate to offer national parliaments support in their scrutiny of draft legislation prior to its consideration by the Union legislature, as well as in the effective scrutiny of their governments when they are acting in the Council ( 5). 2) Fighting social exclusion and enhancing the role of the EP in the area of the ordinary legislative process The Treaty of Lisbon establishes the competences of the Union in considerable detail. For our purposes here, in order to reconstruct the picture of the Union's competences in relation to those of the Member States, the following points are to be borne in mind: art. 2.2.: When the Treaties confer on the Union a competence shared with the Member States in a specific area, the Union and the Member States may legislate and adopt legally binding acts in that area. The Member States shall exercise their competence to the extent that the Union has not exercised its competence. The Member States shall again exercise their competence to the extent that the Union has decided to cease exercising its competence ; art. 2.3.: The Member States shall coordinate their economic and employment policies within arrangements as determined by this Treaty, which the Union shall have competence to provide ; art. 2.5.: In certain areas and under the conditions laid down in the Treaties, the Union shall have competence to carry out actions to support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the Member States, without thereby superseding their competence in these areas. An aspect that appears to emerge from the regulatory framework described above is a distinction between economic-employment policies on the one hand, and social policies in general on the other. In the case of economic and employment policies (considered, above all the former, taken to be of primary importance as from as early as the 2004 Kok Report) intervention on the part of Community entities, as conceived in the Treaty, seems to be more incisive; as for social policies in the broad sense, also embracing inclusion policies, Union coordination is apparently to be rather looser 127. So much seems to be confirmed by the subsequent art. 4.2., dedicated to concurrent competences, where it is stated that Shared competence between the Union and the Member States applies in the following principal areas: [ ] (b) social policy, for the aspects defined in this Treaty. Analysing how the Treaty actually regulates concurrent competences in terms of social policy, economic and employment policies are seen to receive far more attention than is dedicated to inclusion policies. Treaty of Lisbon article 153 (ex CE art. 137), while including the fight against social exclusion among the sectors in which the Community supports and completes the action of the States, does not expressly provide for directives to be adopted, leaving Member States with the task of singling out the most appropriate measures, albeit within the framework of coordinated strategies at the Community level. It is indeed significant that the main EP tool for the fight against social exclusion is identified in the OMC. So much emerges from analysis of the preparatory documentation for the Commission communication on what is termed active inclusion - COM (2008) 639. In the SEC (2008) 2590 document of 8 October 2008 ( Commission staff working document accompanying the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the active inclusion of persons excluded from the labour market ), the Commission contemplates three lines for development of an active inclusion strategy. None of these lines commits the Commission to entering upon a formal legislative initiative that would allow for EP involvement with full rights. 127 Cf. K. Armstrong, Governance and Constitutionalism After Lisbon, cit. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

109 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy (Although this attitude does not seem to derive from exclusion of hard interventions as a matter of principle so much as from political difficulties in adopting directives and regulations on this point see the foregoing considerations). Indeed, the Commission seems, rather, to favour the development of a strategy based on the use of soft law instruments, which should moreover pivot around the Commission itself: 1. Option 1 - Baseline Scenario: If this option is selected, no further elements, be they content or procedures, would be introduced into the current policy and legislative framework, but progress would continue under the current instruments and initiatives already in place. More precisely, this means that the 1992 Council Recommendation would remain valid and the Social OMC would continue to evolve incrementally on the basis of lessons learnt up until now [...] ; 2. Option 2 - Commission Recommendation: Since amendments to the Treaty since the adoption of the Council Recommendation rule out any revision of the latter to remedy its shortcomings, including its limited implementation, this option would involve strengthening the Social OMC in this area with common principles or basic requirements on the basis of a Commission recommendation. This would give it added impetus and allow it to serve as a visible, updated reference framework for the promotion, monitoring and evaluation of all aspects of the active inclusion approach for all stakeholders [...] ; 3. Option 3 - Commission Communication: A third option for further strengthening of the Social OMC and the common reference framework that took the form of common principles or basic requirements to implement active inclusion would be through a Commission communication. Such a communication could include an indepth analysis of the problem and consideration of a more open, joint analytical exploration of possible common principles. On the subject of active inclusion, the Commission did not simply publish a communication, but also a recommendation, or in other words a para-legislative act, implying a round of consultation with the Member States and, more in general, far more deliberation than characterises the communications (cf. Commission Recommendation of 3 October 2008 on the active inclusion of people excluded from the labour market, 2008/867/EC). With regard to such an exacting act as a recommendation, the EP could come up with a resolution. What is in any case clear is that the EP once again finds itself in a somewhat passive position. Nevertheless, the obstacle may not prove entirely insurmountable. In fact, semantically speaking the concept of social exclusion has a very broad connotation, not to say somewhat vague and generic. Its limits are of very approximate definition and the area of inclusion policies often shows a certain contiguity with that of other sectors (for example, protection of working conditions and access to employment) where the Community has historically intervened with directives and regulations, and in any case with far more incisive tools than the soft kind typically adopted in the OMC. In other words, social inclusion (or the fight against exclusion) shows many points of contact and even a certain overlapping with such sectors as employment, social protection and the fight against discrimination. These are all sectors that have seen Community intervention with the tools designated by the classical Community (directives and regulations): for example, following through with the idea that inclusion can be achieved for employment and protection of working conditions, directives have been adopted in the field of flexible job conditions (e.g. 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work; Council Directive 1999/70/EC. of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work; Directive 2008/104/EC of 19 November 2008 on temporary agency work); IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

110 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion we may also consider the decisive role that the EP played in the business of approving Directive 2006/123/EC on services in the internal market ( The Services directive ); or the interventions in the fight against various forms of discrimination (which can be seen as so many social exclusion factors) such as, for example, Directive 2000/78/EC on equality of treatment in the area of employment and access to jobs, with particular reference to the protection of disabled persons in the workplace; and, finally, we may consider the interventions in the area of social protection: dir. on complementary social security funds. In some of the cases cited above the EP was only consulted (e.g. dir. n. 99/70/EC; dir. n. 2000/78/EC), while in others it was fully involved on the basis of co-decision procedure (e.g. dir. n. 2006/123; dir. n. 2008/104/EC). In any case, there have been opportunities for more or less intensive exchange with the Commission and the Council. Extending the scope for application of the co-decision procedure being generalised should objectively reinforce the role of the EP. The real problem lies in the fact that the EP has yet to be attributed with powers of legislative initiative. With the exception of a few cases where it applies to a quarter of the Member States (in the field of administrative cooperation or judiciary cooperation on penal matters) and which moreover have nothing to do with social policy the power of initiative is generally attributed to the Commission (broadly speaking, on the institutional organisation introduced by the Lisbon Treaty) 128. In all the cases mentioned above, however, the EP has intervened at the level of consultation or co-decision in legislative processes initiated by the Commission. So, how could the EP prompt the Commission to take up initiatives if it has not already the will to do so? As long as the previous Treaties applied, the problem essentially remained open. Initiative has always been firmly in the hands of the Commission. The EP could ask the Commission to take up a certain legislative initiative, but the Commission was not obliged to take the matter any further. With the Lisbon Treaty coming into force the picture has largely remained unchanged. The Commission is still in charge of legislative initiative. Moreover, it is stated in the Lisbon Treaty that should the EP request the Commission to take up a certain initiative, and should the Commission opt not to follow the EP suggestion, then it must provide the motivation. See, in this respect, the Lisbon Treaty art. 225: The European Parliament may, acting by a majority of its component Members, request the Commission to submit any appropriate proposal on matters on which it considers that a Union act is required for the purpose of implementing the Treaties. If the Commission does not submit a proposal, it shall inform the European Parliament of the reasons 129. At the most, this can make the position of the Commission more accountable in terms of its political responsibility (which could already be a step in the right direction), but it does not lessen its role in terms of the prerogatives juridically attributed to it by the Treaty. In any case possible scope for discussion between EP, Council and the Commission, even on the exercise of legislative initiative, is offered by the Interinstitutional Agreement On Better Law-Making (2003/C 321/01) which at point 4, provides as follows: The three Institutions agree to improve the coordination of their preparatory and legislative work in the context of the codecision procedure and to publicise it in appropriate fashion. 128 Cf. Dougan M., The Treaty of Lisbon 2007: Winning Minds, Not Hearts, in CMLR Cf. Sieberson, The Treaty of Lisbon and its Impact on the EU Democratic Deficit, etc. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

111 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy The Council will inform the European Parliament in good time of the draft multiannual strategic programme which it recommends for adoption by the European Council. The three Institutions will forward to each other their respective annual legislative timetables with a view to reaching agreement on joint annual programming. As far as possible, the Commission's annual law-making and work programme will include indications as to the choice of legislative instrument and the legal basis envisaged for each measure to be put forward. With particular reference to the Commission, when it informs the EP of the initiatives it means to adopt, an exchange comes about between the two institutions which can take two forms: a) the EP can interact, in the course of hearings organised for the purpose, with the commissioners having competence in the various areas. During these hearings observations are formulated, proposals advanced, etc. b) with regard to issues concerning the EP which come within the Commission s actions plans, the EP can submit reports, which the Commission normally takes into account. More generally speaking, on the question of regulatory tools to address the challenges raised in the fight against social exclusion, the Commission contrary to the impression one might initially receive does not seem to be set solely on the OMC. The wholesale resort to OMC soft techniques is dictated above all by political difficulties involved in the pursuit of the political consensus necessary to adopt hard law acts (moreover, a problem aggravated with transition to the Europe of 27 nations). On the occasion of publication of the 2008 Social Agenda (cf. Renewed social agenda: Opportunities, access and solidarity in the 21st century Europe, COM (2008) 412 final, 2008), the Commission reiterated the importance of making use of all the regulatory tools available, including such as imply adopting binding acts. Thus there are no preclusions vis-à-vis the possibility of adopting more incisive tools. It should just be a matter of arriving at the right mix. 3). An additional approach The game played between the Commission and Council, on the one hand, and the EP on the other, can also be approached at the level of (power) political relations between Community institutions. One object of study, for example, has been the way in which the EP, in sectors where mere consultation had been provided for, has had its wishes taken into account in the legislative process. Studies show that when the EP has been consulted on certain matters, it has obtained significant results: when it has exploited its power to delay, as it is called, delaying issue of its opinion (obligatory, although not binding) on matters submitted to it; when it has been able to link up within the scope of one policy strategy the issues upon which it was consulted with matters upon which it could exercise its fuller powers of co-decision 130. By extending use of the co-decision procedure, the Lisbon Treaty enhances the bargaining power of the EP in its relations with the other Community institutions. In other words, the EP can now more readily arrive at political exchange in the following terms: in relations with the Commission: the EP can offer support to Commission initiatives in return for readiness on the part of the Commission to take the initiative in those sectors in which the EP is interested in pursuing a course of action; 130 Cf. R. Kardasheva, The Power to Delay: The European Parliament Influence in the Consultation Procedure, in JCMS, 2009 IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

112 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion in relations with the Council: the EP can offer support for measures that the Council means to adopt in return for readiness on the part of the Council to approve the acts closest to the heart of the EP. Evidently, the EP should reserve this type of approach as extrema ratio, to resort to when the Council and Commission fail to give due weight to the declarations of principle extolling the spirit of cooperation between Community institutions, and between the latter and the national institutions (cf. COM(2009) 15 def.) On reinforcement of the role of National Parliaments in the process Some attention should be dedicated to the extent to which the European Parliament could enhance its role through reinforced co-operation with the national parliaments, seeking to collect and integrate also at the local and category levels. Various indications in this respect are already available and also appear in European Parliament resolutions. The report on Public Finances makes ample reference to the principle of ownership, as also proposed by the European Commission, serving to enhance the role of the national parliaments and the European Parliament, and their reciprocal relations, on a topic of such general importance as allocation and accountability of public resources. Moreover, the last voting session of the European Parliament in the last legislature saw approval of the European Parliament resolution of 7 May 2009 on the development of the relations between the European Parliament and national parliaments under the Treaty of Lisbon (2008/2120(INI)). Let us look at some of the more significant passages: whereas citizens are directly represented at Union level in the European Parliament and the Member States are represented in the Council by their respective governments, which themselves are democratically accountable to their national parliaments (see Article 10(2) of the EU Treaty in the Lisbon Treaty version); consequently the necessary parliamentarisation of the European Union must rely on two fundamental approaches involving the broadening of the European Parliament's powers vis-à-vis all the Union's decisions and the strengthening of the powers of the national parliaments vis-à-vis their respective governments (recital B); whereas the primary task and function of the European Parliament and the national parliaments is to take part in legislative decision-making and to scrutinise political choices at, respectively, the national and the European level; whereas this does not render close cooperation for the common good superfluous, especially as regards the transposition of the EU law into national law (recital I); is of the opinion that new forms of pre- and post-legislative dialogue between the European Parliament and national parliaments should be developed (point 3, future relations). Looking to the future, the European Parliament, through the Employment Committee, could trace out a participatory/consultative course with the national Parliaments entailing a set annual agenda of meetings, to be held prior to the choices to be made in the field of budget policies and public finance, and providing for a truly significant institutional role, a sort of States General of the institutions of the European Union for social inclusion, with the participation of all parties involved. The States General for inclusion should also be able to formulate decisions and, at the same time, highlight and awaken opinion to the importance of social inclusion for the European Union. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

113 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy During the Exchange of views on the "2020 Strategy" at the European Parliament that followed presentation of the present report, in the presence of the Members of Parliament and of NGOs, some interesting points on the possible role of the European Parliament to promote wider consensus and fuller involvement of the institutions were introduced, suggesting these aims might be achieved: by supporting wider discussion of the social progress achieved through the social OMC across Europe, for example by promoting an AGORA on EU2010. The Citizens Agora 131 The Citizens Agora represents a link between the European Parliament and European civil society. It is a unique tool, in both structure and breadth, for discussing with citizens, issues on Parliament s legislative agenda. The Agora provides room for open debate with a view to building consensus or revealing diverging opinions within civil society on the analysis or the action to be undertaken to address Europe's future challenges. As the EU develops its next initiatives, European civil society organisations are invited to express their views, bringing forward their analyses and proposals and highlighting the role they are willing to take in future EU actions. The Agora conclusions, as drafted by the civil society representatives, are submitted to the European and national institutions and widely disseminated by all those involved. The first Agora discussed the future direction of Europe - principally the new Treaty and opportunities ahead. Held in the European Parliament on 8 and 9 November 2007, it brought together more than 400 people over two days. The work of the Agora was divided into five workshops, which produced working documents from the debates. The conclusions were presented during a plenary session and at a number of press conferences. by introducing an annual debate at EU level on the matter, intended to stimulate the political interest on social issues and possible forms of coordination; by introducing a stricter form of accounting and assessment of the results of the actions undertaken at the EU and national level; by introducing discussion of the possible implementation of targets and social standards to be achieved at the national level with greater involvement of national parliaments; by elaborating methods and approaches able to enhance the dissemination of the results obtained across Europe, through the consultation of Member States on proposals at this concern and by boosting the funding of OMC objectives through ESF. As De Capitani puts it, public debates in the European Parliament push the national Parliaments to address their government's representatives: the direct and indirect dialogue between European and national parliamentarians make it increasingly clear, at the national level, what is really at stake in Brussels. With increasing frequency the positions, or at least the arguments raised during European Parliament debates, are mirrored at the national level. The presence of permanent national Parliamentary representatives in the EP premises, new IT tools and networks (even if not comparable to those linking up European and national administrations) are all elements of a new virtual working area which can evolve into an inter-parliamentary "Agora". If the level of democracy can be measured by taking as a criterion the possibility for the citizens to influence the content of the legislation, there is no doubt that the intervention of the EP has fundamentally changed the way decisions are taken at an EU level IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

114 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion Summary of Chapter 4 The OMC process is usually criticized for its lack of democratic basis, as on the one hand it does not provide for any institutionalized role for the European Parliament and on the other hand the involvement of National Parliaments seems to be limited in most Member States. This chapter has described the formal role of the European Parliament in OMC as the Treaty articulates it, and the actual role it has exerciced through its policy making: moreover, the weak role formally attributed its involvement in the policymaking has gained increasing strength become over the years. The Lisbon Treaty enhances the social provisions of the previous Treaties in various respects: the new Article 2 on the objectives of the Union contains a much firmer commitment to social justice and solidarity than the current one; a new horizontal "social" clause (Art. 5a) stipulates that in defining and implementing its policies and activities, the Union shall take into account requirements linked to the promotion of a high level of employment, the guarantee of adequate social protection, the fight against social exclusion, and a high level of education, training and protection of human health; the inclusion of the legally binding reference to the Charter of Fundamental Rights is also relevant to the Social OMC. Finally Article 140 of the Lisbon Treaty gives explicit recognition to the Open Method of Coordination as an EU tool for fostering cooperation between Member States in the area of social policy, and introduces the obligation to inform the European Parliament regularly about developments under the Social OMC. Chapter 4 presents some possible paths that the European Parliament can take in order to enhance its role in policies for inclusion and social protection in the new frame of the Lisbon Treaty. To this end, EP can act on two different planes: fighting social exclusion and enhancing the role of the EP in the OMC area; fighting social exclusion and enhancing the role of the EP in the area of the ordinary legislative process. a) Enhancing the role of the European Parliament in the OMC area The Lisbon Treaty offers the EP some new scope for action. In the sectors indicated by art. 153 the EP and the Council (and no longer only the Council, as originally provided for with article 137 CE) may adopt measures designed to encourage cooperation between Member States through initiatives aimed at improving knowledge, developing exchanges of information and best practices, promoting innovative approaches and evaluating experiences, excluding any harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the Member States. This reference appears to legitimise more direct EP intervention in the OMC top-down stage. During the bottom-up stage the EP cannot be called upon to play a direct role, but can, through the relations it is able to develop with the national parliaments, take on an established role as interlocutor of the latter for the purposes of the OMC. For this to come about it is indispensable that the national parliaments take a fuller part in the OMC process than hitherto. b) Enhancing the role of the EP in the area of the ordinary legislative process. The Lisbon Treaty establishes the competences of the Union in considerable detail. Analysing how the Treaty actually regulates concurrent competences in terms of social policy, economic and employment, policies are seen to receive far more attention than is dedicated to inclusion policies. Nevertheless, social inclusion shows many points of contact and even a certain overlapping with sectors as employment, social protection and the fight against discrimination. These are all sectors that have seen Community intervention with the classical Community tools (directives and regulations). Extending the scope for application of the co-decision procedure being generalised should objectively reinforce the role of the EP. Enhancing the involvement of national parliaments in the process Looking to the future, the European Parliament, through the Employment Committee, could trace out a participatory/consultative course with the national Parliaments entailing a set annual agenda of meetings, to be held prior to the choices to be made in the field of budget policies and public finance, and providing for a truly significant institutional role, a sort of States General of the institutions of the European Union for social inclusion, with the participation of all parties involved. Enhancing the involvement of stakeholders at all stages of the OMC process The continuous involvement of stakeholders and more in general of civil society throughout the social OMC policy cycle should be enhanced. The ONGs have expressed their considerations in this respect, calling for: a) wider consultation; b) vigorous civil dialogue at all stages of the OMC process c) meaningful and effective participation with all stakeholders; d) attention to the phase of implementation; e) involvement at the local level. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

115 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy 5. ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIFIC FEATURES OF THE SOCIAL OMC AS AN INNOVATIVE GOVERNANCE METHOD ALLOWING FOR NEW PARTICIPATORY MODELS The Impact Assessment 132 accompanying the Communication on the Renewed Social Agenda underlines the fact that the social OMC process has been successful in establishing a framework for cooperation: the procedures in use have helped Member States achieve a better understanding of the challenges facing Europe and identify common principles of actions. The aim of the chapter is to deal with the specific elements of innovation inherent in this new governance method, focusing in particular on its added value for the improvement of EU cooperation and interaction in the field of social inclusion. Three areas deserve specific attention while considering the impact of social OMC in terms of promoting EU cooperation and participation, namely: 1. the involvement of stakeholders and in general of civil society; 2. the visibility of the process; 3. mutual learning as a key instrument for the improvement of EU cooperation The involvement of stakeholders and in general of civil society A key objective of the Social OMC is the commitment of the Commission and Member States to ensure good governance, transparency and the involvement of stakeholders in the design, implementation and monitoring of policy". This is particularly relevant for the social inclusion strand, given the decentralised nature of policies to fight poverty and exclusion that require "that social inclusion policies are well-coordinated and involve all levels of government and relevant actors, including people experiencing poverty". Extensive involvement of the representatives of Member States, civil society organisations, independent experts, institutional actors at EU level and the broader public is thus required at all stages of the process, from diagnosis of the problems to be addressed to the inventorying of possible solutions to be taken into account 133. Since the first Joint Report on Social Inclusion in 2002 the mobilisation of all relevant bodies has been considered of particular importance: The mobilisation of all relevant stakeholders according to their respective areas of competence is a key component of an integrated and participative strategy to combat social exclusion and poverty. ( ) Such mobilisation is essential on grounds of both legitimacy and efficiency. First, the multidimensional nature of social exclusion requires the development of policy approaches which cut across several institutional and policy domains. Secondly, it is a matter of administrative efficiency that policy measures should be designed and implemented by the relevant authority at the right level. This mobilisation is necessary at every stage of the policy cycle: from planning through implementation and delivery, to monitoring and evaluation. The possible forms of this involvement are either at the EU level, in the forms of public consultation and interactive exchange of experiences, at the national level, in the phase of redaction of the Naps/NSRs, and at the local/regional level, in the phase of implementation of policies: partnership and dialogue at local levels are in fact important tools for delivering social inclusion. 132 SEC (2008) Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion 2002 IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

116 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion They can help with the identification of problems and of the most disadvantaged groups, in directing social assistance and in activating people suffering poverty and social exclusion. The following two sections deal with the involvement of civil society at the national and local level, both from the point of view of the institutions, on the basis of analysis of the Joint Reports since 2002, and from the point of view of civil society, based on the available material and position papers Involvement at the national and local level: from the point of view of the institutions 134 According to the Joint Report 2002 the social partners had been consulted on, or involved in the preparation of the NAPs/incl. in the majority of the Member States. However, in most of the cases their intervention seems to have been limited. This consultation was undertaken through: already existing nation-wide consultation settings (Luxembourg, Finland, Spain, Denmark) or through more specific committees set up under existing strategies to combat social exclusion (Ireland). In some countries (Spain, Portugal) preparation of the NAPs/incl. has been taken as an opportunity to establish or consolidate institutional consultation in this area, integrating the social partners. The Joint Report 2004 notes that one of the features distinguishing the NAPs/incl from those of 2001 is the extent to which many Member States have extended and consolidated their arrangements for mobilising all relevant bodies and enhancing coordination of efforts in the struggle against poverty and social exclusion. However, in some cases there is still much to be done. Several Member States themselves recognised that the current arrangements are not completely satisfactory. Co-operation and consultation with the different partners need to be improved, both in view of the implementation and of the monitoring of the current Plans, and for the formulation of the plans to be drawn up. The most common way for the excluded to make themselves heard is through their involvement in consultative seminars or through involving representatives of NGOs in steering groups. In a few cases interesting attempts have been made to find better ways of directly assisting the most excluded to contribute to the policy debate. Several Member States have taken or are in the process of taking significant steps to ensure structured and ongoing dialogue between different actors on poverty and social exclusion at the national level by establishing commissions or consultative committees involving the various actors. In the NAPs there is growing emphasis on ensuring that the integrated approach at the national level be translated into integrated, multi-dimensional action on the ground. According to the Joint Report while it is important to point out the progress made since the previous NAPs/incl., in most cases no evidence can be found of any direct impact on the design and delivery of policy measures resulting from this increased involvement. This impact is rather difficult to assess, but it can be assumed to be quite weak, except in a few, very specific, issues. In general, while significant progress has been made, there is still a need to promote and ensure real consultation with sufficient time allowed and adequate resources provided. The issue at stake in this phase is how to consolidate the quality of the involvement of the different actors and how establish a more equal ongoing partnership. 134 The following texts are drawn from the Joint Reports on Social Protection and Social Inclusion IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

117 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy The Joint Report 2005 assesses the NAPs/Inc submitted by the 10 new Member States. In this context the most common participatory method adopted is involvement of NGO representatives in preparatory seminars, working groups and committees, and in consultancy procedures. However, the level of participation and involvement of the excluded in implementation of the Plans is not entirely clear. A key problem which hampered the involvement of NGOs was the lack of umbrella organisations or networks of NGOs able to act as strong partners of the public authorities. Building up a national network of NGOs focused on the fight against exclusion and representing excluded groups was viewed as essential in several NAPs/incl. (Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia & Slovenia). Normal arrangements to involve various disadvantaged groups in policymaking have already been established in a number of countries, which contributes to the relative prominence attributed to issues regarding such groups in some of the NAPs/incl. A common feature of the EU 10 has been the use made of the existing social dialogue structures between the Government and the social partners. Social partners have been involved as members of the committees/working groups developing the NAPs/incl. in almost all EU 10 member states, participating directly in the drafting process or at least being consulted. However, little attention has been paid to their potential role as actors in promoting social inclusion in the NAPs. A separate issue, which deserves specific attention, concerns the involvement of the excluded at the local and EU level: the Commission Guidelines for developing the NAP and strategic reports spell out the importance of direct involvement for people in poverty. In some NAPs, however, this issue is usually raised when discussing future developments and there is hardly any evidence of arrangements already in place, even though many initiatives have been undertaken in this respect. The challenge ahead is to put in place structured ways of ensuring the participation of people suffering poverty, to involve them directly in the NAPs/incl. process and consult them to a greater extent to ensure the development of better-targeted and more effective policies. Almost all the NAPs/incl. highlighted the very important role that NGOs play in the delivery of social inclusion measures and emphasised the need to increase support for their role in this respect. However, most of the NAPs show a lack of measures designed to build on this capacity. From Joint Report 2006 it emerges that most of the countries had extended the participation of the excluded and several countries had stepped up their efforts to consult with groups representing the excluded. The most common method encompasses the participation of their representatives (mostly NGOs) in preparatory seminars, working groups and committees. Some countries use existing co-ordinating and consultation arrangements to prepare and assess their NAPs. However, in some cases the need for further development of these arrangements is stressed. While the mobilisation and involvement of actors, including people suffering poverty and exclusion, show some progress, there is little evidence of a direct link between mobilisation of actors and the actual impact on policies and practices. Some countries claim that this involvement has already had some impact on the elaboration and implementation of social inclusion policies, or are assessing the participation of persons living in poverty in the design and the implementation of regional and national policies. The role played by NGOs in the fight against poverty and social exclusion is widely acknowledged. However, cooperation needs to be further strengthened in many Member States to promote and ensure real consultation, and this raises in particular the issues of resources and capacity building. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

118 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion Box 5.1: Some examples of involvement of civil society and partnership at the national level Belgium has set up two working groups ("actions" and "indicators") bringing together representatives of federal, communities and regions, social partners, organisations in which people experiencing poverty can express themselves and the "Service de Lutte contre la Pauvreté" submit a report to the interministerial Conference on social integration. In addition, an evaluation study has been carried out on the input of persons living in poverty to the report of the Brussels region on the state of poverty. In France, thanks to a national conference, in July 2004, followed by an interministerial committee for the fight against exclusion, it has been possible to enhance the exchanges between the various institutional bodies, associative actors, elected representatives and social partners. In Germany, the Federal Government launched a broad dialogue with all relevant actors in the field of social inclusion. A large-scale campaign (FORTEIL forum of participation and social integration) has been launched in close co-operation with the Länder and NGOs, in order to extend discussion on social exclusion issues among the broader public and further develop the strategic approach to enhancing social participation. The Greek Report acknowledges that the establishment of the National Committee for Social Protection for the promotion of social dialogue to combat poverty and Social Exclusion still needs upgrading and more effective utilisation. In 2005 Hungary established a methodological working group (METOD) under the auspices of the Interministerial Committee to Combat Social Exclusion, consisting of academic experts, ministries and associations of local governments, responsible for consultations and recommendations relating to the Laeken and national indicators as well as for recommendations to the Government concerning data needs in this area. In Ireland April 2003 saw the current national partnership agreement, Sustaining Progress, drawing up a substantial part of the agenda for the further development of NAP/inclusion through the agreed commitment to pursue a series of special initiatives on the basis of dialogue between the Government and all the relevant partners. A NAPS Social Inclusion Forum organises national meetings with all social inclusion stakeholders. In Italy, alongside the work of various watch committees in areas relevant to social inclusion, it is worth mentioning the work of the Commission on poverty and social exclusion, consisting of academic experts and civil society representatives. In Malta an Office for Social Inclusion was established in March 2005, aiming at coordination, collaboration and mobilization of all the different actors to ensure a concerted approach. The Office was launched through wide-ranging consultation with key stakeholders on policy measures to update the report. In Portugal, a Non Governmental Forum for Social Inclusion was established, consisting of national, nongovernmental entities and representatives from the NAP/Incl. intervention areas to ensure that opinions on measures, instruments and programmes to strengthen or to include in the Plan be taken into account. The report recognises, however, that the lack of capacity to involve the excluded represents an serious weakness in the execution and effectiveness of policy measures, and that this objective needs to be reflected more clearly and systematically in implementation of the Plan. A national seminar presented the results of a series of workshops and served as a basis for drafting the 2005 Implementation report. In Spain, the participation of those affected in social inclusion programmes is channelled through a series of Councils and similar consultative bodies, including representatives of civil society and the national authorities, to define and co-ordinate coherent policies of integral attention for these groups. In Sweden, a Users Committee, involving the public sector and voluntary and user organisations, was set up in 2003 for consultation and information exchanges in connection with the implementation of the NAP. The report acknowledges that, while the experience of the work of the Committee is positive, there is still a need to put in place a system to establish real user cooperation at all levels of society. Consultative collegiate bodies, involving policy makers, NGOs, watch committees and various forums consolidate a participation structure for the planning and co-ordination of social policies with joint decision-making. In the UK consultation with, and involvement of, organisations of the community and voluntary sectors has continued to develop considerably since the earlier NAPs. The involvement process, in terms of both policy development and evaluation is now more strategic and increasingly structured, allowing for real input to the policy process on the part of those with direct experience of living in poverty. Moreover, shared working arrangements with the NGOs in a forum called the Social Policy Task Force were developed. A key outcome of this partnership has been the establishment of a time-limited Participation Working Group (PWG) to advise on future engagement with people suffering poverty in developing social inclusion strategies. In addition, the New Deal for Communities aims at tackling multiple deprivations in the most deprived neighbourhoods in the country taking an intensive and co-ordinated approach through partnership with public agencies, local business, voluntary bodies and the local residents. Again in the Joint Report 2007 we see civil society and social partners increasingly involved in the preparation of national strategies and modernisation of social protection. Still, there remains room for further improvement in the quality of the involvement, not least in the implementation and follow-up phases. Coordination between the European, national, regional and local levels needs to be stepped up. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

119 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy The importance of effective monitoring and evaluation is now generally acknowledged, but few details are provided on the precise arrangements envisaged. The bulk of Member States have made progress since the previous NAPs for inclusion in mobilising and consulting those concerned. Among the arrangements for preparation of the National Strategy for Social Inclusion a number of new good practices have emerged, building on the experience gained so far in the OMC. In many countries (Denmark, Belgium, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Spain, Finland, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden and the UK) the process of drafting the NAP was from the outset open to participation on the part of NGOs and social services providers, allowing for thorough discussion. Nonetheless, in all the Member States there is still room for improvement in the quality of this involvement, ensuring that it actually impacts on policies and priorities, and for extension beyond the preparatory phase. With regard to the role played by the stakeholders and civil society, according to the Impact Assessment 135 their involvement is as yet often limited to the initial stages of the policy process (information, consultation). The stakeholders are less involved in policy implementation, monitoring and evaluation, and often receive no feedback on the impact of their input. Cooperation needs to be further strengthened in many Member States to ensure genuine consultation; this raises issues of resources and capacity building. While administrative coordination across government ministries has been improved, and cooperation with the stakeholders strengthened, there is still typically much to be done to embed the objectives of the EU social inclusion process fully into policymaking systems. This should also involve the participation of people suffering exclusion themselves, both in the implementation and monitoring of the strategy and in steering future policy development Involvement at the national and local level: from the point of view of civil society The views of civil society organisations tend to converge on several points and to diverge from the optimistic views emerging form NAPs/NSRs and Joint Reports. According to a study made by the European Older People s Platform 136 (AGE) Whilst the principle of civil society participation is supported by many Member States, the reality is often disappointing. Several of AGE members reported that older people s organisations were neither consulted by their national governments on the previous OMC cycle ( ), nor involved in the implementation and monitoring phases although some developments are to be appreciated. The following box presents an AGE analysis of the role played by the older people s NGOs in the OMC and the progress made. 135 SEC (2008) The European Older People s Platform, What is the European Union doing in the field of social protection and social inclusion? A Toolkit to improve civil dialogue in the Open Method of Coordination on Social Protection and Social Inclusion, May 2008 IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

120 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion Box 5.2: The role of civil society in the OMC and its evolution : the First National Action Plans on Social Inclusion NAPs/Inc With a few exceptions, the older people s NGOs were not consulted in the process : the Second National Action Plans on Social Inclusion NAPs/Inc The EU-15 Member States developed their second National Action Plans on Social inclusion (NAPs/Inc) again with very poor input from older people s organisations. 2004: the 10 new Member States launched their NAPs/Inc Consultation with older people s organisations was seldom reported. 2005: National Strategy Reports on pensions In 2005, Member States were asked to send to the Commission their National Strategy Reports (NSR) on adequate and sustainable pension systems. Although consultation with civil society was encouraged, few older people s organisations were consulted by their governments for the drafting of their NSR. AGE collected the comments 138 of its members afterward and argued in favour of a strategic approach in the NSR to achieve an adequate income in old age, reflecting the needs and experience of older people : the First National Actions Plans on Social Protection and Social Inclusion A number of AGE members were consulted by their governments for the drafting of their National Action Plans (NAPs) on social inclusion, but fewer were consulted on pensions. Nine AGE networks representing the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Lithuania and the UK played a particularly active role in this process through their participation in the AGE transnational exchange project, AGE/inc 139, co-financed by the European Commission. The aim of the project was to encourage the participation of older people, including the most vulnerable, in the development of the Member States social inclusion strategies. This project has enabled AGE partners to establish sound links with their national authorities responsible for the national strategies on social inclusion. It has also led some governments to a better understanding of the added value of civil dialogue in the OMC. This should help improve the content of the strategy reports on social inclusion and pensions. In the new field of long-term care there was no, or at any rate very little, consultation with civil society at the national level for this first round. At the European level AGE was consulted by the Commission on the Review of Preliminary National Policy Statements on Health Care and Long-term Care 140. AGE members also deplored the lack of involvement of civil society organisations in the monitoring and evaluation of the strategies after the reports were submitted : the Second cycle of National Actions Plans on Social Protection and Social Inclusion For the second cycle of the Social OMC, the objectives agreed upon in 2006 remain unchanged and this cycle is for the first time aligned with that of the Strategy for Growth and Jobs. AGE has drafted specific guidelines to help its members and older people s organisations towards fuller involvement in the drafting, implementation and monitoring process for each of the three strands, or in short to enhance civil dialogue within the Social OMC. With regard to the quality of stakeholders involvement, it is worth noting the prevalent considerations of the situation across Europe as emerges from the analysis conducted by the European Anti Poverty Network (EAPN) 141 on the basis of the latest NSRs ( ). The Member States can be divided into 4 groups: A significant number highlight progress in the participation/governance process of the NAP (Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Malta, Poland, Spain): many of these are new member states. Others highlight the continuation of an embedded structural dialogue which serves as a good practice model for governance on the NAP (UK, Belgium). 137 The European Older People s Platform, What is the European Union doing in the field of social protection and social inclusion? A Toolkit to improve civil dialogue in the Open Method of Coordination on Social Protection and Social Inclusion, May AGE documents on pensions reforms are available at: For the complete set of documents, reports and conclusions of the report, please see: EAPN Social Inclusion Working Group, Building Security, Giving Hope EAPN Assessment of the National Strategic Reports on Social Protection and Social Inclusion ( ), 30 November 2008 IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

121 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy In other cases, the governance process seems to have stagnated with little improvement despite comments from the Commission and Stakeholders (Germany, Hungary, Portugal, Romania). Finally, 2 members highlight worrying set-backs in the governance process (Ireland and Sweden). In general the main improvements were made in terms of broadening the range of stakeholders, improving the number, timing and quality of exchanges/meetings and reinforcing the steps in the consultation process. In other less frequent cases there was significant improvement in raising the prominence and connection with the national political process (France and Belgium, for example, televised the Parliamentary Debate). However, progress is rather piecemeal as most of these examples represent improvement in some but not all of these areas, and there is still a clear lack of evidence of a truly systematic approach to establishing on-going dialogue with stakeholders. Box 5.3: The improvement in the role of civil society in NSRs according to EAPN 142 Austria: The process has improved. The stakeholders have been involved in several stages. However, these improvements are somewhat relative, given the fact that the plan is not a plan but a report and has no impact on future policies. People suffering poverty have not been directly involved; EAPN Austria are expected to integrate their views and the results of the Austrian PEP meetings (funded by the ministry) into their input. EAPN Austria was involved at all stages. Bulgaria: For the first time an attempt has been made to achieve at a proper consultancy process. After the draft had been made it was sent by to some NGOs, but we do not know who was invited to comment. There were no measures to involve people suffering poverty. Czech Republic: The Commission for social inclusion of the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs is responsible for producing the NAP/Inc report, involving people from public institutions, universities, large NGOs or NGO networks (including EAPN), some representatives of associations of certain groups (the disabled), but not directly people suffering poverty. Denmark: EAPN Denmark has been involved from the outset in providing input to the draft, taking part in the stakeholder meeting arranged by the government and responding to the draft. The process has proved better at the formal level, but not so much when it comes to impact. France: The Associations underline their strong support for the project to organise a ministerial communication on the NAP, as well as a press conference of ministers in charge of the fight against poverty and social exclusion. Malta: In contrast to the previous NAPs on Poverty and Social Exclusion 2004/2006 & , this report involved much more participation on the part of policymakers, service providers, service users and other stakeholders. Poland: The consultation process proved relatively positive compared to the last NAP. Of course there was no public discussion because the priorities are not new or innovatory. Several problems remain to be addressed, according to EAPN analysis 143 : Insufficient time for adequate consultation and input to drafts Inadequate access to the drafts available on websites but not sent personally Insufficient interest in developing participative democratic models and more in keeping up the appearances of consultation i.e. holding meetings when the document is already decided. Lack of impact on the outcomes. Even where groups were able to influence priorities and input to the first draft, few saw results in the final contents. Lack of feedback as to why proposals were accepted or not. 142 EAPN Social Inclusion Working Group, Building Security, Giving Hope EAPN Assessment of the National Strategic Reports on Social Protection and Social Inclusion ( ), 30 November EAPN Social Inclusion Working Group, Building Security, Giving Hope EAPN Assessment of the National Strategic Reports on Social Protection and Social Inclusion ( ), 30 November 2008 IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

122 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion Although improvements were seen in the involvement of NGOs often only a limited group of NGOs are invited, some being excluded. Insufficient and inadequate involvement of people experiencing poverty insufficient consideration and resources are dedicated to the methodology employed to ensure that people in poverty can participate equally in the meetings The backward-looking nature of the plan/report provides little motivation for stakeholder involvement and impact. Lack of follow up and structured involvement in implementation/evaluation. However, it is important to underline that many of the organizations that have been involved in ongoing dialogue with the governments, within the NAP and in broader national policy discussions, often see a policy impact, in the longer-term, outside the timeline of the NAP draft. Three interesting examples provided by EAPN describe cases where NGO s working with people experiencing poverty have become an institutionalized partner in the social policy process. Box 5.4: Three cases of institutionalisation of the role of NGOs in the social policy process 144 Belgium: The NAP process has supported the development of vigorous, ongoing structured stakeholder exchange with Government on poverty and social inclusion policy. Civil Society Stakeholders and people experiencing poverty are now integral partners in the social policy cycle on poverty and exclusion, engaged in the design, delivery and evaluation stages. Funding is also provided to the anti-poverty network to support the participative dialogue process with people in poverty. Spain: The participation process has now extended to forging a structured link between the development of local, regional action plans and the National Action plan process. EAPN has been a key partner in this process. All the activities including the role of EAPN are described as Good Practices in the NAP Inclusion relating to consultation and participation with NGOs in the preparation of the NAP. The main results of the assessment survey were presented and debated at the joint seminar organized by the Ministry and EAPN in July. The drafting of the NAP was influenced by the more significant among these suggestions and proposals. UK: In the UK, civil society has been engaged in the NAP through the Social Policy Task Force (SPTF), which is chaired by EAPN. The SPTF has been a civil society dialogue partner on the NAP since 2001, together with central, devolved and local government, and other civil society bodies and contributors forming part of the stakeholder Group on the NAP. The Stakeholder group normally meets 4 times a year, and is usually consulted on the outline of the NAP, the first draft, the good practice examples, and subsequently on the final report, follow-up and implementation. The Department of Labour and Pensions have now proposed including the Social Policy Task Force as official partners in the consultation process. This means we will form part of the institutionalized framework for consultation. EAPN urges the Commission and SPC to give new priority to actively and effectively engaging civil society and people experiencing poverty, and putting this at the heart of a reinforced OMC. Effective participation must be seen not just as better governance and a way of gaining more credibility, but an essential instrument for more effective policymaking 145. In this respect six recommendations have been made: 144 EAPN Social Inclusion Working Group, Building Security, Giving Hope EAPN Assessment of the National Strategic Reports on Social Protection and Social Inclusion ( ), 30 November EAPN A Stronger OMC, but not enough to make the difference! EAPN Response and Proposals for Reinforcing the OMC, 16 September 2008 IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

123 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy Box 5.5: EAPN Recommendations 146 Attributing new priority to active engagement of people experiencing poverty and NGO actors, at the heart of the reinforced OMC, at all stages of the policy cycle. Ensuring that the role of civil society and involvement of people experiencing poverty is seen as a crucial opportunity providing for sound policy development meeting real needs, while at the same time reinforcing the credibility of the EU. Implementing stricter evaluation of member state s delivery on the Guidance Note on good governance. Developing specific guidelines, principals and benchmarks on good governance and participation, drawing on case studies, peer reviews, best practices, etc. and evaluating progress through the National Strategic reporting cycle and Joint Report. Promoting broader and more effective mutual exchange in the SPC and amongst Government and other stakeholders on new methodologies, indicators and results Establishing a new, ongoing structured dialogue between social NGOs and the SPC, as a model to be followed by other EU governance structures involving the Council, including the EMCO and EPC. SOCIAL PLATFORM, the largest civil society alliance fighting for social justice and participatory democracy in Europe, with many of its members deeply involved in the Social OMC process, calls on the European Commission to build an active stakeholder dialogue with the social organisations of civil society at the national and EU level. In a recently published position paper 147 they consider that there are clear weaknesses in the governance of the OMC which need to be addressed, such as the restricted number of stakeholders involved and the limitations of having only social affairs ministers politically responsible for delivering on social objectives. They also underline that participation of civil society actors is key not only to ensure ownership and promote civil dialogue and participative democracy, but as an essential tool to develop and deliver more effective policy solutions. From their point of view in many EU Member States real political commitment to the process is still lacking, with no positive involvement or even awareness of high-level national politicians in the social OMC process. With regard to the key objectives of the social OMC, and in particular promotion of the direct participation of people in poverty in the process, both in shaping and delivering the National Action Plans and National Strategic Reports, they consider that although several high-level Presidency and Commission events are held as part of the Social OMC, the outcomes are not sufficiently promoted in a systematic fashion at EU and national levels or mainstreamed into other policy areas. And yet, the social OMC is mainly perceived as a bureaucratic reporting machine for EU experts and insiders. Many Social civil society organisations working at grassroots level often report difficulties in getting involved in this European-wide process, at national or EU level. Of the five proposals 148 the Social Platform has formulated to reinforce the EU strategy on social inclusion, one is specifically inherent to the role and the involvement of civil society: 146 EAPN A Stronger OMC, but not enough to make the difference! EAPN Response and Proposals for Reinforcing the OMC, 16 September Social Platform Common position: 5 recommendations for an effective Open Method of Coordination on social protection and social inclusion Adopted by the Steering Group of Social Platform on June 11, Social Platform Common position: 5 recommendations for an effective Open Method of Coordination on social protection and social inclusion Adopted by the Steering Group of Social Platform on June 11, 2009 IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

124 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion Box 5.6: SOCIAL PLATFORM PROPOSALS 2. Increasing ownership of the Social OMC and the delivery of better policy making through participation of national parliaments, regional actors, civil society organizations and people in poverty Increasing public accountability at the European, national and regional level Establishing a regular European Parliament report and national parliamentary debates/reports on the Social OMC and encouraging cooperation between European and national parliaments Bringing different stakeholders together grassroots civil society organisations, social service providers, researchers, local authorities, people suffering poverty, civil society organisations and social economy organizations, national/regional authorities, statistics offices - around different issues or priorities, e.g. child poverty, homelessness, feminisation of poverty, social inclusion of migrants, active inclusion, gender inequalities in pension provisions, health and long-term inequalities Making available in written format minutes/reports and conclusions of high level OMC meetings immediately after the meetings and distributing them widely. Increasing civil society participation At the EU level, establishing a regular, structured dialogue between the Social Protection Committee and the social organisations of European civil society on the progress made through the Social OMC. Together with civil society, developing and disseminating guidelines and benchmarks for Member States on how to strengthen the governance of the Social OMC at the national level. These guidelines could be based on existing best practices, peer reviews and the 2009 European Commission s study on governance and participation. Implementing the Recommendations of the Commission for the promotion of fuller participation of civil society organisations and people experiencing poverty in the development of the National Action Plans and Strategic Reports e.g. by organising yearly dialogue with the social organisations of civil society at the national and regional level Developing qualitative and quantitative indicators on how civil society organisations are involved in the Social OMC, doing so together with civil society organisations Recognising and taking into consideration divergent positions voiced by civil society representatives during national and EU consultations 5.2. The visibility of the process In order to be exploited, the potentialities of the Social OMC process require ample vertical and horizontal dissemination at the national and EU level of their objectives, aims and key features. Without visibility a process of mutual learning, participation and policy cooperation risks failure. The Commission has promoted several initiatives to enhance the visibility of the process, some of which also cited in the Impact Assessment: in February 2007 the Commission launched a broad consultation to examine the dynamics of current social changes. This stocktaking of the social realities 149 led to a debate aiming to build consensus on the common social challenges facing the EU. In November 2007, as part of the Internal Market Review package, the Commission presented a Communication "Towards a new social vision for the 21st century" to enhance the ongoing consultation and open out the debate, from analysis to response SEC (2008) 2169 IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

125 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy In December 2007, to promote the visibility and the impact of the process, the Commission designated 2010 as the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion, aware that European Years have proved valuable instruments for placing European political issues at the top of the EU agenda. The EY2010 will complement action under the Social OMC in particular by raising public awareness and reaffirming the importance of both individual and collective responsibility, by putting emphasis on the participation and involvement of all actors concerned, especially giving voice to people experiencing poverty and social exclusion, and by restating the commitment of the EU to fight poverty worldwide. 151 Some of the most recent Joint reports have analysed developments in terms of visibility and public awareness: Joint Report 2004 Several Member States highlighted the need to create wider public awareness of poverty and social exclusion and the NAPs/incl. process and propose positive actions in this respect. However, most of the Member States failed to indicate specific tools for raising awareness. Box 5.7: Some examples of public awareness initiatives realised in MS In Belgium various types of dialogue are organised and publications prepared, while a bi-annual report is also made available to everyone. France plans to launch an intra- and extra-media campaign to change the way the public thinks and raise awareness of the fight against social exclusion. Sweden emphasises that a key focus of the 2003 plan is to raise awareness of the social inclusion process, still not sufficiently known of in many quarters. Dissemination of successful horizontal inclusion strategies to all local authorities is also proposed. Spain identifies a broad range of actions (NAP dissemination, improving social media coverage, events, campaigns and debates, public opinion survey, involvement of schools) to increase awareness and debate on the need for social inclusion policies. In the UK the profile of the 2003 NAP has been raised significantly by printing and publishing the text in both the English and Welsh languages. In the UK the Social Exclusion Unit makes its research available to all parts of the country. Several other NAPs have also been published (Austria, Germany, Denmark, Ireland, the Netherlands). In Ireland the Combat Poverty Agency has as one of its core functions to create greater public awareness of poverty and social exclusion and what needs to be done about it. Encouraging debate and discussion on social exclusion policies in national parliaments is highlighted as another means of promoting awareness in a number of NAPs (Spain, Ireland). Joint Report 2005 The need to build public awareness of the social inclusion and the NAPs/incl. is recognised but there are no arrangements in place as yet. According to joint report 2005 in general, the NAPs/incl. have not achieved sufficient prominence and the public do not have enough information about the social inclusion strategy. During elaboration of the NAPs/incl. a number of seminars took place and NGOs were invited to participate; several countries organised national seminars that were also attended by the representatives of the European Commission (Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland & Slovenia). Special web sites for the public were used in the Czech Republic, Latvia, and Poland. Joint Report 2006 The need to build public awareness of social inclusion and the NAPs and its role in mobilising the involvement of the relevant actors is recognised, but there are few arrangements in place as yet. Even in those countries where the process has had a significant impact, the general public have very scant knowledge of it. 151 SEC (2008) 2169 IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

126 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion Knowledge at both the national and, above all, local levels seems limited to a narrow group of officials, NGOs, social partners and experts. There is broad agreement that increasing awareness of the OMC process is a key strategic challenge for the future. Indeed, a number of reports highlight efforts to increase awareness. Box 5.8: Some examples of public awareness initiatives realised in MS In Ireland a communication strategy was developed by the OSI (Office for Social Inclusion) during 2004, with the production of the first information leaflet on poverty issues, and the launch of OSI s website including, inter alia, the text of the NAP, OSI first Annual Report and relevant publications, details regarding poverty measurement and links to social inclusion activity at the local, national and international level. In Sweden an open seminar was held on EU cooperation on poverty and social exclusion, with the purpose of raising awareness of the ongoing EU process among the general public. The seminar was broadcast live by the SVT 24 channel, and on the government s external web. In the UK the NAP has been used as a means of communicating issues of poverty and social exclusion to a wider public. This has enabled people with experience of poverty to have a voice in the debate and has allowed for exchange of good practices between all the relevant actors. The Social Policy Task Force (SPTF), a network of umbrella non-government organisations, was also established to develop awareness of and participation in the NAP. The role of national parliaments in effective implementation of the social inclusion strategy and ensuring that the NAPs remain at the centre of the policy debate is still receiving all too little attention, and their level of involvement in contributing to and/or commenting on and monitoring the OMC processes generally remains very limited. Only a minority of Member States actually submit plans to national parliaments. The 2007 and 2008 Joint Reports contain no specific section concerning the actions undertaken by MS to raise visibility and public awareness Mutual learning as a key instrument for the improvement of EU cooperation Mutual learning is a key element of the social OMC in promoting meaningful exchange and learning on the common objectives and priorities. It is intended as a way to exchange practical information on policy gaps and on developments and implementation of policy responses to the social problems identified. It can be a crucial tool to build consensus among the 27 countries of the EU. According to the Impact Assessment, 152 the OMC process has significantly supported mutual learning: its success depends upon both reinforcing the involvement of key actors and ensuring better dissemination and mainstreaming results and findings into national and EU policy. However, all too often it remains a closed debate among a handful of experts whose expertise does not always cover the priority issues of the OMC, and does not go far enough in involving national, local and EU experts, as well as the various other stakeholders, in the learning experience. Impact Assessment also evidences that opportunities for mutual learning could be further exploited. On the one hand, there is still room for improvement in the methodology of mutual learning instruments (like peer reviews for example), while the potential of other tools needs to be explored; on the other hand, the results of mutual learning are not sufficiently disseminated or applied in policymaking. Two major NGOs, in their assessment of the OMC process have made proposals and recommendations in this respect: 152 SEC (2008) 2169 IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

127 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy Box 5.9: Proposals and recommendations by the Social Platform 153 Strengthening mutual learning, linking it to policy impact and opening it up to more actors, especially local and national actors. Together with national and European actors: 1. Establishing a clear strategy to ensure that mutual learning leads to policy impact and is implemented through a participatory approach. The strengths of the peer review process for actors from the ground should be better exploited, in particular the component focusing on the transferability of concepts, policies or modes of governance. 2. Facilitating mutual learning across the three OMC strands i.e. on social inclusion, pensions, and health and longterm care 3. Organising a multi-stakeholder forum to disseminate the findings of peer review exchange and promote debates linked to policy impacts (see, for instance, the thematic review model used for the European Employment Strategy) 4. Establishing taskforces on specific objectives, involving representatives of Member States and stakeholders at national level. These taskforces should be linked to the structured dialogue established at national level through the National Action Plans On Thematic years 1. Ensuring continuity in thematic years with an explicit roadmap: when the results of a thematic year and recommendations are finalised, progress on these should be monitored systematically through, for instance, SPC working groups 2. Balancing mutual learning on thematic fields with exchange on the development of integrated, multidimensional strategies to reduce poverty and social exclusion 3. Ensuring that each thematic year has a clear governance and participation strategy setting out how the stakeholders at the European and in particular the national level will be engaged Box 5.10: Proposals and recommendations by EAPN 154 Deepening mutual learning in the urgent priority areas agreed on at the EU level 1. Developing a more strategic approach to mutual learning under the OMC so that it impacts more directly on policy change in the different member states and at the EU level. 2. Working more closely with EU-funded European networks as potential drivers and facilitators of transnational mutual learning with the aim of building European resource/knowledge centres on specific priority themes and of reaching out to a much wider variety of stakeholders. 3. Linking these activities to a network of Local and Regional Observatories, which can support direct exchange on social innovation and impact. 4. Broadening stakeholder involvement in mutual learning activities, including people in poverty, by developing a wider stakeholder discussion forum in the line of the thematic review model used by the Employment Strategy, linked to the more targeted peer review models. 5. Establishing short-term transnational taskforces on specific themes, involving representatives from member states and other stakeholders actively involved in the development and delivery of social inclusion policy to develop common proposals/ guidelines/tools and instruments. 6. Developing consensual European policy frameworks on specific priority themes in order to support the transfer and impact of transnational mutual learning onto policy. Higher priority is also to be given to capitalizing on the mutual learning achieved on participation and better governance already in the OMC, with a much stricter evaluation of member states delivery on the Guidance note in relation to good governance. The OMC should confirm and monitor benchmarks for better governance based on known good practices, promoting SPC peer review exchange on new methodologies and their impact. This should not be limited to the exchange of a few national experts but involve grass-roots social actors. New indicators should be developed monitoring the extent and effectiveness of participation activities, to be analysed as a specific area in the Joint Report. 153 Social Platform Common position: 5 recommendations for an effective Open Method of Coordination on social protection and social inclusion Adopted by the Steering Group of Social Platform on June 11, EAPN A Stronger OMC, but not enough to make the difference! EAPN Response and Proposals for Reinforcing the OMC, 16 September 2008 IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

128 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion Summary of Chapter 5 A key objective of the Social OMC is the commitment of the Commission and Member States to ensuring good governance, transparency and the involvement of stakeholders in the design, implementation and monitoring of policy. This is particularly relevant for the social inclusion strand, given the decentralised nature of policies to fight poverty and exclusion that require that social inclusion policies be well-coordinated and involve all levels of government and relevant actors, including people experiencing poverty. The possible forms of this involvement are either at the EU level, in the form of public consultation, at the national level, in the phase of redaction of the Naps/NSRs and at the local level, in the phase of implementation of policies: partnership and dialogue at local levels are in fact important tools for delivering social inclusion. Since 2001 the level of involvement and the role played by NGOs and civil society has shown steady development in most of the Member States. While the mobilisation and involvement of actors, including people suffering poverty and exclusion, show some progress, there is little evidence of a direct link between mobilisation of actors and the actual impact on policies and practices. Some countries claim that this involvement has already had some impact on the elaboration and implementation of social inclusion policies, or are assessing the participation of persons. Still, there is scope for further improving the quality of the involvement, not least in implementation and follow-up phases. Coordination between European, national, regional and local levels needs to be stepped up. Without visibility a process of mutual learning, participation and policy cooperation risks failure. The need to build public awareness of the social inclusion and the NAPs and its role in mobilising involvement of the relevant actors is recognised, but there are few arrangements in place as yet. Even in those countries where the process has had a significant impact, the general public still have a very scant knowledge of it. Knowledge at both national and, especially, local levels seems limited to a narrow group of officials, NGOs, social partners and experts. There is broad agreement that increasing awareness on the OMC process is a key strategic challenge for the future. Mutual learning is a key element of the social OMC in promoting meaningful exchange and learning on the common objectives and priorities. It is intended as a way to exchange practical information on policy gaps and on developments in and implementation of policy responses to the social problems identified. According to the Impact Assessment 155 the OMC process has significantly supported mutual learning. However, all too often it remains a closed debate between a handful of experts, whose expertise does not always cover the priority issues of the OMC, and does not adequately engage national, local and EU experts and other stakeholders in the learning experience. The OMC process has proved its worth by supporting mutual learning, by promoting wider involvement of stakeholders, by increasing awareness of the multi-dimensional nature of exclusion and poverty, by boosting the modernisation of social protection systems, by forging a shared approach to the common challenges and by bringing emerging common issues to the fore. However the potential of the method to contribute to making a real impact has not been fully tapped. In particular opportunities for coordinated policies and mutual learning could be further exploited. Member States have recognised the scope for further developing cooperation in the framework of the Social OMC SEC (2008) SEC (2008) 2169 IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

129 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy 6. CONCLUSIONS The final chapter summarises strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and limits emerging from the analysis realised; it deals with opportunities and limits for the strengthening of the process, considering in particular strategies and prospects for the European Parliament to exploit such new channels to accompany its institutionally-based involvement in the process Main strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and limits of the social OMC process in EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion The study has presented an analysis of the main strengths and weaknesses as emerging from self evaluations, such as the impact assessment and other documents issued by the main EU institutions, and external assessments, with in-depth analysis of the academic debate and the positions of the major civil society organisations. The third perspective taken here lies in analysis of the impact of social OMC as can be perceived in considering the evolution that has taken place in all the 25 MS in terms of incorporation of the main OMC features in national policy making. The analyses have been conducted adopting two approaches in particular: 1. one is mainly related to procedural changes in governance and policy making processes (impacts in terms of procedures and governance); 2. the other considers the principal changes in themes/issues covered by national political agendas (impacts in terms of policy outcomes). The results of the analyses realised bring out some controversial points prompting the following consideration: the Social OMC process shows the potentialities for achieving the expected results but in many cases those potentialities remain largely underdeveloped. The following section, containing proposals, has the aim to present suggestions from various sources (academicians, policymakers, experts, representatives of the civil society, NGOs, etc) intended to help the process to develop what is already present in it but requires further steps to be fully implemented. Main strengths of the Social OMC process in terms of procedures and governance The main researches and analyses covering procedures and governance aspects present quite a positive picture, identifying several different aspects that have impacted at the national level within Member States. 1. the first and most evident aspect is that, thanks to the reporting requirements that the OMC as an instrument requires, many of the Member States have started producing more integrated policy strategies and action plans dealing with different issues and themes such as those included in the Social OMC, it has led several countries to better policy coordination across different policy sectors and levels of government. This was particularly true in the case of the new Member States as a result of the Joint Inclusion Memorandum process. 157 See, in this respect, the analysis carried out in Commission staff working document accompanying the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council. The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions A renewed commitment to social Europe: Reinforcing the Open Method of Coordination for Social Protection and Social Inclusion, Impact Assessment, July 2008, IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

130 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion 3. Starting from the need to achieve a better data collection in relation to the development of appropriate and shared indicators, the Social OMC has also facilitated improved and more comprehensive analysis of the situation in relation to social protection and social inclusion at both the EU and national levels. All this has its positive implications: a) there is now a better basis for developing evidence based policy; b) the commonly agreed indicators have made it possible for Member States to compare their performance; c) over time there has been a growing exchange of learning and good practices among Member States. In particular, the social OMC has contributed to improving national steering and statistical capacities through the enhancement of national arrangements for data collection and analysis through the implementation of better and more Europeanized survey instruments, information systems, and statistical indicators and the creation of new bodies and systems for monitoring and evaluating the implementation of social policies; 4. In any case, the Social OMC can be taken as a tool able to provide stimulus for national political arenas. Borras 158, for example, considers that all the OMC procedures are stimulating political debate at the national level. 5. Moreover, Zeitlin 159 (2009) underlines the point that the Social OMC is a promising governance instrument for EU policymaking as it is well suited to pursuing common European concerns while respecting national diversity. According to his analysis, the OMC has contributed in most Member States: a) to achieving better horizontal coordination and cross-sectoral integration of interdependent policy areas through the creation of new formal coordination bodies and inter-ministerial working groups; b) to enhancing vertical coordination mostly through the establishment of new formal and informal structures for closer coordination between national, regional, and in some cases local governments intensifying the governance of vertical relationships between national/federal governments and regional/local authorities in the context of widespread trends towards the decentralization of administrative and policy-making competences in Social OMC fields; c) to increasing the involvement of non-state actors in domestic social policy making through the creation or reinforcement of consultative and participatory structures for the involvement of social partners and civil society organizations in policy formation, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation at the national and (in some cases) subnational levels The literature review underlines a positive influence also on mutual learning (identification of common challenges, fostering statistical harmonisation and capacity-building) 161 that has increased over the time. Main strengths of the Social OMC process in terms of specific policy themes/issues The Social OMC can be considered as having effects on national policymaking also with regard to the specific envisaged themes/issues. In this case, the main focus is on the extent to which Member States have engaged in reforms or have adopted measures according to the three OMC strands and what are the main policy outcomes that, for each of them, they have effectively achieved. 158 Borras S., New Governance Instruments as Means of Depolitization? The Input-Output Legitimacy of the Open Method of Coordination in the EU, Zeitlin, J., Is the OMC an alternative to the Community Method?, This influence has been strongest in social inclusion, where mobilization of all the relevant bodies figures prominently among the EU s common objectives. 161 Impact assessment SEC (2008) 2169, IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

131 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy According to the literature review the focus here is on: changes in national policy thinking (cognitive shifts). This has been achieved both by (a) incorporating into domestic debates EU concepts and categories (such as a comprehensive approach to fighting unemployment, raising the employment rate, making work pay, flexicurity, active ageing, sustainable social protection, and active inclusion) that were considered part of a common language in the OMC; and by (b) exposing policy makers to new approaches, often inspired by other Member States examples and pressing them to reconsider long-established but increasingly counterproductive policies (such as, for example, early retirement); changes in national policy agendas (political shifts). This has been mostly achieved by placing new issues on the domestic political agenda (such as activation, prevention, lifelong learning, gender mainstreaming, social exclusion, and child poverty) and/or increasing the salience of efforts to tackle long recognized national problems (like pension reform, early exit from the labour market, child care provision, and integration of immigrants); changes in specific national policies (programmatic shifts), in areas such as activation/prevention, tax-benefit reforms, active ageing, gender equality, child care, immigrant integration, social assistance, and pension reform. Yet given the active role of Member States in shaping the development of OMC processes, their relationship to national policy making should be understood as a two-way interaction rather than a one-way causal impact. In this respect most of the evaluations gathered are fairly positive. In September 2006 the Member States presented their first National Reports on Strategies for Social Protection and Social Inclusion with an integrated coverage of the three policy strands of social inclusion, health and long-term care and pensions. In 2007 the Joint Report assessed these national reports and concluded that joint consideration of the full set of common social objectives was helping to improve the consistency and effectiveness of policies. In general, the national reports were more strategic than in previous years, focusing on a limited selection of priorities and presenting a global strategy for achieving the common objectives. According to the Impact Assessment The OMC has kept the issues of poverty and social exclusion and social protection on the EU policy agenda in a way it had not been previously. This has led to a more balanced policy approach aimed at simultaneously reaching economic and social policy objectives. The OMC has also contributed to building a consensus around what the key policy priorities are and it has played a role in shaping general social policy approaches across member states (e.g. the active inclusion approach, pension policies based on the recognition that sustainability and adequacy need to go hand in hand) 162. Main weaknesses of the Social OMC process in terms of procedures and governance Delivery on the common objectives has been too slow or insufficient. While it would be unrealistic to expect that an open coordination process, based on voluntary cooperation between Member States, could produce large-scale results in a limited period of time, there is a widespread consensus that the potential of the Social OMC remains largely unexploited, that a number of weaknesses should be corrected and that strategic reinforcement of the method would go some way towards improving delivery on the common objectives The main weakness of the process, described also by the impact assessment, is that it does not provide sanctions that can be applied if Member States fail to make progress towards the agreed objectives and, unlike the Growth and Jobs process, there is no basis for making formal Council recommendations to individual Member States. This appears as the main limit of an instrument like the Social OMC, based on voluntary cooperation and the principle of subsidiarity. 162 SEC (2008) SEC (2008) 2169 IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

132 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion This weakness impacts strongly on the outcomes of the process, as it requires a long time to bring about changes: some of the required policy changes and governance reforms will not produce results overnight 164 ; 2. the Social OMC s effects remain weak also in terms of direct learning. There are still few examples of direct policy transfer from one country to another. Other countries experiences cannot simply be transferred exactly as they are without taking the country s specific situation and level of development into account; 3. The academic debate has clearly evidenced a lack of openness and transparency, with bureaucratic actors playing a dominant role at both the EU and national levels; 4. Civil society in particular has evidenced weak integration into national policy making, with National Action Plans serving more as reports to the EU than as operational policy steering documents; 5. All agree with the limited bottom-up or horizontal policy learning, with few examples of upward knowledge transfer and cross-national diffusion of innovative local practices; 6. A specific area of concern regards the use of structural funds: both the joint reports and the positions of the most relevant NGOs underline the importance of shifting the targets and objectives of Structural Funds towards social objectives of fight to social exclusion, but the assessment by the stakeholders of the state of art is different: a. The Joint Report 2008 evidences that 2007 also marked the start of a new programming period for the Structural Funds (SFs). Most Member States have made significant efforts to use the SFs to target not just the "Growth and Jobs" priorities but also the common social objectives. For the European Social Fund (ESF) budget for , almost 10 billion will be spent directly on the social inclusion priority, i.e. 12.4% of the total. Apart from this direct allocation, other ESF activities will support the inclusion of disadvantaged people. The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) will also make a significant investment, some 17 billion, in social infrastructure (education, health, childcare, social housing). Member States are drawing on the SFs to effectively complement national, regional and local funding and activities. b. The NGOs do not share the same optimistic view as the Commission: The Social Platform 165 highlights that the Communication on reinforcing the Social OMC refers to the role of EU financial instruments in delivering the objectives of the Social OMC, but so far there is little evidence of a systematic approach. EAPN 166 states that the insignificant presence in the Communication of the role of the EU financial instruments (including the European Social Fund) is particularly worrying in the light of the focus on supporting social innovation and experimentation. This is of particular concern in the light of the new priorities of Structural Funds, which appear to be reducing their impact on social inclusion due to a narrow interpretation of Lisbon growth and jobs objectives. Only 12.4% of ESF expenditure is earmarked for social inclusion within the overall Lisbon earmarking of 349 billion Euros. Even this funding appears to be reduced to a narrow vision focused on getting specific target groups back into work, rather than combating poverty and social exclusion. The ending of EQUAL is also a source of great concern, with the failure to capitalize on EQUAL learning and active stakeholder process for exchange on social innovation. 164 SEC (2008) Social Platform Common position: 5 recommendations for an effective Open Method of Coordination on social protection and social inclusion Adopted by the Steering Group of Social Platform on June 11, EAPN, Will the economic crisis force a stronger social pillar in Lisbon?, Brussels, 10 February 2009 IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

133 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy Main weaknesses of the Social OMC process in terms of specific policy themes/issues Even if the OMC has served the purpose of creating a shared understanding of the issues at stake and provided Member States with helpful indications on the specific challenges to be addressed to achieve common goals, the literature review also brings out the fact that the potential of the method to contribute to making a real impact has not been fully tapped. 1. There are, for example, weaknesses in the EU's capacity to assess accurately both the social situation prevailing in the Member States with respect to the range of social issues, and the action taken to address them, and this hampers the capacity to drive the process in the most effective way. According to civil society there is a widespread perception that the Social OMC is too weak to deliver convincing results in reducing poverty and reinforcing social cohesion. 2. According to the academic review evidence of the weakness of the impact of Social OMC at national level is to be seen in the lack of integration into national policy of the strategies presented at EU level with National Reports and Action Plans serving more as reports to the EU than as operational policy-steering documents. De La Rosa (2005) has even commented that reports and action plans from Member States are simply legitimising reforms already made. National plans have been described as purely administrative exercises, not demonstrating genuine commitment. Our analysis on the contrary has found positive results in this respect in several EU countries; 3. Although the coordination process has yielded a number of positive developments so far (efforts towards convergence of national policies, exchange of information and good practice, better knowledge thanks to statistics, definition of common objectives while respecting the principle of solidarity), the European Local Inclusion and Social Action Network (ELISAN), points to the lack of legislative and financial instruments needed for lasting solutions for effectively combating the many different examples of poverty and precariousness at the local level Proposals for improvement of the main features of the social OMC process as emerging from academic debate and stakeholders' suggestions Analysis of the academic debate, of the institutional and non-institutional material, and of the interviews and position papers of the various stakeholders has prompted several interesting suggestions and proposals for the reinforcement of social OMC. They have been grouped by main topics, each including a series of specific areas to be addressed. 1. To reinforce the governance of the process o o o o Enhancing the role of the EP in the OMC area Enhancing the role of the EP in the area of the ordinary legislative process Enhancing the involvement of the national parliaments in the process Enhancing the involvement of stakeholders at all stages of the OMC process 2. To reinforce working methods of social OMC o o o o introducing monitoring and assessment practices setting quantified targets enhancing mutual learning underpinning policy making with studies and data IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

134 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion 3. To enhance mutual interaction between the open method of coordination and the Lisbon strategy for growth and jobs and with other policy fields o o o coordinating Social OMC with the Growth and Jobs Strategy strengthening the positive interaction with other EU policies supporting a more dynamic interaction between the EU social inclusion strategy and structural funds 4. To enhance the visibility of the process o o enhancing dissemination and information on the OMC increasing the political visibility of the process Reinforcing governance of the process a) Enhancing the role of the European Parliament in the OMC area The Lisbon Treaty offers the EP some new scope for action. In the sectors indicated by Art.153 the EP and the Council (and no longer only the Council, as originally provided for with article 137 CE) may adopt measures designed to encourage cooperation between Member States through initiatives aimed at improving knowledge, developing exchanges of information and best practices, promoting innovative approaches and evaluating experiences, excluding any harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the Member States. This reference appears to legitimise more direct EP intervention in the OMC topdown stage. If the opening declarations in favour of cooperation between the various community institutions 168 have real sense, then the Social OMC could represent a preferential meeting ground. In the first place, interesting scope opens up for collaboration between the EP and the European Council, especially subsequent to formal recognition of the latter by the Lisbon Treaty. The fact that the Treaty explicitly recognises the European Council implies that the EP and European Council must not only enhance the present channels of communication but also find new ones. In this situation, marked by the need to improve the quality of dialogue between the Community institutions so as to implement an integrated strategy for social inclusion, the scope for EP action is opening out. Secondly, Lisbon Treaty art. 160 makes provision that, for institution of the Committee for Social Protection, the Council is obliged to consult the EP. Given the importance of the Committee for Social Protection in the area of the Social OMC, above all for the (decisive) matter of study of the indicators, the obligation for prior EP consultation must be given its due weight, above all in consideration of the role that Lisbon Treaty art. 153 appears to recognise for the EP. As for relations between the EP and the Commission, the enhancement of institutional collaboration is provided for by Lisbon Treaty art. 159, according to which the Commission shall draw up a report each year on progress in achieving the objectives of Article 151, including the demographic situation in the Union. It shall forward the report to the European Parliament, the Council and the Economic and Social Committee. This report has not always proved exhaustive, above all with reference to the policies to be pursued through the OMC, and the EP could therefore require it to show fuller focus on the issues closest to the heart of the EP. 168 cf. COM (2008) 639 and COM (2009) 15 IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

135 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy For example, as far as the present study is concerned the EP could ask for the report to go into greater detail on developments in the application of the OMC in the field of social inclusion, also taking in those aspects that are normally of exclusive Commission competence. Another perspective is to look at it bottom-up: during the bottom-up stage the guidelines are implemented by the Member States by adopting the measures deemed most appropriate to the various national conditions. During this stage the EP cannot be called upon to play a direct role, but can, through the relations it is able to develop with the national parliaments, take on an established role as interlocutor of the latter for the purposes of the OMC. For this to come about it is indispensable that the national Parliaments take a fuller part in the OMC process than hitherto. Over the medium term Parliaments could gain a more active role and the EP, through the relations established with the National Parliaments, could also have a role, albeit indirect, in the bottom-up stage of the process. b) Enhancing the role of the EP in the area of the ordinary legislative process The Treaty of Lisbon establishes the competences of the Union in considerable detail. An aspect that appears to emerge from the regulatory framework described is a distinction between economic-employment policies on the one hand, and social policies in general on the other. In the case of economic and employment policies intervention on the part of Community entities, as conceived in the Treaty, seems to be more incisive; as for social policies in the broad sense, also embracing inclusion policies, Union coordination is apparently to be rather looser 169. Analysing how the Treaty actually regulates concurrent competences in terms of social policy, economic and employment policies are seen to receive far more attention than is dedicated to inclusion policies. Treaty of Lisbon article 153, while including the fight against social exclusion among the sectors in which the Community supports and completes the action of the States, does not expressly provide for directives to be adopted, leaving Member States with the task of singling out the most appropriate measures, albeit within the framework of coordinated strategies at the Community level. It is indeed significant that the main EP tool for the fight against social exclusion is identified in the OMC. In the SEC (2008)2590 document on the active inclusion of persons excluded from the labour market, the Commission contemplates three lines for development of an active inclusion strategy. None of these lines commits the Commission to entering upon a formal legislative initiative that would allow for EP involvement with full rights. Indeed, the Commission seems, rather, to favour the development of a strategy based on the use of soft law instruments, which should moreover pivot around the Commission itself. Nevertheless, the obstacle may not prove entirely insurmountable. In fact, semantically speaking the concept of social exclusion has a very broad connotation. Its limits are of very approximate definition and the area of inclusion policies often shows a certain contiguity with that of other sectors (for example, protection of working conditions and access to employment) where the Community has historically intervened with directives and regulations, and in any case with far more incisive tools than the soft kind typically adopted in the OMC. In other words, social inclusion shows many points of contact and even a certain overlapping with such sectors as employment, social protection and the fight against discrimination. These are all sectors that have seen Community intervention with the classical Community tools: directives and regulations. Extending the scope for application of the co-decision procedure being generalised should objectively reinforce the role of the EP. The EP could ask the Commission to take up a certain legislative initiative, even though the Commission is not obliged to take the matter any further. 169 cfr. K. Armstrong, Governance and Constitutionalism After Lisbon, cit. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

136 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion With the Lisbon Treaty coming into force the picture has largely remained unchanged. The Commission is still in charge of legislative initiative. In any case possible scope for discussion between EP, Council and the Commission, even on the exercise of legislative initiative, is offered by the Interinstitutional Agreement On Better Law-Making which at point 4, provides as follows: The three Institutions agree to improve the coordination of their preparatory and legislative work in the context of the codecision procedure and to publicise it in appropriate fashion. The Council will inform the European Parliament in good time of the draft multiannual strategic programme which it recommends for adoption by the European Council. The three Institutions will forward to each other their respective annual legislative timetables with a view to reaching agreement on joint annual programming. As far as possible, the Commission's annual law-making and work programme will include indications as to the choice of legislative instrument and the legal basis envisaged for each measure to be put forward. More generally speaking, on the question of regulatory tools to address the challenges raised in the fight against social exclusion, the Commission contrary to the impression one might initially receive does not seem to be set solely on the OMC. The wholesale resort to OMC soft techniques is dictated above all by political difficulties involved in the pursuit of the political consensus necessary to adopt hard law acts. On the occasion of publication of the 2008 Social Agenda the Commission reiterated the importance of making use of all the regulatory tools available, including such as imply adopting binding acts. Thus there are no preclusions vis-à-vis the possibility of adopting more incisive tools. It should just be a matter of arriving at the right mix. c) Enhancing the involvement of national Parliaments in the process Some attention should be dedicated to the extent to which the European Parliament could enhance its role through reinforced co-operation with the national Parliaments, seeking to collect and integrate also at the local and category levels. Various indications in this respect are already available and also appear in European Parliament resolutions. The report on Public Finances makes ample reference to the principle of ownership, as also proposed by the European Commission, serving to enhance the role of the national Parliaments and the European Parliament, and their reciprocal relations, on a topic of such general importance as allocation and accountability of public resources. Moreover, the last voting session of the European Parliament in the last legislature saw approval of the European Parliament resolution of 7 May 2009 on the development of the relations between the European Parliament and national Parliaments under the Treaty of Lisbon (2008/2120(INI)). In particular: the necessary parliamentarisation of the European Union must rely on two fundamental approaches involving the broadening of the European Parliament's powers vis-à-vis all the Union's decisions and the strengthening of the powers of the national parliaments vis-à-vis their respective governments; the primary task and function of the European Parliament and the national parliaments is to take part in legislative decision-making and to scrutinise political choices at, respectively, the national and the European level; new forms of pre- and post-legislative dialogue between the European Parliament and national parliaments should be developed. Looking to the future, the European Parliament, through the Employment Committee, could trace out a participatory/consultative course with the national Parliaments entailing a set annual agenda of meetings, to be held prior to the choices to be made in the field of budget policies and public finance, and providing for a truly significant institutional role, a sort of States General of the institutions of the European Union for social inclusion, with the participation of all parties involved. The States General for inclusion should also be able to formulate decisions and, at the same time, highlight and awaken opinion to the importance of social inclusion for the European Union. In the academic debate and in the NGOs consideration other proposals have been formulated: IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

137 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy According to Giering and Metz the European Parliament and the National Parliaments should receive regular progress reports. These bodies should, in addition, be able to pose questions to the Commission at any time. In this context, the early warning system described in the constitutional draft's Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality should be extended to the open method of coordination. In order that the EP, national Parliaments and the public at large can exercise some forms of control, the Commission should systematically summarise the current and planned guideline processes and evaluate their success. This will make the strengths and weaknesses of existing OMC initiatives visible, and highlight the key points that future OMC applications should take into account. 170 This certainly applies to the employment OMC, but it offers suggestions for a parallel process in the social OMC. According to Raunio To facilitate parliamentary involvement in OMC and other nonbinding forms of intergovernmental coordination, such soft law matters should be processed by national Parliaments using the same procedure that is reserved for scrutinizing the Commission s legislative initiatives. This would mean that Ministers would be forced to explain their actions before parliamentary committees and in the plenary (where such a requirement exists), with MPs having the chance to put questions to the ministers or other government representatives travelling to Brussels. 171 While MPs and parliamentary civil servants may object to this by saying that their desks are already full without having to process such non-binding matters, it has to be considered that policy coordination is to an increasing extent used in questions that are highly salient for most MPs such as employment policy, economic policy, social policy, and pension reforms. Efficient scrutiny of such matters is thus significant also in terms of national legislation, as the policy choices adopted at the European level increasingly impact on and constrain Member States domestic politics. Hence parliamentarians have both an electoral incentive and a policy incentive to engage themselves in such questions 172. d) Enhancing the involvement of stakeholders at all stages of the OMC process The continuous involvement of stakeholders and more in general of civil society throughout the social OMC policy cycle should be enhanced. This is a key point showing several facets that deserve specific attention. The NGOs have expressed their considerations in this respect, calling for: Wider consultation: The European local inclusion and social action network (ELISAN) suggests that all stakeholders should be more involved in the reinforced OMC, in its drafting, implementation or assessment. Such an approach would make up for the democratic deficit associated with a method that currently sidesteps the European Parliament and National Parliaments 173 ; Vigorous civil dialogue at all stages of the OMC process (drafting, implementation, evaluation) can strengthen national action and help build support for the proposed reforms. The European Older People s Platform 174 suggests this can help ensure better adequacy between the measures proposed and new emerging needs. Member States should look to examples of successful civil society consultation/participation and develop their own methods based on their national situation and culture; 170 Giering C., Metz A., Laboratory For Integration Opportunities And Risks Of The "Open Method Of Co-Ordination" 2004 Bertelsmann Foundation Raunio T., Learning to Play the Multi-level game? National Parliaments and the Future of the European Integration, Ottawa, Duina, F. & Raunio, T., The open method of co-ordination and national parliaments: further marginalization or new opportunities? Journal of European Public Policy, 2007 n The European Older People s Platform, What is the European Union doing in the field of social protection and social inclusion? A Toolkit to improve civil dialogue in the Open Method of Coordination on Social Protection and Social Inclusion, May 2008 IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

138 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion Meaningful and effective participation with all stakeholders: to ensure effective, highquality participation of stakeholders their involvement throughout the policy cycle is essential, introducing two-way communication with more feedback and transparency (as requested by the NGOs). The Anti Poverty Network (EAPN) 175, moreover, proposes developing useful exchange between the NSR and the National Reform Programmes (NRP) on governance and participation methodologies, particularly in the productive involvement of NGOs and people experiencing poverty, through an extended peer review process. Specific indicators and targets on governance and participation using a scoreboard mechanism could be developed to evaluate progress and specific recommendations on improvements in governance/participation made in the NSRs. More attention must be given by the EU and Member States to facilitating financial support for the NGOs to take an active role in such governance process, particularly when enabling the involvement of people experiencing poverty (EAPN). The development of voluntary guidelines for coordination and participation could lead to increased ownership and better implementation. Attention to the implementation phase: in the phase of implementation of the strategy outlined in the National Strategy Report civil society organisations can play a key role in ensuring a successful outcome. According to the European Older People s Platform, 176 civil society organisations can be involved to monitor the implementation process and contribute on progress achieved with constructive feedback. Member States should support and empower civil society to participate in the monitoring and reporting phase; building the capacity of civil society should be at the heart of all policies on Social Protection and Social Inclusion. Involvement at the local level: social inclusion policy is delivered and experienced at the local level and in many Member States decisions are increasingly made through decentralized regional governments. According to EAPN much greater emphasis must be made to engage stakeholders at these levels, and to drive the action planning process through a bottom-up focus, and specific indicators should be developed to monitor this process Reinforcing the social OMC working methods a) Introducing monitoring and assessment practices According to some of the stakeholders, the Social OMC process requires revision of the existing forms of monitoring and assessments: the Lisbon strategy s effectiveness is partly due to its rigorous annual reporting and monitoring cycle. The OMC must be on an equal footing of yearly monitoring if it is to be treated as an equal partner. Here are some suggestions: Supporting the process with periodic evaluations and assessments at the national and EU level shifting to a more context- and process-oriented approach, also taking account of unsuccessful policies, and continuous adjustment of policies in response to obstacles encountered with the aim to systematically incorporate in policymaking key results resulting from monitoring; Launching a concentrated effort to develop the methodology for social impact assessment, in cooperation with Member States. Social impact assessment could provide an effective mechanism to evaluate current and future threats to social rights, taking into account key factors. According to EAPN, to be effective the process and the outputs should be based on explicit social values and principles and embedded in participative mechanisms, and should be underpinned by strong social political priorities, to ensure that the findings are fully taken on board in the final decisionmaking process and follow-up; 175 EAPN, Will the economic crisis force a stronger social pillar in Lisbon?, Brussels, 10 February Ibid. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

139 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy Focusing more on results (room to adapt objectives to national circumstances, promote targeting, better monitoring, strong country-specific recommendations); Making more use of (general) Commission recommendations based on diagnosis of the countries' key challenges; Increasing the number of peer reviews and introducing stronger evidence-based assessment; EAPN proposes a short-form annual scoreboard evaluation as a pragmatic tool for delivering an assertive social agenda based on a credible OMC that gives national stakeholders a reason to be actively engaged. b) Setting quantified targets It is hoped on various sides to translate the common objectives gradually into quantified targets, in line with the development of analytical capacity. Progressive definition of EU or national targets, whenever justified on the basis of the evolution of the common analytical framework, would certainly lead to increased political visibility for the process. Countries that have adopted quantified targets have raised the accountability of governments and clarified priorities across all relevant policy areas and all levels of government. Specific quantifiable targets could be introduced into the Lisbon targets of jobs and growth on an equal basis in the macro, micro and employment objectives. A gradual introduction of recommendations, starting with those on Active Inclusion could imply a stricter benchmarking and monitoring to ensure progress is really made in reaching the agreed targets. This would imply enhancing statistical capacity on priority themes emerging within the Social OMC on which targets are set. In the light of the experience so far acquired in the area, it appears imperative to tackle first of all the definition of common principles, following the methodological procedure applied to arrive at identification of the Common Principles on Flexicurity, which can be summarised thus: drafting by a group of experts of a document serving as proposal of the Commission, to which are attached both the procedure typologies, on the basis of certain characteristics deemed decisive, and a set of indicators, dependent on the choices of the Member States. Few precise and stringent quantitative targets can be identified five at the most for each Member State over an established time-span, to be chosen among a series of objectives depending on the initial situation. Such was the case with the Lisbon Strategy guidelines, where, for example, for the macroeconomic line an annual reduction of 0.5% deficit/debt is set. The NGOs agree with the urgent need to arrive to a common definition of a set of targets: According to the Social Platform 177 it is necessary to Set quantified targets to reduce all forms of poverty and social exclusion across the lifespan and to improve pension adequacy and quality of health and long-term care at EU and national level. How? a) Agreeing on EU targets as called for by the European Parliament in its report on active inclusion (May 2009) such as reducing child poverty by 50% by 2012 and ending street homelessness of children, youth and adults alike by 2015; b) Moving beyond GDP as reference indicator and developing more specific social indicators e.g. related to poverty and inequality rates, access to financial services, energy, health, education, transport housing, quality employment and child wellbeing; c) Supporting Member States in establishing targets and actions plans to achieve them, in partnership with national civil society organisations. 177 Social Platform Common position: 5 recommendations for an effective Open Method of Coordination on social protection and social inclusion Adopted by the Steering Group of Social Platform on June 11, IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

140 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion This should be done in the context of a structured dialogue established through the NSR process and for instance by organising seminars on how to set targets with examples from countries where this already works. d) On specific priority issues where policy progress at EU level has proved difficult because of divergent understandings amongst relevant stakeholders, considering organizing European consensus conferences. Such conferences, based on an established methodology, facilitate the development of common understanding which can provide the basis for effective EU intervention Member States should set their own national targets on this basis of the ones agreed at EU level. c) enhancing mutual learning Mutual learning is a key element in the OMC, aiming to coordinate and deepen exchanges on social inclusion policies. In OMC mutual learning means exchange of practical information on policy gaps and developments and exchange of policies implemented in specific areas of the multi-dimensional poverty strategies outlined in the national reports. Its success depends upon both strengthening the involvement of key actors and ensuring better dissemination and mainstreaming of results and findings into national and EU policy. Development of a common analytical framework would help Member States identify the key challenges they face in common and enable them to learn from each other in the areas that concern them the most. It would also feed into other Community policies, and along this channel there would be more evidence-based policy making also in other areas. In this way, the positive interaction with other policies, including economic policy, would be strengthened 178. To support the mutual learning process certain instruments should be strengthened and expanded such as peer reviews, comparative analysis with specific regional contextualisation in order to provide higher political profile to outcomes. Mutual learning also requires close involvement and opening up to regional and local policymakers, stakeholders and civil society. According to EAPN 179 it is advisable to 1. Develop a more strategic approach to mutual learning under the OMC so that it impacts more directly on policy change in the different member states and at EU level. 2. Work more closely with EU-funded European networks as potential drivers and facilitators of transnational mutual learning with the aim of building European resource/knowledge centres on specific priority themes and of reaching out to a much wider variety of stakeholders. 3. Link these activities to a network of Local and Regional Observatories, which can support direct exchange on social innovation and impact. 4. Broaden stakeholder involvement in mutual learning activities, including people in poverty by developing a wider stakeholder discussion forum in the line of the thematic review model used by the Employment Strategy, linked to the more targeted peer review models. 5. Establish short-term transnational taskforces on specific themes, involving representatives from member states and other stakeholders actively involved in the development and delivery of social inclusion policy to develop common proposals/ guidelines/tools and instruments. 6. To develop consensual European policy frameworks on specific priority themes in order to support the transfer and impact of transnational mutual learning onto policy. 178 SEC (2008) EAPN A Stronger OMC, but not enough to make the difference! EAPN Response and Proposals for Reinforcing the OMC, 16 September 2008 IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

141 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy d) Underpinning policymaking with studies and data The social OMC should make more intensive use of researches, focusing in particular on further development of indicators measuring "feeding in / out". One channel is through PROGRESS. Reinforcing analytical capacity and mutual learning would improve the quality of policy making in the social area 180. More resources should be added to reinforce the analytical work on all relevant areas of the social protection and social inclusion strategy, allowing for full use of new social data, expanding the statistical capacity on all social issues not covered by current EU data sources Enhancing mutual interaction between the open method of coordination and the Lisbon strategy for growth and jobs, and with other policy fields In the framework of the "Renewed Social Agenda" 181, in July 2008 the European Commission has issued a Communication on "A renewed commitment to social Europe: reinforcing the open method of coordination for social protection and social inclusion" 182, proposing to strengthen the social OMC and its visibility by facilitating its interaction with other EU policies and extending to it some of the procedures and working methods used under the Lisbon strategy. The need to reinforce interaction and coordination at the national and European level between Social OMC and the Lisbon strategy objectives is highlighted, as well as the need for stronger coordination of policies as a key tool to enhance horizontal coordination and the mainstreaming of social inclusion objectives in all relevant policies (through a central coordination structure, especially to link up Social OMC and the Lisbon Strategy better at all government levels and make greater use of structural funds for social inclusion); enhance vertical coordination: Social protection and social inclusion policies are often implemented at the regional or local level. The current process involves regional and local decision-makers and stakeholders insufficiently in planning, policy implementation and mutual learning. Mechanisms for vertical coordination are still too weak the vast majority of Member States. Stronger involvement of the regional and local level could boost delivery on the common objectives. In post-lisbon planning provision should be made for more numerous direct and explicit links between the employment inclusion policies and other policies deemed key, also in access to and use of Funds, from the ESF to the Fund for adjustment to globalization, in the revised form recently proposed by the European Parliament. Indications are to be found in the Resolution of 11 th March 2009 on a European Economic Recovery Plan, in which the European Parliament calls on the Member States to adapt new provisions of the regulations of the European Social Fund, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund and the European Regional Development Fund, including the simplification of the procedures and the widening of eligible costs to serve employment and social inclusion goals even more efficiently, continuing to support employment in key sectors of the economy and ensuring that when providing such assistance strengthening of social and territorial cohesion remain a priority in order to avoid asymmetrical development within the European Union; hopes for the speedier release of funding targeted at employment support, and for EU support programmes to be geared to helping the most vulnerable groups in society including programmes to guarantee decent living conditions and access to high-quality services of general interest. 180 SEC (2008) COM (2008) 412 final 182 COM (2008) 418 final IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

142 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion Important indications are also contained in the European Parliament Resolution of 11 th March 2009 on the input to the Spring 2009 European Council in relation to the Lisbon Strategy: it points out that the open method of coordination, on which the Lisbon Strategy has been based for nine years, has revealed these limitations in the face of new internal and external challenges confronting the European Union; urges therefore that the post- Lisbon period be based on a more proactive, more global policy, i.e. on the updating of existing common policies (for trade, internal market, economic and monetary union, etc.) and on new common external policies (energy, climate, development, migration, etc.) (point n. 53). Among the main features of this possible interaction are: a) Better coordination of the Social OMC with the Growth and Jobs Strategy Better coordination with the Growth and Jobs Strategy, based on greater political commitment and visibility of the common social objectives would reinforce both strategies. More effective cross-cutting coordination is highlighted as essential by several stakeholders. As stated by the Note of the Council presenting the Joint Report Social and economic policies can and should be mutually supportive. In recent years social protection reforms and active inclusion policies have contributed to higher growth and more jobs. Still, more needs to be done to ensure that the benefits of an improved economic framework reach those at the margins of society and enhance social cohesion. Preventing and tackling poverty and social exclusion, and modernising social protection, combining both social adequacy and economic sustainability in a framework of sound fiscal policies, is therefore fundamental to Europe s sustainable development. Policy consistency and coordination, including mainstreaming gender equality and solidarity between generations are essential to achieve the objective of fully including the most vulnerable in society. Sustained efforts will be required during, and beyond, the next cycle of the Lisbon strategy. The March 2007 European Council stressed that the common social objectives of the EU should be better reflected within the Lisbon agenda; The need was also emphasised to improve the integration and visibility of social priorities within the broader European strategic reform framework; The most important tool for EU progress in employment and social issues addressed was the coordination of policies, fundamental both to improve the quality of policies and to advance towards common goals. The Social Protection Committee (SPC) responded by mandating a working group to identify examples of positive mutual interaction between the common social objectives and those of greater economic growth and more and better jobs. The report of the working group highlighted how economic, employment and social policies are closely inter-related and mutually supportive. Well-designed social protection systems and social inclusion policies are productive factors contributing considerably to the economic achievements of each Member State. Ongoing pension and healthcare reforms have a positive impact both on the sustainability of public finances and on labour market behaviour. Successful action on healthcare improves quality of life and productivity. Comprehensive active inclusion policies for those furthest away from the labour market enhance human capital and labour supply while also strengthening society s cohesiveness. Increasing well-being of children and youngsters helps future generations develop to their full potential hence enabling them to contribute more to society and to the economy. But as pointed out in the 2007 Joint Report, healthy economic growth and job creation will not automatically translate into improved social cohesion. 183 Council of European Union, Note, Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion 2008, Brussels, 4 March 2008, (7274/08) IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

143 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy They need to be underpinned by measures for the most vulnerable groups and by modern and active social protection systems. 184 The Joint Report 2009 states that the EU can build on the values of solidarity that underpin its social policies and on progress in structural reforms to cushion the impact of the economic crisis and help recovery. Further strengthening the positive mutual interaction with action for growth and jobs is vital, notably by allowing social protection systems to play their role fully as automatic stabilisers. Moreover among the results of the consultation on the social stocktaking and on the new social vision many contributions expressed widespread concern that globalisation might undermine social standards. Virtually all contributors pointed to the need for a new impulse in terms of social policy at the European level. In particular, the challenges arising from globalisation made a fundamental re-assessment of social policies indispensable. Most of the contributors appeared to take the view that the key lies in striking the right balance between social policies on the one hand and the drive for economic growth and competitiveness on the other 185. NGOs and civil society organisations share the same concern: According to EAPN the proposals on an improved coordination for the OMC should include active steps to work towards a new strategic architecture for the Post Lisbon scenario. This should draw on proposals for a post 2010 vision based on 4 equal and coordinated pillars: Economic, Employment, Social and Environmental which can deliver a sustainable social strategy for post Moreover all EU policies should be properly coordinated to deliver on the eradication of poverty and social exclusion. But the OMC on Social Protection and Social Inclusion must continue to be seen as the key instrument, with the Commission as the driver and the Council (through the Social Protection Committee and the Employment Committee) and Parliament playing a key role as ambassadors for the strategy. According to the Social Platform, 186 to make a meaningful impact on the EU social objectives the Social OMC must be given the same weight as the Growth and Jobs agenda, through commitment to quantified targets and accountability mechanisms: a) in the architecture of the post-lisbon strategy, ensuring a central role for a reinforced Social OMC, encompassing the three strands of the OMC; b) guaranteeing that all EU policies and in particular employment and economic policies contribute to social inclusion, eradication of poverty and improvement in social protection mechanisms; c) setting up new coordination mechanisms to ensure the effective mainstreaming of the social OMC priorities into the National Reform Programmes; d) at the national level, supporting the development of local and regional social inclusion action plans that would feed into and support the implementation of the National Action Plans on social inclusion and National Strategic Reports. As far as the possible integration of the Social OMC in the Growth and Jobs Strategy is concerned, the option was considered in the Impact Assessment but not retained for three main reasons. First, full integration of the Social OMC would risk overburdening the Growth and Jobs Strategy. Due to the multidimensionality of social protection and social inclusion issues, policy coordination in this area is already very difficult to achieve. Full integration of the Social OMC into the Lisbon Strategy could make the process unmanageable. 184 Council of European Union, Note, Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion 2008, Brussels, 4 March 2008, (7274/08) 185 SEC (2008) Social Platform Common position: 5 recommendations for an effective Open Method of Coordination on social protection and social inclusion Adopted by the Steering Group of Social Platform on June 11, 2009 IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

144 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion Secondly, such a move would lead to excessive instability of policy processes, given that the Lisbon strategy was re-focused only a few years ago. There is a need for stabilisation. Thirdly, the reflection on what will happen with the Lisbon strategy after 2010 is just starting and any decision of modifying the Lisbon architecture should take place in that context. Therefore, such an option could only be considered as part of that broader reflection. 187 b) On strengthening positive interaction with other EU policies A point on which all the stakeholders agree is the need to make the Social OMC a central tool to connect policies with a strong social impact at the EU and national level. As stated in the Joint Report 2009: Comprehensive Active Inclusion strategies that combine and balance measures aimed at inclusive labour markets, access to quality services and adequate minimum income, need to be implemented. A boost must be given to Member States' efforts to implement comprehensive strategies against poverty and social exclusion of children, including accessible and affordable quality childcare. Sustained work is required to tackle homelessness as an extremely serious form of exclusion, to address the multiple disadvantages the Roma people are facing and their vulnerability to social exclusion and to promote the social inclusion of migrants.. The European Year of Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion represents a great opportunity in this respect. What role should be reserved to the Social OMC in interaction with other policy fields? The Impact Assessment evaluated the possibilities: a) to make the Social OMC a central tool to coordinate social policies and analyse, assess and implement the social dimension of non-social policies. b) to accomplish an effective mainstreaming based on social impact assessment at EU and national level, backed up by the necessary resources c) to develop the Social OMC as a powerful process, modelled on the Growth and Jobs strategy and standing on an equal footing with it (see also previous point). The option of comprehensive and ambitious reinforcement of the Social OMC envisaged by the Impact Assessment appears more feasible than the others and provides for: a) giving the Social OMC a prominent role in the implementation of the social agenda b) reinforcing the role of the Social OMC in addressing cross-cutting issues c) better coordination with the Growth and Jobs Strategy, based on greater political commitment and visibility of the common social objectives. c) Supporting a more dynamic interaction between the EU social inclusion strategy and structural funds Both the joint reports and the positions of the most relevant NGOs underline the importance of shifting the targets and objectives of Structural Funds towards the social objectives of fighting social exclusion. Joint report 2009 states that due to the potential dramatic impact of the current crisis it is more than ever needed to use structural funds in the EU s efforts to mitigate its social effects The European Social Fund should be used to its full potential in a flexible and timely way to alleviate the social impacts of the crisis, by supporting rapid labour market re-entry of the unemployed and focussing on the most vulnerable. Simplified implementation of Structural Funds and improved coordination with social policies will help. The Commission will issue a regular bulletin to monitor social trends. Reports from Member States could facilitate exchange of information and policy experiences in the Social Protection Committee. 187 SEC (2008) 2169 IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

145 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy The NGOs concur with this position. The recommendation of EAPN 188 is to Build a more dynamic and coordinated interaction between structural funds and the Lisbon strategy, going beyond mere reporting in between programming phases to cover planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation A more coherent approach must be proposed which coordinates action between all EU financial instruments, including Structural Funds, the post EQUAL follow up and the development of a new community Poverty programme which will use EU funds to pilot social innovation at the grass-roots and re-engage poor communities in combating poverty and social exclusion.. Recommendation 5 of the Social Platform 189 is to Couple the Social OMC with EU financial instruments most notably the structural funds. In order to increase coherence, the Structural Funds priorities should correspond to the objectives and targets set up in the three strands of the social OMC Enhancing the visibility of the process To be duly exploited, the potentialities of the social OMC process require widespread vertical and horizontal dissemination of their objectives, aims and key features at the national and EU level. Without visibility a process of mutual learning, participation and policy cooperation risks failure. Enhancing the visibility of the process encompasses two different issues: disseminating OMC and providing information on it to the wider public, and the political visibility of the process: enhancing dissemination and information on OMC: Wider publication/dissemination of the key messages in the Joint Report would help and support the visibility of the process; more visibility and political impact should be given to the strategy through debates in national Parliaments, media campaigns and transparent governance processes with dissemination of results. To increase the political visibility of the process, gradual definition of EU or national targets should be pursued. As illustrated by the example of countries that have adopted them, quantified targets can raise the accountability of governments and help clarify priorities across all relevant policy areas and all levels of government, provided that they are endowed with strong analytical underpinning EAPN, Will the economic crisis force a stronger social pillar in Lisbon?, Brussels, 10 February Social Platform Common position: 5 recommendations for an effective Open Method of Coordination on social protection and social inclusion Adopted by the Steering Group of Social Platform on June 11, 2009 source 190 Ibid. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

146 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion 7. REFERENCES Resolutions POVERTY European Parliament resolution of 9 October 2008 on promoting social inclusion and combating poverty, including child poverty, in the EU (2008/2034(INI)) Declaration of 22 April 2008 on ending street homelessness P6_TA(2008)0163. Proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion (2010) (COM(2007)0797 C6 0469/ /0278(COD) Parliament's position thereon, adopted on 17 June 2008 P6_TA(2008)0286. European Parliament resolution of 13 October 2005 on women and poverty in the EU OJ C 233, SOCIAL INCLUSION/ACTIVE INCLUSION European Parliament resolution on active inclusion of people excluded from the labour market (8/4/2006 report INI/2008/2335) text adopted 6/5/2009 European Parliament resolution of 15 November 2007 on Social Reality Stocktaking Texts adopted, P6_TA(2007)0541 European Parliament resolution of 23 May 2007 on promoting decent work for all (OJ C 102 E, ) European Parliament resolution of 14 March 2007 on social services of general interest in the European Union (2006/2134(INI)) European Parliament resolution on demographic challenges and solidarity between the generations 23 March 2006 (OJ C 292 E) European Parliament legislative resolution on the Council common position for adopting a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Community Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity - PROGRESS (6282/3/2006 C6-0272/ /0158(COD)) European Parliament Resolution on social protection and social inclusion (2005/2097(INI) European Parliament resolution on social inclusion in the new Member States (2004/2210(INI)) (P6_TA(2005)0244) REPORT: on the social situation in the European Union (2004/2190(INI)) resolution rejected ROMA European Parliament resolution of 11 March 2009 on the social situation of the Roma and their improved access to the labour market in the EU (2008/2137(INI)) European Parliament resolution of 31 January 2008 on a European strategy on the Roma P6_TA(2008)0035 European Parliament resolution of 10 July 2008 on the census of the Roma on the basis of ethnicity in Italy P6_TA-PROV(2008)0361 European Parliament resolution of 1 June 2006 on the situation of Roma women in the European Union(2) (OJ C 298 E, ) European Parliament resolution of 28 April 2005 on the situation of the Roma in the European Union OJ C 45 E, RIGHTS OF CHILDREN IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

147 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy European Parliament resolution of 16 January 2008 : Towards an EU strategy on the rights of the child (2007/2093(INI)) Texts adopted, P6_TA(2008)0012 SOCIAL AGENDA European Parliament resolution of 6 May 2009 on the Renewed social agenda (2008/2330(INI)) European Parliament resolution on the input to the Spring European Council 2009 in relation to the Lisbon Strategy - 4 March 2009 ( B6-0107/2009) Resolution of 20 February 2008 on the input for the 2008 Spring Council as regards the Lisbon Strategy (P6_TA(2008)0057) Additional bibliography on the implementation of OMC: the institutional documents in chronological order European Commission, Commission Communication: a strategy for modernising social protection, Council of the European Union, Lisbon European Council 23 and 24 March 2000, Presidency conclusions, European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Social Policy Agenda, European Commission, European Governance: a white paper, Council of the European Union, Fight against poverty and social exclusion: common objectives for the second round of National Action Plans, European Commission, Joint Report on Social Inclusion, European Parliament, European Parliament resolution on the application of the open method of coordination, European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Modernising social protection for the development of high-quality, accessible and sustainable healthcare and long term care: support for the national strategies using the open method of coordination, Commission of the European Communities Facing the challenge. The Lisbon strategy for growth and employment. Report from the High Level Group chaired by Wim Kok, 2004 European Commission, 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, European Commission, Joint report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion, European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions : Concerning a consultation on action at EU level to promote the active inclusion of the people furthest from the labour market, European Commission, Portfolio of overarching indicators and streamlined social inclusion, pensions, and the health portfolios, European Commission, Evaluation of the Open Method of Coordination for Social Protection and Social Inclusion: a synthesis of the replies of member States and other IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

148 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion actors to an evaluation questionnaire on the Open Method of Coordination in the fields of social inclusion and adequate and sustainable pensions, European Commission, Commission staff working document: Joint report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion, European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Modernising social protection for greater social justice and economic cohesion: taking forward the active inclusion of people furthest from the labour market, European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A renewed commitment to social Europe: reinforcing the Open Method of Coordination for Social Protection and Social Inclusion, Impact Assessment, COM (2008) 418 final, European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Renewed social agenda: Opportunities, access and solidarity in the 21st century Europe, COM (2008) 412 final, European Commission, Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A renewed commitment to social Europe: reinforcing the Open Method of Coordination for Social Protection and Social Inclusion: Impact assessment SEC (2008) 2169, European Commission, Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A renewed commitment to social Europe: reinforcing the Open Method of Coordination for Social Protection and Social Inclusion: Summary of the Impact assessment SEC (2008) 2170 Decision No 1098/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion (2010) European Commission, Recommendation on the active inclusion of people excluded from the labour market C(2008) 5737 Council of the European Union, Joint reports on social protection and social inclusion Council of European Union, Note, Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion 2008, Brussels, 4 March 2008, (7274/08) European Parliament, Activity Report, 1 May 2004 to 13 July 2009 (6th parliamentary term), 2009 Literature, debate and assessments of OMC IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

149 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy Armstrong K., Begg I., Zeitlin J., The open method of co-ordination and the governance of the Lisbon strategy, Journal of Common Market Studies, 2008 Atkinson A.B., Marlier E., Nolan B., Indicators and targets for social inclusion in the European Union, Journal of Common Market Studies, 42, 1, 2004 Borras S., New Governance Instruments as Means of Depolitization?The Input-Output Legitimacy of the Open Method of Coordination in the E Paper to be presented at: The transformation of EU policies? EU governance at work RG6 Concluding conference Sciences Po Paris, January 2008 Borras S., Jacobsson Kerstin, The Open Method of Coordination and new governance patterns in the EU, Journal of European Public Policy, April Bronzini G., Il Modello Sociale Europeo nel Trattato di Lisbona, in ASTRID, Le nuove istituzioni europee. Commento al Trattato di Lisbona, a cura di F. Bassanini e G. Tiberi, Il Mulino, Bologna, 2008) Daly M., EU social policy after Lisbon, Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. 44, no. 3, Daly M., Whither EU social policy? An account and assessment of developments in the Lisbon social inclusion process, Journal of Social Policy, 37, 1, 2007 Danish Technological Institute, Thematic evaluation of the Structural Funds Contributions to the Lisbon strategy, De Capitani E., The institutional dimension of the FSJA: the evolving role of the European Parliament, Bruxelles, 2009 De la Porte C., Pochet P., Building Social Europe through the Open Method of Coordination, PIE-Peter Lang, Saltsa, Brussels, 2002 De la Porte, C. and Nanz, P. (2004) OMC A Deliberative-Democratic Mode of Governance? The Cases of Employment and Pensions, Journal of European Public Policy, Vol.11, No.2 De la Rosa, S. The Open Method of Coordination in the New Member States the Perspectives for its Use as a Tool of Soft Law, European Law Journal 2005, n.11 Dieckhoff M., Gallie D. (2009), The renewed Lisbon strategy and social exclusion policy, Industrial Relations Journal, 38, 6 Duina, F. & Raunio, T., The open method of co-ordination and national parliaments: further marginalization or new opportunities? Journal of European Public Policy, 2007 n.14 EAPN, Will the economic crisis force a stronger social pillar in Lisbon?, Brussels, 10 February 2009 EAPN Social Inclusion Working Group, Building Security, Giving Hope EAPN Assessment of the National Strategic Reports on Social Protection and Social Inclusion ( ), 30 November 2008 EAPN A Stronger OMC, but not enough to make the difference! EAPN Response and Proposals for Reinforcing the OMC, 16 September 2008 ERIO (European Roma Information Office), Equality mainstreaming: Analysis of National Action Plans on Social Inclusion with regard to Roma, 2007 ERIO (European Roma Information Office), Equality mainstreaming: Analysis of National Action Plans on Social Inclusion with regard to Roma, 2007 EUROCHILD, Ending Child Poverty within the EU?, A review of the national reports on strategies for social protection and social inclusion, 2nd Edition Updated in May 2007 to include a review of all 27 Member States IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

150 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion European Roma Rights Centre, December 2007, Dis-Interest of the Child: Romani Children in the Hungarian Child protection System, Budapest FEANTSA Evaluation of the Open Method of Coordination in the field of social protection OMC applied to homelessness: Strong interest, great potential, and results guaranteed Parliaments: European and national Ferrera M, Matsaganis M, Sacchi S, Open coordination against poverty: the new EU Social Inclusion Process, Journal of European Social Policy, vol.12, no.3, Flak, A., Breton J., 2008, Finland s Roma face threat of losing children Frazer H., Marlier E., Synthesis report Feeding in and feeding out: the extent of synergies between growth and jobs policies and social inclusion policies across Europe, prepared for European Commission, Giering C., and Metz A., Laboratory for Integration Opportunities and Risks Of The "Open Method Of Co-Ordination" 2004 Bertelsmann Foundation Jacobsson, K. & Vifell, Å. New governance structures in employment policy making? Taking stock of the European Employment Strategy. IN Linsenmann, I., Meyer, C. &, 2007 n.18 Hatzopoulos V., Current Problems of Social Europe, Research Papers in Law, 7/2007 Hurme K., 2008, Minister Thors receives beggars report. Kroger S., The effectiveness of soft governance in the field of European anti-poverty policy: Operationalization and empirical evidence, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 11, 2, pp , 2009 Mabbett D., Learning by numbers? The use of indicators in the co-ordination of social inclusion policies in Europe, Journal of European Public Policy, 14, 1, pp , 2007 Natali, D., Pensions Omc: Why Did It Emerge and How Does It Evolve? Paper for the Annual EUSA Conference, Montreal, May 2007 Nedergaard, P. Policy Learning in the European Union. The Case of the European Employment Policy. Policy Studies, 2006 n.27 Nedergaard, P. Maximizing Policy Learning in International Committees: An Analysis of the European Open Method of Coordination (OMC) Committees. Scandinavian Political Studies, 2007 n.30 O Connor J., Policy coordination, social indicators and the social policy agenda in the European Union, Journal of European Social Policy, 15, 4, 2005 O Donnell R., Moss B., Ireland, paper presented at Workshop Opening the Open Method of Co-ordination, Joint Saltsa, Observatoire Social Européen, University of Wisconsin-Madison Project, hosted by the Welfare State Programme of the Robert Schumann Centre, European University Institute (Florence), 4-5 July 2002 Peters, G. B. & Pierre, J. (2004) Multi-level governance and democracy: a Faustian bargain? In Bache, I. & Flinders, M. (Eds.) Multi-level Governance. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Radaelli C.M., The open method of coordination, a new governance architecture for the European Union?, SIEPS, Radulova E., The OMC: An opaque method of consideration or deliberative governance in action?, European Integration, 29, 3, 2007 Raunio T., National Parliaments and OMC: Destined to remain Apart? Berlin, 2007 Raunio T., Learning to Play the Multi-level game? National Parliaments and the Future of the European Integration, Ottawa, 2005 IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

151 Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy Regent S., The Open Method of Coordination: a supranational form of governance?, International Institute for Labour Studies, 2002, inst/download/dp13702.pdf. Rodrigues M.J., The new knowledge Economy in Europe a strategy for international competitiveness and social cohesion, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Rodigues, M. J., The Open Method of Coordination as a New Governance Tool, Journal Europa Europe (Fondazione Istituto Gramsci, Rome), No.2-3, Sacchi S., The Open Method of Coordination and National Institutional Capabilities. The Italian Experience as a Heuristic Case Study, prepared for delivery at the 2004 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, 2-5 of September, Sacchi S., Bastagli F., Italy, Striving Uphill, but Stopping Halfway. The troubled journey of the experimental minimum insertion income, in Ferrera M. (ed.) Welfare State Reform in Southern Europe: Fighting Poverty and Social Exclusion in Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal, London Routledge, Social Platform Common position: 5 recommendations for an effective Open Method of Coordination on social protection and social inclusion Adopted by the Steering Group of Social Platform on June 11, 2009 Solidar Evaluation of the Open Method of Coordination in the field of social inclusion and social protection Presented by SOLIDAR to the European Commission, June 2005 Souto-Otero M., Fleckenstein T., Dacombe R., Filling in the gaps: European governance, the open method of coordination and the European Commission, Journal of Education Policy, 23, 3, 2008 The European Older People s Platform, What is the European Union doing in the field of social protection and social inclusion? A Toolkit to improve civil dialogue in the Open Method of Coordination on Social Protection and Social Inclusion, May Tsakatika, M. (2007) A Parliamentary Dimension for EU Soft Governance. Journal of European Integration, n. 29 Trubek D.D., Trubek L.G., Hard and soft law in the construction of social Europe: The role of the open method of coordination, European Law Journal, 11, 3, 2005 Virtanen, P Report on Social Inclusion in Finland. First progress Report written for the European Commission, DG Employment. Independent expert report. Peer review and Assessment in Social Inclusion Zeitlin J., Pochet P., with Magnusson L. (eds.), The Open Method of Coordination in Action: The European Employment and Social Inclusion Strategies, P.I.E.-Peter Lang, Zeitlin J., The Open Method of Coordination and the Governance of the Lisbon Strategy, presentation at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, EUSA conference, 2007, Zeitlin J., The open method of coordination and reform of national social and employment policies: Influences, mechanisms, effects. In M. Heidenreich, J. Zeitlin (eds.), Changing European employment and welfare regimes: The influence of the OMC on national reforms, London, Routledge, 2009 Wessels, W. (Eds.) Economic Government of the EU: A Balance Sheet of New Modes of Policy Coordination London, Palgrave. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

152 Annexes IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

153 IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

154 CONTENTS Annex 1: Laeken Indicators 151 Annex 2: Portfolio of overarching indicators and streamlined social inclusion, pensions, and health portfolios 160 Annex 3: Portfolio of overarching indicators and streamlined social inclusion, pensions, and health portfolios - april 2008 update 212 Annex 4: Country fiches 278 Annex 5 : Main resolutions and initiatives taken by the European Parliament in the area of social inclusion 346 IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

155 IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

156 Annex I IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

157 ANNEX 1: Laeken Indicators In respect of the fact that social inclusion is a multidimensional issue, the indicators are balanced across different dimensions: poverty, employment, regional cohesion, education, health. Three of the ten indicators relate to poverty: Indicator 1 is concerned with its extent, subdivided into different population subgroups; Indicator 3 takes up the concern with the dynamics of deprivation, seeking to measure the persistence of poverty, while recognising that there is considerable volatility in the circumstances of the poor (so avoiding poverty for one past year does not mean that the person has escaped persistent poverty); Indicator 4 is concerned with the depth of poverty, but recognises the measurement problems with the poverty gap. Since the average poverty gap may be unduly influenced by cases where the income is inaccurately measured, it takes instead the median poverty gap. A further indicator is also based on income: a measure of income inequality (Indicator 2). These indicators all reflect the longstanding concern of the EU with the measurement of financial poverty. Most of them have been gathered per country in each of the NAPSinc IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

158 IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

159 IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

160 Source: EU Social Protection Committee, Report on Indicators in the field of poverty and social exclusion, October 2001 IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

161 Annex II IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

162 IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

163 EUROPEAN COMMISSION Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities DG Social protection and social integration Social and demography analysis Brussels, 7 June 2006 D(2006) PORTFOLIO OF OVERARCHING INDICATORS AND STREAMLINED SOCIAL INCLUSION, PENSIONS, AND HEALTH PORTFOLIOS 1. FORESEEN USE OF INDICATORS AFTER STREAMLINING 1.1. The new monitoring framework National Reports on Strategy for social inclusion and social protection Following the adoption by the Council of the Commission s Communication on the streamlining of the OMC on Social Protection and Social Inclusion, the first round of streamlined strategies for the period will have to be submitted to the Commission in the form of National Reports on Strategies for Social Protection and Social Inclusion by 15 September In this context, a set of Guidelines for preparing national reports on strategies for social protection and social inclusion has been agreed upon between Member States and the Commission at the March 2006 meeting of the SPC. The guidelines provide a common approach by Member States to preparing their National Reports. Member States are invited to report on all 4 parts of the framework and thus on all the Common Objectives. However, while covering all objectives they may choose to emphasise certain of them The new monitoring framework reporting by the Commission and joint reporting In the new monitoring framework, the Commission will continue drafting a Report for joint adoption by the Commission and the Council prior to the subsequent Spring European Council. This report will summarise main issues and trends and assess Member States' progress in reaching the common streamlined objectives. In line with the SPC/EPC joint opinion on streamlining endorsed by the March 2006 EPSCO Council, it will also review how social protection and social inclusion policies are contributing to the Lisbon goals of employment and growth and assess how progress towards the Lisbon goals of employment and growth is impacting on social cohesion. The 2007 joint report will draw on the first National Reports on Strategies for Social Protection and Social Inclusion and on other material such as 2006 work on pensions, findings from the Community Action Programme on Social Exclusion, the second round of National Lisbon Reports and EU-level data on social protection and social inclusion. In addition the report will reflect on how issues from the OMC process are being taken into account in the refocused Lisbon process on jobs and growth and how policies for IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

164 growth and employment are contributing to addressing social cohesion objectives. The Report will consist of: - a short main report (12 pages) which summarises the main policy messages; - a set of country fiches covering all Member States. In addition, Commission services will produce a "supporting document" to illustrate more at length the issues covered in the main report. "Part 1" of this document will consist of an assessment of the social cohesion situation in the EU in relation to the common overarching objectives. Its aim will be to inform the analysis within the main report and will help to set the data within the individual country fiches in a broader European context The new monitoring framework the use of indicators This section clarifies how indicators and statistics will be used in this new reporting context. To begin with, it has to be recalled that all commonly agreed indicators and context information will continue to be calculated and regularly updated by Eurostat on the basis of the commonly agreed definitions and presented on the Eurostat web-site on well identified and dedicated pages. Indicators will be used in the context of the monitoring of the overarching objectives which will draw on the analysis presented in the common overview of the National reports on Social Protection and Social Inclusion and in "part 1" of the supporting document to the Joint SPSI report. In the National reports Member States should provide a brief and consolidated overview of the economic, social and demographic context that needs to be taken into account when setting priorities and developing policies in relation to social protection and social inclusion. This analysis should therefore primarily draw on the portfolio of commonly agreed overarching indicators and statistics: the overarching portfolio (see description below). It could however be supplemented with national indicators, highlighting national specificities in particular areas of social protection and social inclusion. While some countries might choose not to present all indicators in the overview (to maintain the focus on key priorities), the synthesis presented should draw from a comprehensive analysis of the overarching portfolio that is designed to give an assessment of a country's situation in relation to overarching objectives (a) and (b). Member States could therefore provide this detailed analysis in annex. In its own analysis of the social situation, the Commission will draft the condensed description presented in "part 1" of the supporting document to the Joint report building on a comprehensive assessment of the overarching portfolio at EU level together with any information the Commission might find relevant. The draft of the EU level review will be discussed in the ISG before the summer break; the final draft should be timely enough to serve as input for the Joint report. While highlighting the employment and growth context and the specific demographic and budgetary constraints in which social inclusion policies and social protection reforms operate, the Commission will make sure that the indicators are used in their role of assessing Member States' progress towards the commonly agreed objectives. The Commission will in particular IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

165 highlight the respective roles and interaction of social protection, and growth and employment trends in fostering social cohesion. In the National Plans/strategies by strand, Member States are invited to adopt a focused approach by identifying a few priority objectives, while also addressing all streamlined objectives. In the area of social inclusion they should maintain an integrated and multi-dimensional approach to tackling poverty and social exclusion. The guidelines therefore suggest the priority objectives to be selected on the basis of a comprehensive analysis of the national social situation. The adequate use of the commonly agreed indicators is essential to support this new approach. In order to enable these indicators to play their key role, the ISG has streamlined the existing lists of indicators by strand, as suggested both in the SPC/EPC opinion on streamlining and in the guidelines for the preparation of the national reports. The aim has been to ensure that each list covers all key dimensions encompassed in the common objectives with a reduced number of primary indicators. This also meant to focus the presentation of the indicators on key sub-populations, and to include in the proposal the planned developments. Each strand list therefore constitutes a commonly agreed condensed and comprehensive monitoring tool of a country's social situation with regards to the common objectives in each strand. Member States should therefore assess their situation using the primary level streamlined strand lists. This assessment, supported by relevant national level information, should provide a powerful tool to identify priority objectives. On this basis, Member States are invited to specify what indicators (common and national) will be presented in the national plans/strategies and used to monitor progress towards the achievement of the national priority objectives. 2. GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR THE SELECTION OF INDICATORS AND STATISTICS The ISG has agreed on a broad common methodological framework for the development of the overarching portfolio, and the review/development of the three strand indicators lists. This framework builds on the methodological principles agreed for the Laeken portfolio. However, it departs from the original framework in two ways: the choice of indicators is not limited to outcome indicators in order to better reflect the action and impact of policies; and, as explained below, some flexibility is introduced as how strictly the criteria are applied, notably allowing for the inclusion in the list of commonly agreed national indicators" based on commonly agreed definitions and assumptions. Each of the four indicators portfolios (i.e. the portfolio of overarching indicators and each of the three strand indicators portfolios) should aim at providing a comprehensive and efficient tool for the monitoring of the common objectives: (1) it should be comprehensive and cover all key dimensions of the common objectives; (2) it should be balanced across the different dimensions; (3) it should enable a synthetic and transparent assessment of a country's situation in relation to the common objectives. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

166 The selection of individual indicators should, in principle, be guided by the following minimum set of methodological criteria: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) An indicator should capture the essence of the problem and have a clear and accepted normative interpretation An indicator should be robust and statistically validated An indicator should provide a sufficient level of cross countries comparability, as far as practicable with the use of internationally applied definitions and data collection standards An indicator should be built on available underlying data, and be timely and susceptible to revision An indicator should be responsive to policy interventions but not subject to manipulation Past experience in the development of indicators by the ISG has however shown that specific key information might be essential to capture one of the key dimensions of a commonly agreed policy objective (portfolio criteria 1), while not fulfilling all criteria for the selection of indicators (e.g. comparability, normative value). In order to overcome this difficulty, the ISG has agreed to flag the indicators and statistics included in the different overarching and strand lists according to how they should be used. The following three categories (EU, National, Context) aim at warning the user of the specific purpose and limitations of each indicator in the list Each portfolio would contain: Commonly agreed EU indicators contributing to a comparative assessment of MS's progress towards the common objectives. These indicators might refer to social outcomes, intermediate social outcomes or outputs. Commonly agreed national indicators based on commonly agreed definitions and assumptions that provide key information to assess the progress of MS in relation to certain objectives, while not allowing for a direct crosscountry comparison, or not necessarily having a clear normative interpretation. These indicators are especially suited to measure the scale and nature of policy intervention. These indicators should be interpreted jointly with the relevant background information (exact definition, assumptions, representativeness). Context information: Each portfolio will have to be assessed in the light of key context information, and by referring to past, and where relevant, future trends. The list of context information proposed is indicative and leaves room to other background information that would be most relevant to better frame and understand the national context. Within each strand portfolio, for the sake of streamlining, a reduced number of primary EU and national indicators has been suggested as a condensed set of lead indicators which cover all essential dimensions of the defined objectives and/or highlight the social situation of key sub-populations (portfolio criteria 1 and 2); whereas secondary (EU and national) indicators would support these lead indicators by providing a greater insight into the nature of the problem (portfolio criteria 3). IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

167 In chapters 3, 4 and 5 we describe how these overall guiding principles have been applied to the new proposals for an overarching portfolio (chapter 3), for a streamlined Laeken portfolio (chapter 4), and for a streamlined pensions portfolio (chapter 5). In chapter 6, we present a first set of indicators as discussed on the 19 May ISG meeting. Since it was not possible to cover all the areas, the current list represents work in progress and cannot be taken to fully reflect all the dimensions of health and long-term care. Clarification: in June this year, the Commission will provide a set of data corresponding to the full set of indicators as currently available to be used in the 2006 reporting exercise. For those indicators/areas in development or for which EU level data is not yet available, Member States are encouraged to provide the relevant quantitative information based on national sources. 3. THE OVERARCHING PORTFOLIO As agreed by the March 2006 EPSCO Council, the 3 overarching objectives of the social protection and social inclusion processes are to promote: (a) (b) (c) social cohesion, equality between men and women and equal opportunities for all through adequate, accessible, financially sustainable, adaptable and efficient social protection systems and social inclusion policies; effective and mutual interaction between the Lisbon objectives of greater economic growth, more and better jobs and greater social cohesion, and with the EU's Sustainable Development Strategy; good governance, transparency and the involvement of stakeholders in the design, implementation and monitoring of policy Specific guiding principles for the selection of indicators for the overarching portfolio On the basis of these objectives, the ISG has defined a reduced set of new or already agreed EU or national indicators to monitor each of these broad objectives. In selecting these indicators, the ISG has taken into account the current and planned common indicators used in the 3 social OMCs. In order to enhance the interaction with the Lisbon strategy and the Sustainable Development Strategy, it has also looked at the existing list of structural indicators used for monitoring the Lisbon strategy, as well as at the Sustainable Development Indicators recently adopted by the Commission. While examining the appropriate methodological principles for the selection of overarching indicators, the ISG reached the following conclusions: The portfolio should reflect fully the overarching objectives, including dimensions that are "overarching" (Social Protection expenditures, Labour Market participation rates) and not specific to a strand in particular. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

168 Indicators do not need to be allocated to objectives (a) and (b) separately, since a number of them illustrate both objectives, as indicated in the first column of the table The portfolio should include indicators reflecting the link between the main policy areas and ultimate social cohesion outcomes, this could be achieved through an adequate combination of indicators reflecting social outcomes (e.g. at-risk-poverty rates, other income and living conditions indicators, unemployment rates, educational attainment, etc.) and indicators reflecting the scale and nature of social policy interventions (e.g. social protection expenditures, etc) The portfolio should reflect the main priorities of each strand in a balanced way (e.g., reinforce the health dimension) The list of 14 indicators and 12 context information items presented below is the result of two plenary session discussions and two written consultations. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

169 3.2. Overarching portfolio The table indicates for each indicator the key dimension covered, the name and definition of each indicator and whether it is considered a commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) or a commonly agreed national indicator (NAT). Key dimension overarching objectives concerned Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 1 Definition Breakdowns 1a Risk of poverty (a) EU: At-risk-of-poverty rate Share of persons aged 0+ with an equivalised disposable income below 60% of the national equivalised median income2. By age: Total, 0-17, 18-64, Illustrative threshold value In future consider the possibility to add Atpersistent risk of poverty rate Value of the at-risk-of-poverty threshold (60% median national equivalised income) in PPS for an illustrative household type (e.g., single person household) Source: SILC 1b Intensity of poverty risk (a) EU: Relative median poverty risk gap Difference between the median equivalised income of persons aged 0+ below the at-risk-of poverty threshold and the threshold itself, expressed as a percentage of the at-risk-of poverty threshold. By age: Total, 0-17, 18-64, Commonly agreed national indicators based on commonly agreed definitions and assumptions that provide key information to assess the progress of MS in relation to certain objectives, while not allowing for a direct cross-country comparison, and not necessarily having a clear normative interpretation. These indicators/statistics should be interpreted jointly with the relevant background information (exact definition, assumptions, representativeness). 2 Equivalised median income is defined as the household's total disposable income divided by its "equivalent size", to take account of the size and composition of the household, and is attributed to each household member (including children). Equivalization is made on the basis of the OECD modified scale. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

170 Key dimension overarching objectives concerned Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 1 Definition Breakdowns 2 Income inequalities (a) EU: S80/S20 Ratio of total income received by the 20% of the country's population with the highest income (top quintile) to that received by the 20% of the country's population with the lowest income (lowest quintile). None Income must be understood as equivalised disposable income. Source: SILC 3 Health outcome, inequality in health (a)/(b) NAT: Healthy life expectancy Number of years that a person at birth, at 45, at 65 is still expected to live in a healthy condition (also called disabilityfree life expectancy). To be interpreted jointly with life expectancy At birth, at 45, at 65 By sex (By SES) Source: Eurostat IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

171 Key dimension overarching objectives concerned Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 1 Definition Breakdowns 4 Educational outcome and human capital formation (a)/(b) EU: Early school leavers Share of persons aged 18 to 24 who have only lower secondary education (their highest level of education or training attained is 0, 1 or 2 according to the 1997 International Standard Classification of Education ISCED 97) and have not received education or training in the four weeks preceding the survey. Source: LFS By sex 5 Access to labour market (a)/(b) EU: People living in jobless households Proportion of people living in jobless households, expressed as a share of all people in the same age group3. This indicator should be analysed in the light of context indicator N 8: jobless households by main household types By age: 0-17, By sex (18+ only) Source: LFS 3 Students aged years who live in households composed solely of students are not counted in neither numerator nor denominator IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

172 Key dimension overarching objectives concerned Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 1 Definition Breakdowns 6 Financial Sustainability of social protection systems (a) NAT: Projected Total Public Social expenditures Age-related projections of total public social expenditures (e.g. pensions, health care, long-term care, education and unemployment transfers), current level (% of GDP) and projected change in share of GDP (in percentage points) ( ) Specific assumptions agreed in the AWG/EPC. See "The 2005 EPC projections of age-related expenditures ( ) for EU-25: underlying assumptions and projection methodologies" Source: EPC/AWG 7a Pensions adequacy (a) EU: Median relative income of elderly people Median equivalised income of people aged 65+ as a ratio of income of people aged Source: EU-SILC 7b Pensions adequacy (a) EU: Aggregate replacement ratio Median individual pensions of relative to median individual earnings of 50-59, excluding other social benefits By sex Source: EU-SILC 8 Inequalities in access to health care (a) Unmet need for care Use, definition and breakdowns yet to be agreed upon once data is available for all countries. Source: EU-SILC - IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

173 Key dimension overarching objectives concerned Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 1 Definition Breakdowns 9 Improved standards of living resulting from economic growth (a)/(b) EU: At-risk-of-poverty rate anchored at a fixed moment in time (2005) Possibly replaced or supplemented in future by material deprivation or consistent poverty indicators Share of persons aged 0+ with an equivalised disposable income below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold calculated in year 2005 (1st EU-SILC income reference year for all 25 EU countries), up-rated by inflation over the years. Source: SILC By age: Total, 0-17, 18-64, 65+ By sex (18+ only) IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

174 Key dimension overarching objectives concerned Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 1 Definition Breakdowns 10 Employment of older workers (a)/(b) EU: Employment rate of older workers Possibly replaced or supplemented by "average exit age from the labour market" when quality issues are resolved Persons in employment in age groups and as a proportion of total population in the same age group Source: LFS By age: 55-59; By sex 11 In-work poverty (a)/(b) EU: In-work poverty risk Individuals who are classified as employed4 (distinguishing between wage and salary employment plus self-employment and wage and salary employment only) and who are at risk of poverty. This indicator needs to be analysed according to personal, job and household characteristics. It should also be analysed in comparison with the poverty risk faced by the unemployed and the inactive. By sex Source: SILC 4 Individuals classified as employed according to the definition of most frequent activity status. The most frequent activity status is defined as the status that individuals declare to have occupied for more than half the number of months in the calendar year. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

175 Key dimension overarching objectives concerned Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 1 Definition Breakdowns 12 Participation in labour market (a)/(b) EU: Activity rate Possibly replaced or supplemented in future by MWP indicators Share of employed and unemployed people in total population of working age Source: LFS By sex and age: 15-24, 25-54, 55-59; 60-64; Total 13 Regional cohesion (a)/(b) NAT: Regional disparities coefficient of variation of employment rates Standard deviation5 of regional employment rates divided by the weighted national average (age group years). (NUTS II) Source: LFS 14 More health (a)/(b) To be decided following ISG work on health indicators 5 Standard deviation measures how, on average, the situation in regions differs from the national average. As a complement to the indicator a graph showing max/min/average per country is presented. Possible alternative measures: Regional disparities underperforming regions. Source LFS 1. Share of underperforming regions in terms of employment and unemployment (in relation to all regions and to the working age population/labour force) (NUTS II). 2. Differential between average employment/unemployment of the underperforming regions and the national average in relation to the national average of employment/unemployment (NUTS II) Thresholds to be applied: 90% and 150% of the national average rate for employment and unemployment, respectively. (An extra column with the national employment and unemployment rates would be included) IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

176 3.3. Context information: The overarching indicators will have to be assessed in the light of key context information and by referring to past, and where relevant, future trends. The list of context information is indicative and leaves room to other background information that would be most relevant to frame and understand better the national socio-economic context (1) GDP growth (2) Employment rate, by sex Unemployment rate, by sex, and key age groups Long term unemployment rate, by sex and key age groups (3) Life expectancy at birth and at 65 (4) Old age dependency ratio, current and projected (5) Distribution of population by household types, including collective households (6) Public debt, current and projected, % of GDP (7) Social protection expenditure, current, by function, gross and net (ESPROSS) (8) Jobless households by main household types (see breakdown of Social Inclusion indicator 1a) (9) Making work pay indicators (unemployment trap, inactivity trap (esp. second earner case), low-wage trap. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

177 (10) Net income of social assistance recipients as a % of the at-risk of poverty threshold for 3 jobless household types 6. (11) At-risk of poverty rate before social transfers (other than pensions), 0-17, 18-64, (12) NAT: Change in projected theoretical replacement ratio 8 for base case accompanied with information on type of pension scheme (DB, DC or NDC), and change in projected public pension expenditure (These results should systematically be presented collectively in one table). + assumptions and relevant background information on representativeness + present also calculations of changes in replacement rates for one or two other cases, if suitable (for instance OECD) This indicator refers to the income of people living in households that only rely on "last resort" social assistance benefits (including related housing benefits) and for which no other income stream is available (from other social protection benefits e.g. unemployment or disability schemes or from work). The aim of such an indicator is to evaluate if the safety nets provided to those households most excluded from the labour market are sufficient to lift people out of poverty. This indicator is calculated on the basis of the tax-benefit models developed jointly by the OECD and the European Commission. It is only calculated for Countries where non-categorical social benefits are in place and for 3 jobless household types: single, lone parent, 2 children and couple with 2 children. This indicator is especially relevant when analysing MWP indicators This indicator is meant to compare the observed risk of poverty with a hypothetical measure of a risk of poverty in absence of all social transfers (other than pensions) all things being kept equal. In particular, household and labour market structure are kept unchanged. This measure does not take into account other types of transfers that have an impact on household disposable income such as transfers in kind and tax rebates. Definition: Change in the theoretical level of income from pensions at the moment of take-up related to the income from work in the last year before retirement for a hypothetical worker (base case), percentage points, , with information on the type of pension scheme (DB, DC or NDC) and changes in the public pension expenditure as a share of GDP, This information can only collectively form the indicator called Projected theoretical replacement ratio. Results relate to current and projected, gross (public and private) and total net replacement rates, and should be accompanied by information on representativeness and assumptions (contribution rates and coverage rate, public and private). Specific assumptions agreed in the ISG. For further details, see 2006 report on Replacement Rates. Source: ISG and AWG IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

178 4. STREAMLINED SOCIAL INCLUSION PORTFOLIO The new streamlined social inclusion objectives For the social inclusion strand the aim is to make "a decisive impact on the eradication of poverty and social exclusion by ensuring: (d) access for all to the resources, rights and services needed for participation in society, preventing and addressing exclusion, and fighting all forms of discrimination leading to exclusion; (e) the active social inclusion of all, both by promoting participation in the labour market and by fighting poverty and exclusion; (f) that social inclusion policies are well-coordinated and involve all levels of government and relevant actors, including people experiencing poverty, that they are efficient and effective and mainstreamed into all relevant public policies, including economic, budgetary, education and training policies and structural fund (notably ESF) programmes. The methodological approach to reviewing the Laeken list Indicators to be used for monitoring the social inclusion strand of the Social Protection and Social Inclusion Strategy largely draw from the existing set of "Laeken indicators" in its present form. Also the methodological framework that was originally used to set up the list is maintained in its essence. That is, it is proposed to maintain the distinction between primary and secondary indicators. Accordingly, primary indicators would still be a restricted number of "lead indicators which cover the broad fields that have been considered the most important elements in leading to social exclusion"; whereas secondary indicators would support these lead indicators by describing in greater detail the nature of the problem or by describing other dimensions of the problem. Member States are expected to use at least the primary indicators in their national strategy reports, if only to emphasise that in the context of the EU social inclusion process poverty and social exclusion are a relative concept that encompasses income, access to essential durables, education, health care, adequate housing, distance from the labour market. The agreed list contains 11 primary indicators, 3 secondary indicators and 11 context indicators In practice, the primary list has been re-focused to contain only the most important indicators that describe the various dimensions of poverty and social exclusion. A few indicators that were in IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

179 the primary list became secondary indicators. Other Laeken indicators are now included in the overarching portfolio, either because they are considered as more appropriate to monitor overall social cohesion (in which case they are only kept as context information) or because they are considered crucial indicators to monitor both social cohesion (and/or its interaction with employment and growth) and social exclusion and poverty (in this case, they are included in both lists). Finally, a few indicators were considered redundant and were dropped: persistent poverty calculated with a 50% threshold, long-term unemployment share and very long-term unemployment rate. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

180 4.1. Proposed list of primary indicators Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 9 Definition Age breakdown Gender breakdown Comments SI- P1 EU: At-risk-of poverty rate + illustrative threshold values Share of persons aged 0+ with an equivalised disposable income below 60% of the national equivalised median income. Equivalised median income is defined as the household's total disposable income divided by its "equivalent size", to take account of the size and composition of the household, and is attributed to each household member. Equivalization is made on the basis of the OECD modified scale. Complemented by the value of the at-risk-of-poverty threshold (60% median national equivalised income) in PPS for two illustrative households: a single-person household and a household consisting of two adults and two children. Age groups: 0-17; 18-64; 65+ Yes, applying to people aged 18+ The full range of age breakdowns originally agreed upon for this indicator could be contained in the secondary list, as well as in the pension indicators' list for what concerns the older age group. For each country, the poverty risk indicator must be assessed by looking at both the number of people whose income is below the threshold and the comparative level (in PPS) of this threshold. This indicator is also included in the overarching portfolio (indicator 1a). 9 Commonly agreed national indicators based on commonly agreed definitions and assumptions that provide key information to assess the progress of MS in relation to certain objectives, while not allowing for a direct cross-country comparison, and not necessarily having a clear normative interpretation. These indicators/statistics should be interpreted jointly with the relevant background information (exact definition, assumptions, representativeness). IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

181 Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 9 Definition Age breakdown Gender breakdown Comments SI- P2 EU: Persistent at-risk of poverty rate Share of persons aged 0+ with an equivalised disposable income below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold in the current year and in at least two of the preceding three years. Age groups: 0-17; 18-64; 65+ Yes, applying to people aged 18+ Not for 2006 report (use alternative national/eu measures if opportune). This indicator will become available as from 2009, when four years of longitudinal data from EU-SILC will be available for the 13 EU countries that launched EU-SILC in It will be available for all 25 MS as from SI- P3 EU: Relative median poverty risk gap Difference between the median equivalised income of persons aged 0+ below the at-risk-of poverty threshold and the threshold itself, expressed as a percentage of the at-risk-of poverty threshold. Age groups: 0-17; 18-64; 65+ Yes, applying to people aged 18+ This indicator is also included in the overarching portfolio (indicator 1b) SI- P4 EU: Long term unemployment rate Total long-term unemployed population ( 12 months' unemployment; ILO definition) as a proportion of total active population aged 15 years or more. No Yes The long term unemployment rate needs to be interpreted in the light of information on the activity/inactivity rate of the population. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

182 Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 9 Definition Age breakdown Gender breakdown Comments SI- P5 EU: Population living in jobless households Proportion of people living in jobless households, expressed as a share of all people in the same age group. Students aged years who live in households composed solely of students are counted in neither numerator nor denominator. This indicator should be analysed in the light of context indicator N 7: jobless households by main household types Age groups: ; Yes (for only) This indicator is also proposed as an indicator to monitor the overarching objectives. It sheds light on an important aspect of social exclusion as it reflects the lack of contact of children and working-age adults with the world of work. It also reflects polarization of employment across households. This indicator is also included in the overarching portfolio (indicator 5) SI- P6 EU: Early school leavers not in education or training Share of persons aged 18 to 24 who have only lower secondary education (their highest level of education or training attained is 0, 1 or 2 according to the 1997 International Standard Classification of Education ISCED 97) and have not received education or training in the four weeks preceding the survey. No Yes This indicator is also included in the overarching portfolio (indicator 4) The definition of this indicator may be amended following the recommendation by Eurostat to focus on the age group years (and in line with EMCO). IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

183 Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 9 Definition Age breakdown Gender breakdown Comments SI- P7 NAT: Employment gap of immigrants Percentage point difference between the employment rate for non-immigrants and that for immigrants. Immigrants are defined on the basis of the variable "born abroad10" (and it is up to each Country to decide whether to include nationals born abroad or not, as appropriate) No Yes This indicator needs to be supplemented by relevant national data covering other key aspects of inclusion of immigrants. SI- P8 EU: Material deprivation To be developed Age groups: 0-17; 18-64; 65+ Yes Not for 2006 report (use alternative national measures if opportune). Indicator to be developed based on information available in EU-SILC SI- P9 Housing To be developed Age groups: 0-17; 18-64; 65+ Yes Not for 2006 reporting On the basis of national sources, Member States have to report on homelessness, housing costs and decent housing Indicator to be developed based on information available in EU-SILC 10 The indicator should be presented both for EU25 and non EU-25 migrants. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

184 Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 9 Definition Age breakdown Gender breakdown Comments SI- P10 Unmet need for care by income quintile Use, definition and breakdowns yet to be agreed upon once data is available for all countries. - - Not for 2006 report (use alternative national/eu measures if opportune). Source: EU-SILC This indicator could also be included in the overarching portfolio (indicator 8) SI- P11 Child well-being To be developed IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

185 4.2 Proposed list of secondary indicators Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 11 Definition Age breakdown Gender breakdown Comments SI- S1 EU: At-risk-of poverty rate Share of persons aged 0+ with an equivalised disposable income below 60% of the national equivalised median income. Full age breakdow n: 0-17; 18-24; 25-54; 55-64; 65+ Yes, applying to people aged 18+ Full range of age breakdowns For each country, the poverty risk indicator must be assessed by looking at both the number of people whose income is below the threshold and the comparative level (in PPS) of this threshold. 11 Commonly agreed national indicators based on commonly agreed definitions and assumptions that provide key information to assess the progress of MS in relation to certain objectives, while not allowing for a direct cross-country comparison, and not necessarily having a clear normative interpretation. These indicators/statistics should be interpreted jointly with the relevant background information (exact definition, assumptions, representativeness). IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

186 Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 11 Definition Age breakdown Gender breakdown Comments SI- S1a EU: Poverty risk by household type Poverty risk for the total population aged 0+ in the following household types: Households with no dependent children: - Single person, under 65 years old - Single person, 65 years and over - Single women - Single men - Two adults, at least one person 65 years and over - Two adults, both under 65 years - Other households Already specified in the typology of households. Already specified in the typology of households. Households with dependent children12: - Single parent, 1 or more dependent children - Two adults, one dependent child - Two adults, two dependent children - Two adults, three or more dependent children - Three or more adults with dependent children 12 Dependent children are all individuals aged 0 17 years as well as individuals aged years if inactive and living with at least one parent. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

187 Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 11 Definition Age breakdown Gender breakdown Comments SI- S1 b EU: Poverty risk by the work intensity of households Poverty risk for the total population aged 0+ in different work intensity categories and broad household types. The work intensity of the household refers to the number of months that all working age household members have been working during the income reference year as a proportion of the total number of months that could theoretically be worked within the household. Age groups: 0-17; 18-64; 65+ Yes, applying to people aged Individuals are classified into work intensity categories that range from WI=0 (jobless household) to WI=1 (full work intensity). SI- S1c EU: Poverty risk by most frequent activity status Poverty risk for the adult population (aged 18 years and over) in the following most frequent activity status groups: employment (singling out wage and salary employment); unemployment; retirement; other inactivity. - Yes (applying to people aged 18 +). The most frequent activity status is defined as the status that individuals declare to have occupied for more than half the number of months in the calendar year for which information on occupational status is available. SI- S1 d EU: Poverty risk by accommodation tenure status Poverty risk for the total population aged 0+ in the following accommodation tenure categories: - Owner-occupied or rent free - Rented Age groups: 0-17; 18-64; 65+ Yes, applying to people aged 18 + This breakdown may have to be reconsidered once imputed rent can be taken into account in indicator 1 IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

188 Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 11 Definition Age breakdown Gender breakdown Comments SI- S1e EU: Dispersion around the at-risk-of-poverty threshold Share of persons aged 0+ with an equivalised disposable income below 40%, 50% and 70% of the national equivalised median income. Age groups: 0-17; 18-64; 65+ Yes, applying to people aged 18 + SI- S2 EU: Persons with low educational attainment Share of the adult population (aged 25 years and over) whose highest level of education or training is ISCED 0, 1 or 2. Definition subject to change following current Eurostat work on this indicator Age groups: 25-34; 35-54; 55-64; 65+; Yes Please note the reduction of the age breakdowns SI- S3 EU: Low reading literacy performance of pupils Share of 15 years old pupils who are at level 1 or below of the PISA combined reading literacy scale N.A. Yes Available every three years. Benchmark indicator of the education and training OMC IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

189 4.3 Context information SI-C1 Income quintile ratio (S80/S20) - This indicator is also included in the overarching portfolio (indicator 2) SI-C2 Gini coefficient SI-C3 Regional cohesion: dispersion in regional employment rates - This indicator is also included in the overarching portfolio (indicator 13) SI-C4 Healthy Life expectancy and Life expectancy at birth, at 65, (by Socio-Economic Status when available) - This indicator is also included in the overarching portfolio (indicator 3) SI-C5 At-risk-of-poverty rate anchored at a moment in time - This indicator is also included in the overarching portfolio (indicator 9) SI-C6 At-risk-of-poverty rate before social cash transfers (other than pensions) 13 SI-C7 Jobless households by main household types (see breakdown of secondary indicator 1a) SI-C8 SI-C9 In-work poverty risk, breakdown full-time/part time Making work pay indicators (unemployment trap, inactivity trap (esp. second earner case), low-wage trap. SI-C10 Net income of social assistance recipients as a % of the at-risk of poverty threshold for 3 jobless household types 14. SI-C11 Self reported limitations in daily activities by income quintiles, by sex, by age (0-17, 18-64, 65+) 13 This indicator is meant to compare the observed risk of poverty with an hypothetical measure of a risk of poverty in absence of all social transfers (other than pensions) all things being kept equal. In particular, household and labour market structure are kept unchanged. This measure does not take into account other types of transfers that have an impact on household disposable income such as transfers in kind and tax rebates. 14 This indicator refers to the income of people living in households that only rely on "last resort" social assistance benefits (including related housing benefits) and for which no other income stream is available (from other social protection benefits e.g. unemployment or disability schemes or from work). The aim of such an indicator is to evaluate if the safety nets provided to those households most excluded from the labour market are sufficient to lift people out of poverty. This indicator is calculated on the basis of the tax-benefit models developed jointly by the OECD and the European Commission. It is only calculated for Countries where non-categorical social benefits are in place and for 3 jobless household types: single, lone parent, 2 children and couple with 2 children. This indicator is especially relevant when analysing MWP indicators IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

190 5. STREAMLINED PENSIONS PORTFOLIO The list of streamlined indicators to reflect the three streamlined objectives as regards pensions is based on the available set of indicators developed by the ISG (as reflected by the list of indicators and data used for the 2005 National Strategy Reports on pensions and on previous ISG reports on work in progress as regards indicators on pensions in late 2002). The agreed list contains 11 primary indicators, 11 secondary indicators and 5 context indicators regrouped according to the streamlined objective to which they refer. Since the perspective dimension is fundamental for pensions, national indicators based on commonly agreed definitions and assumptions (as explained in section 2) have also been included. The ISG has also agreed to consider developing other indicators which would cover the following dimensions: Material deprivation of older people (regarding first streamlined objective for pensions); Age of entry into the labour market (regarding first streamlined objective for pensions); Coverage rate of public statutory pension schemes and private pensions (as a percentage of the working age population and active population) (regarding first streamlined objective for pensions); Financial incentives to work longer (regarding first two streamlined objectives for pensions); Administrative costs of private pensions (regarding second streamlined objective for pensions); Assets in all pension schemes (statutory and occupational, including reserve funds), current and projected (as percentage of GDP) up to 2050 (regarding second streamlined objective for pensions); Past ten years performance on pension funds (average and standard deviation) (regarding second streamlined objective for pensions); Share of active population having access to information on their individual pension entitlements (regarding third streamlined objective for pensions); Average typical length of vesting/waiting periods (regarding third streamlined objective for pensions); Replacement rates associated with non standard careers (career breaks, succession of several pension schemes) (regarding third streamlined objective for pensions); Number of pensions' beneficiaries Aggregate replacement ratio calculated with longitudinal data; Further developments associated with theoretical prospective replacement rates (see below). IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

191 5.1. First Streamlined objective pensions - adequate pensions "Ensure adequate retirement incomes for all and access to pensions which allow people to maintain, to a reasonable degree, their living standard after retirement, in the spirit of solidarity and fairness between and within generations" Primary indicators Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Definition Breakdowns Comments Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 15 PN- P1 EU: At-risk-of-poverty rate of older people Risk of poverty for people aged 0-64, 65+ Complemented by composition of income By age: 0-64, 65+ By sex (see 5.3) Poverty rate of 65+ (at the 60% threshold of equivalised income) provides a key indication of the capacity of pension systems to provide adequate income to older people PN- P2 EU: Median relative income of elderly people Median equivalised income of people aged 65+ as a ratio of income of people aged 0-64 By sex (see 5.3) This indicator informs on the overall adequacy of income of older people. Related context information: composition of income This indicator is also included in the overarching portfolio (indicator 7a) 15 Commonly agreed national indicators based on commonly agreed definitions and assumptions that provide key information to assess the progress of MS in relation to certain objectives, while not allowing for a direct cross-country comparison, and not necessarily having a clear normative interpretation. These indicators/statistics should be interpreted jointly with the relevant background information (exact definition, assumptions, representativeness). IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

192 Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Definition Breakdowns Comments Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 15 PN- P3 EU: Aggregate replacement ratio Median individual pensions of relative to median individual earnings of 50-59, excluding other social benefits, By sex (see 5.3) This indicator informs on the overall adequacy of income of pensioners, in relation to older workers This indicator is also included in the overarching portfolio (indicator 7b) IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

193 Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Definition Breakdowns Comments Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 15 PN- P4 NAT: Change in projected theoretical replacement ratio for base case accompanied with information on type of pension scheme (DB, DC or NDC) and change in projected public pension expenditure ) These results should systematically be presented collectively in one table. + assumptions and relevant background information on representativeness + present also calculations of changes in replacement rates for one or two other cases, if suitable (for instance OECD) Change in the theoretical level of income from pensions at the moment of take-up related to the income from work in the last year before retirement for a hypothetical worker (base case), percentage points, , with information on the type of pension scheme (DB, DC or NDC) and changes in the public pension expenditure as a share of GDP, This information can only collectively form the indicator called Projected theoretical replacement ratio. Results relate to current and projected, gross (public and private) and total net replacement rates, and should be accompanied by information on representativeness and assumptions (contribution rates and coverage rate, public and private). Specific assumptions agreed in the ISG. For further details, see 2006 report on Replacement Rates. Source: ISG and AWG Information on the development of future adequacy has to be complemented by information on future sustainability (projections of pension expenditures). Theoretical replacement rates provide key elements on the current replacement levels and their likely evolution, in response to enacted reforms, especially for DC schemes. They provide comprehensive similar information for DB schemes when if used with appropriate information regarding the sustainability of such schemes. Other NAT indicators : other cases including differences in careers and in retirement age (present OECD calculations if suitable) This indicator needs to be further developed, notably as regards to incorporating financial sustainability into the calculations. One could examine the possibility to include into the calculations a theoretical projected contribution rate for the base case, corresponding to a situation where no increase in pension expenditures (as a % of GDP) would occur. Further developments could also reflect the question of different cases (career development and breaks), and incentives to work longer, or also the balance between contributions made and benefits. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

194 Secondary indicators Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Definition Breakdowns Comments Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 16 PN- S1 EU At-risk-of-poverty rate of older people Risk of poverty for people aged 0-59, 0-74, 60+, By age: 0-59, 0-74, 60+, Poverty rate of elderly people (at the 60% threshold of equivalised income). By sex These breakdowns allow to isolate the specific situation of different age groups (younger / older) than the primary indicator. PN- S2 EU Median relative income of elderly people (60+) Median equivalised income of people aged 60+ as a ratio of income of people aged 0-59 By sex This indicator informs on the overall adequacy of income of older people Related indicator: composition of income PN- S3 EU Aggregate replacement ratio (incl. other social benefits) Median individual pensions of relative to median individual earnings of 50-59, including other social benefits By sex 16 Commonly agreed national indicators based on commonly agreed definitions and assumptions that provide key information to assess the progress of MS in relation to certain objectives, while not allowing for a direct cross-country comparison, and not necessarily having a clear normative interpretation. These indicators/statistics should be interpreted jointly with the relevant background information (exact definition, assumptions, representativeness). 17 One should note that for the age breakdown of people aged 75 and more, there may be some potential statistical difficulties due to the size of samples, and non coverage of collective households by household surveys. 18 One should note that for the age breakdown of people aged 75 and more, there may be some potential statistical difficulties due to the size of samples, and non coverage of collective households by household surveys. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

195 Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Definition Breakdowns Comments Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 16 PN- S4 EU: Income inequality (S80/S20) among population aged 65+ By age: 0-64, 65+ This indicator informs on the first part of the objective (solidarity between generations) and provides an indication on the income distribution for 0-64, 65+ and oldest people PN- S5 EU: Risk of poverty gap of elderly people Poverty gap by age brackets (for 65+ and 75+) at the 60% threshold By age 65+, 75+ This indicator complements indicators on poverty rates and is complementary to sensitivity analysis PN- S6 EU: Risk of poverty of pensioners Art risk of poverty rate restricted to the field of people whose main activity status is 'retired' By sex This indicator complements indicators on poverty rates for people whose status is retired. See also indicators for the third streamlined objective PN- S7 EU: Incidence of risk of elderly poverty by the housing tenure status Incidence of risk of poverty for people belonging to the 60+, 65+ and 75+ age groups by the housing tenure status of their households Different housing status : owner-occupied, rent-free and rented accommodation By age: 60+, 65+, 75+ This indicator complements indicators on poverty rates for different housing tenures status PN- S8 EU: Risk of poverty calculated at 50% and 70% of median national equivalised income for elderly Risk of poverty calculated at 50% and 70% of median national equivalised income for people aged 60+, 65+ and 75+. By age: 60+, 65+, 75+ Sensitivity tests for different income thresholds Context indicators PN-C1 EU: Composition of income by source (pensions; other social benefits; earnings from work; other sources) and by income quintile for people aged 60+, 65+, 75+ IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

196 5.2. 2nd Streamlined objective pensions sustainable pensions Ensure the financial sustainability of public and private pension schemes, bearing in mind pressures on public finances and the ageing of populations, and in the context of the three-pronged strategy for tackling the budgetary implications of ageing, notably by: supporting longer working lives and active ageing; by balancing contributions and benefits in an appropriate and socially fair manner; and by promoting the affordability and the security of funded and private schemes." Primary indicators Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Definition Breakdowns Comments Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 19 PN- P5 NAT: Total Current Pension expenditure (% of GDP) "Pension expenditure" is the sum of seven different categories of benefits, as defined in the ESSPROS Manual 1996: disability pension, early retirement benefit due to reduced capacity to work, old-age pension, anticipated old-age pension, partial pension, survivors' pension and early retirement benefit for labour market reasons. In development: breakdown between public / private Source: ESSPROS 19 Commonly agreed national indicators based on commonly agreed definitions and assumptions that provide key information to assess the progress of MS in relation to certain objectives, while not allowing for a direct cross-country comparison, and not necessarily having a clear normative interpretation. These indicators/statistics should be interpreted jointly with the relevant background information (exact definition, assumptions, representativeness). IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

197 Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Definition Breakdowns Comments Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 19 PN- P6 EU: Employment rate % persons employed in relation to the total number of people in a given age group. Source: LFS By age: 25-54; (55-59 and 60-64); and all by sex Employment rate of people is an essential aspect of sustainability These breakdowns are essential to analyse more in details the change in employment rates with age brackets and paths of early exit from the labour market Gender breakdowns also enable to isolate the structural effect of the trend of the increase in women employment rates. PN- P7 EU: Effective labour market exit age The average age of withdrawal from the labour market, based on a probability model considering the relative changes of activity rates from one year to another at a specific age. By sex The central challenge is probably the extent to which pension reforms will translate into an increase of the effective retirement age Source: LFS Comment : some further statistical / methodological work would be necessary PN- P8 NAT: Projections of Pension expenditure, public and total, (% of GDP) Specific assumptions agreed in the AWG. For further details, see "The 2005 EPC projections of age-related expenditure ( ) for the EU-25 Member States: underlying assumptions and projection methodologies". Source: AWG Projections of pension expenditures also reflect assumptions made on economic trends (notably evolution of employment rates, in particular for older workers). Attention should be drawn to the extent that the various methodologies used by Member States may not ensure full consistency and comparability (in particular in the coverage of private and occupational pensions) IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

198 Secondary indicators Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Definition Breakdowns Comments Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 20 PN- S9 NAT: Total social Protection expenditures (% of GDP) ESSPROS - In development: gross / net expenditure PN- S10 NAT: Decomposition of the projected increase in public pension expenditure Decomposition with the old age dependency ratio, the employment effect, the take-up ratio and the benefit ratio. Specific assumptions agreed in the AWG. - Projections of pension expenditures also reflect assumptions made on economic trends (notably evolution of employment rates, in particular for older workers). For further details, see "The 2005 EPC projections of age-related expenditure ( ) for the EU-25 Member States: underlying assumptions and projection methodologies". Source: AWG Attention should be drawn to the extent that the various methodologies used by Member States may not ensure full consistency and comparability (in particular in the coverage of private and occupational pensions) 20 Commonly agreed national indicators based on commonly agreed definitions and assumptions that provide key information to assess the progress of MS in relation to certain objectives, while not allowing for a direct cross-country comparison, and not necessarily having a clear normative interpretation. These indicators/statistics should be interpreted jointly with the relevant background information (exact definition, assumptions, representativeness). IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

199 Context indicators PN-C2 EU: Old-age dependency ratio (Current and projected for 2010, 2030, 2050) - ESTAT 21 PN-C3 EU: Evolution of life expectancy at birth and at ages 60 and 65, by gender (current and projected) PN-C4 NAT: Pension system dependency ratio (Number of pensioners relative to contributors, current and projected up to Specific assumptions by AWG) 22 PN-C5 NAT: Contribution to public and private pension schemes (Pension contributions to public pension schemes as a share of GDP, current and projected to 2050) Source: AWG The development of dependency ratios provides key information on future pressures on pension systems expenditures and resources. 22 For further details, see "The 2005 EPC projections of age-related expenditure ( ) for the EU-25 Member States: underlying assumptions and projection methodologies". Projections of pension expenditures also reflect assumptions made on economic trends (notably evolution of employment rates, in particular for older workers). Attention should be drawn to the extent that the various methodologies used by Member States may not ensure full consistency and comparability (in particular in the coverage of private and occupational pensions) 23 See above IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

200 5.3. 3rd Streamlined objective pensions - modernised pensions "Ensure that pension systems are transparent, well adapted to the needs and aspirations of women and men and the requirements of modern societies, demographic ageing and structural change; that people receive the information they need to plan their retirement and that reforms are conducted on the basis of the broadest possible consensus". Primary indicators Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Definition Breakdowns Comments Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 24 PN- P9 EU: Gender differences in the risk of poverty See at-risk of poverty rate 0-65, 65+ Total + women/men living alone Related secondary indicators: by age group (60+ and 75+ and below 60, 75); PN- P10 EU: Gender differences in the relative income of older people See relative income for 65+, in relation to the 0-64 population Total + women/men living alone Related secondary indicators: by age group (60+ and 75+ and below 60, 75); PN- P11 EU: Gender differences in aggregate replacement ratio See aggregate replacement ratio 24 Commonly agreed national indicators based on commonly agreed definitions and assumptions that provide key information to assess the progress of MS in relation to certain objectives, while not allowing for a direct cross-country comparison, and not necessarily having a clear normative interpretation. These indicators/statistics should be interpreted jointly with the relevant background information (exact definition, assumptions, representativeness). IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

201 Secondary indicators Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Definition Breakdowns Comments Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 25 PN- S11 EU Gender differences in the relative income older people See relative income for 65+, in relation to the 0-64 population, by age group (60+ and 75+ and below 60, 75); Total + women/men living alone 25 Commonly agreed national indicators based on commonly agreed definitions and assumptions that provide key information to assess the progress of MS in relation to certain objectives, while not allowing for a direct cross-country comparison, and not necessarily having a clear normative interpretation. These indicators/statistics should be interpreted jointly with the relevant background information (exact definition, assumptions, representativeness). IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

202 6. HEALTH PORTFOLIO PRELIMINARY LIST, WORK IN PROGRESS (LIST IS INCOMPLETE) The following is a preliminary proposal for a set of indicators to use in the 2006 reporting exercise to reflect the common objectives in the area of health and long-term care. The current list is based on previous discussion papers and ISG meetings regarding health and long-term care statistics (December 2004, October, 2005, January 2006 and April 2006) and on current data availability at international sources (Eurostat, OECD, WHO). Note that there is a large pool of statistics related to health and health care but the proposal attempts to focus on those that are relevant from a social protection point of view. Since the perspective dimension is fundamental for costs containment the proposal also includes national indicators based on commonly agreed definitions and assumptions such as the public expenditure on health care and long-term care. The proposed set of indicators was discussed on the 19 May ISG meeting. Since it was not possible to cover all the areas, the current lists represent work in progress and cannot be taken to fully reflect all the dimensions of health and long-term care. The ISG meeting did not have time to discuss proposals in the following areas: Rational use of resources/incentives (Inpatient discharges, hospital daycases, acute care bed occupancy, average length of stay, generics sales) Promotion and prevention (regular smokers, total alcohol consumption, obesity, malnutrition, physical activity) Human resources (number of pharmacists, dentists) Note that this portfolio does not necessarily correspond to the full list of indicators for the health and long-term care strand of the streamlined OMC. Previous ISG meetings have suggested that there may be other potential indicators. These are not currently presented because they require future developments or because related data will not be made available until future reporting exercises (e.g. variables in the European Health Interview Survey). For example the area of long-term care although deemed highly relevant is not well covered by internationally available and comparable statistics. Some of the dimensions not included in this list but which may be covered in the complete set of health and long-term care indicators following future ISG meetings are: Self reported unmet need for medical/dental examination/care: Use, definition and breakdowns yet to be agreed upon once data is available for all countries. Currently discussed proposal is: % of the population perceiving an unmet need for medical examination or treatment for the following reasons (aggregated): i) could not afford to (too expensive) + ii) waiting list + iii) too far to travel/ no means of transportation IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

203 Out of Pocket payments by households Regional dispersion of healthcare supply Care utilisation by socio-economic status Mortality and life expectancy by socio-economic status Survival rates and readmission rates Long term care: o definitions to be used, o formal and informal care, o public and private expenditure, o provision of formal care in institutions and at home o dependency rates Quality Human resources IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

204 6.1. Proposed list of indicators: Access and inequalities in outcomes (objective 1) Primary indicators Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 26 Definition Age breakdown Gender breakdown Comments HC- P1 Self reported unmet need for medical care Use, definition and breakdowns yet to be agreed upon once data is available for all countries. - - Not for 2006 report (use alternative national/eu measures if opportune). Source: EU-SILC This indicator could also be included in the overarching portfolio (indicator 8) HC- P2 Self reported unmet need for dental care Use, definition and breakdowns yet to be agreed upon once data is available for all countries. - - Not for 2006 report (use alternative national/eu measures if opportune). Source: EU-SILC HC- P3 EU: Infant mortality Infant mortality rates Source: ESTAT No No Further development: by socio economic status of parents (level of education, income quintile). In the meantime, to be reported if available nationally 26 Commonly agreed national indicators based on commonly agreed definitions and assumptions that provide key information to assess the progress of MS in relation to certain objectives, while not allowing for a direct cross-country comparison, and not necessarily having a clear normative interpretation. These indicators/statistics should be interpreted jointly with the relevant background information (exact definition, assumptions, representativeness). IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

205 Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 26 Definition Age breakdown Gender breakdown Comments HC- P4 EU: Life expectancy Life expectancy Source: ESTAT Yes: at birth, at 45, at 65 Yes Further development: by socio economic status (level of education, income quintile) (at birth= socio economic status of parents) In the meantime, to be reported if available nationally HC- P5 NAT: Healthy Life years Number of years that a person at birth, at 45, at 65 is still expected to live in a healthy condition (also called disability- free life expectancy). Yes: at birth, 65 Yes Further development: by socio economic status (level of education, income quintile) (at birth= socio economic status of parents). To be interpreted jointly with life expectancy Source: Eurostat This indicator is also included in the overarching portfolio. HC -P6 NAT: The proportion of the population covered by health insurance The proportion of the population covered by insurance when in ill/ in need of care starting by both mandatory and voluntary public and private insurance including individual and employment group health insurance and including primary, outpatient and inpatient secondary care, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, dental care, preventive care, mental health care and long term care. Long term care should be reported separately where available. Report on partial covering if necessary. No No Member states should highlight the role of the insurance according to the OECD classification. Member States should provide this information either directly or via OECD data Source: OECD and national IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

206 Secondary indicators Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 27 Definition Age breakdown Gender break-down Comments HC -S1 NAT: Self-perceived limitations in daily activities Self-perceived limitations in daily activities Source: EU-SILC Age groups: 18-44; 45-54; 55-64; 65+; Yes Other possible breakdowns: Income quintiles, level of education: 0+1 primary education, 2 lower secondary, 3+4 upper secondary and postsecondary non-tertiary, 5+6 first-stage and second-stage tertiary 27 Commonly agreed national indicators based on commonly agreed definitions and assumptions that provide key information to assess the progress of MS in relation to certain objectives, while not allowing for a direct cross-country comparison, and not necessarily having a clear normative interpretation. These indicators/statistics should be interpreted jointly with the relevant background information (exact definition, assumptions, representativeness). 28 One should note that for the age breakdown of people aged 75 and more, there may be some potential statistical difficulties due to the size of samples, and non coverage of collective households by household surveys. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

207 Context indicators Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 29 Definition Age breakdown Gender break-down Comments HC -C1 NAT: Self reported unmet need for medical examination By reason, use definition and breakdowns to be decided once data is available for all countries Source: EU-SILC - - Other breakdown: by the three selected reasons HC -C2 NAT: Self reported unmet need for dental care By reason, use definition and breakdowns to be decided once data is available for all countries Source: EU-SILC - - Other breakdown: by the three selected reasons HC -C3 NAT: acute care beds Total number of acute care beds per inhabitants by health region. Source: ESTAT, OECD, WHO No No Other possible breakdowns: by health region or, if not available for the current exercise, by NUTS II HC -C4 NAT: physicians Total number of active physicians per inhabitants by health region. Source: ESTAT, WHO, OECD No No Other possible breakdowns: by health region or, if not available for the current exercise, by NUTS II. Also used to compute geographical disparities of supply. 29 Commonly agreed national indicators based on commonly agreed definitions and assumptions that provide key information to assess the progress of MS in relation to certain objectives, while not allowing for a direct cross-country comparison, and not necessarily having a clear normative interpretation. These indicators/statistics should be interpreted jointly with the relevant background information (exact definition, assumptions, representativeness). IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

208 Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 29 Definition Age breakdown Gender break-down Comments HC -C5 NAT: nurses and midwives Total number of active nurses and midwives per inhabitants by health region. Source: ESTAT, WHO, OECD No No Other breakdowns by health region or, if not available for the current exercise, by NUTS II. Also used to compute geographical disparities of supply. HC -C6 NAT: Self-perceived Health General self perceived health Source: EU-SILC Age groups: 18-44; 45-54; 55-64; 65+; 75+ Yes Other possible breakdowns: Income quintiles, level of education: 0+1 primary education, 2 lower secondary, 3+4 upper secondary and postsecondary non-tertiary, 5+6 first-stage and second-stage tertiary IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

209 6.2. Proposed list of indicators: Quality (2 nd objective) Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) Definition Age breakdown Gender break-down Comments HC -P6 NAT: Prevention measures: vaccination % of 2 years old covered by the basic vaccination programme (fully immunised): typically against pertussis, diphtheria, tetanus DPT, poliomyelitis, measles, rubella, mumps MMR, hepatitis B, heamophilus influenzae HiB) Source: OECD and WHO And % of 65+ vaccinated against influenza No No The Group should choose whether to: a) focus on government programme and not distinguish the conditions, b) distinguish between vaccines and keep all the list or c) reduce the list and if yes which set of vaccines should be chosen. Source: OECD IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

210 6.3. Proposed list of indicators: Sustainability (3 rd objective) Primary indicators Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) Definition Age breakdown Gender break-down Comments HC -P7 EU: total health expenditure per capita total health expenditure per capita in PPP and b) annual growth rates of per capita expenditure in real terms (over a twenty-year period with sub-periods of five/six years) Source: SHA No No HC -P8 EU: Total health expenditure as a % of GDP total, public and private expenditure on health as % of GDP, b) trends (of total and public expenditure in the last ten years and computing the rate of change in health expenditure as % of GDP over a five/six-year period) No No Source: SHA HC -P9 EU: Public /private expenditure a) public and private expenditure (divided into % of out-of-pocket payments and % of private health care insurance) as % of total expenditure and b) trends (of public expenditure over a ten-year period and the rate of change over that period) No No Source: SHA IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

211 Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) Definition Age breakdown Gender break-down Comments HC - P10 EU: Total expenditure on main types of care a) total expenditure on main types of care (prevention and public health, outpatient care, inpatient care, pharmaceuticals and other medical non-durables separated into prescription and over the counter medicines) and b) trends (in-patient and pharmaceuticals over the last five/six years) No No Source: SHA Context indicators Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) Definition Age breakdown Gender break-down Comments HC -C7 NAT: projections of public expenditure on health care as % of GDP Age-related projections of health care, current level (% of GDP) and projected change in share of GDP (in percentage points) ( ) Specific assumptions agreed in the AWG/EPC. See "The 2005 EPC projections of age-related expenditures ( ) for EU-25: underlying assumptions and projection methodologies" No No Source: EPC/AWG IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

212 Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) Definition Age breakdown Gender break-down Comments HC -C8 NAT: projection of public expenditure on long-term care as % of GDP Age-related projections of long-term care, current level (% of GDP) and projected change in share of GDP (in percentage points) ( ) Specific assumptions agreed in the AWG/EPC. See "The 2005 EPC projections of age-related expenditures ( ) for EU-25: underlying assumptions and projection methodologies" No No Source: EPC/AWG IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

213 Annex III IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

214 IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

215 EUROPEAN COMMISSION Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities DG Social protection and social integration Social and demography analysis Brussels, April 2008 PORTFOLIO OF OVERARCHING INDICATORS AND STREAMLINED SOCIAL INCLUSION, PENSIONS, AND HEALTH PORTFOLIOS APRIL 2008 UPDATE 1. USE OF INDICATORS AFTER STREAMLINING 1.1. The monitoring framework National Reports on Strategy for social inclusion and social protection Following the adoption by the Council of the Commission s Communication on the streamlining of the OMC on Social Protection and Social Inclusion, the first round of streamlined strategies for the period were submitted to the Commission in the form of National Reports on Strategies for Social Protection and Social Inclusion in September In these reports, Member States reported on all the Common Objectives; overarching, social inclusion, pensions and health care and long-term care. However, while covering all objectives they emphasised certain of them The monitoring framework reporting by the Commission and joint reporting In the new monitoring framework, the Commission drafts a Report for joint adoption by the Commission and the Council prior to the subsequent Spring European Council. This report summarises main issues and trends and assesses Member States' progress in reaching the common streamlined objectives. In line with the SPC/EPC joint opinion on streamlining endorsed by the March 2006 EPSCO Council, it also reviews how social protection and social inclusion policies are contributing to the Lisbon goals of employment and growth and assess how progress towards the Lisbon goals of employment and growth is impacting on social cohesion The new monitoring framework the use of indicators This section clarifies how indicators and statistics are used in this new reporting context. To begin with, it has to be recalled that all commonly agreed indicators and context information are calculated and regularly updated by Eurostat on the basis of the commonly agreed definitions and presented on the Eurostat web-site on well identified and dedicated pages. Indicators are used to monitor the overarching objectives, as well as the specific objectives of the three strands: social inclusion, pensions and health care. The EU level analysis of the indicators is carried out by the Commission, discussed with the IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

216 indicators Sub-Group of the Social Protection Committee, and made available to Member States in advance of the preparation of the National reports on Social Protection and Social Inclusion. The Commission broadly reviews all indicators on the occasion of the full reporting years (e.g. joint reports 2007 and 2009), and draws on the relevant indicators in each portfolio (social inclusion, pensions, and health) to support more detailed analysis during the thematic years (e.g. child poverty, working longer, health inequalities for the Joint Report 2008). Member States should primarily draw on the portfolio of commonly agreed indicators and statistics to support the analysis presented in their National Reports, according to the "guidelines" agreed for each reporting exercise. This analysis could however be supplemented with national indicators, highlighting national specificities in particular areas of social protection and social inclusion. In the National Plans/strategies by strand, Member States are invited to adopt a focused approach by identifying a few priority objectives, while also addressing all streamlined objectives. In the area of social inclusion they should maintain an integrated and multi-dimensional approach to tackling poverty and social exclusion. The guidelines therefore suggest the priority objectives to be selected on the basis of a comprehensive analysis of the national social situation. The adequate use of the commonly agreed indicators is essential to support this streamlined approach. Each portfolio (overarching, social inclusion, pensions, and health) has been designed to cover all key dimensions encompassed in the common objectives with a reduced number of primary indicators. This also meant to focus the presentation of the indicators on key sub-populations, and to include in the proposal the planned developments. Each strand list therefore constitutes a commonly agreed condensed and comprehensive monitoring tool of a country's social situation with regards to the common objectives in each strand. Member States should therefore assess their situation using the primary level streamlined strand lists. This assessment, supported by relevant national level information, should provide a powerful tool to identify priority objectives. On this basis, Member States are invited to specify what indicators (common and national) will used to monitor progress towards the achievement of the national priority objectives. 2. GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR THE SELECTION OF INDICATORS AND STATISTICS The ISG has agreed on a broad common methodological framework for the development of the overarching portfolio, and the review/development of the three strand indicators lists. This framework builds on the methodological principles agreed for the Laeken portfolio. However, it departs from the original framework in two ways: the choice of indicators is not limited to outcome indicators in order to better reflect the action and impact of policies; and, as explained below, some flexibility is introduced as how strictly the criteria are applied, notably allowing for the inclusion in the list of commonly agreed national indicators" based on commonly agreed definitions and assumptions. Each of the four indicators portfolios (i.e. the portfolio of overarching indicators and each of the three strand indicators portfolios) should aim at providing a comprehensive and efficient tool for the monitoring of the common objectives: IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

217 (1) it should be comprehensive and cover all key dimensions of the common objectives; (2) it should be balanced across the different dimensions; (3) it should enable a synthetic and transparent assessment of a country's situation in relation to the common objectives. The selection of individual indicators should, in principle, be guided by the following minimum set of methodological criteria: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) An indicator should capture the essence of the problem and have a clear and accepted normative interpretation An indicator should be robust and statistically validated An indicator should provide a sufficient level of cross countries comparability, as far as practicable with the use of internationally applied definitions and data collection standards An indicator should be built on available underlying data, and be timely and susceptible to revision An indicator should be responsive to policy interventions but not subject to manipulation Past experience in the development of indicators by the ISG has however shown that specific key information might be essential to capture one of the key dimensions of a commonly agreed policy objective (portfolio criteria 1), while not fulfilling all criteria for the selection of indicators (e.g. comparability, normative value). In order to overcome this difficulty, the ISG has agreed to flag the indicators and statistics included in the different overarching and strand lists according to how they should be used. The following three categories (EU, National, Context) aim at warning the user of the specific purpose and limitations of each indicator in the list Each portfolio would contain: Commonly agreed EU indicators contributing to a comparative assessment of MS's progress towards the common objectives. These indicators might refer to social outcomes, intermediate social outcomes or outputs. Commonly agreed national indicators based on commonly agreed definitions and assumptions that provide key information to assess the progress of MS in relation to certain objectives, while not allowing for a direct crosscountry comparison, or not necessarily having a clear normative interpretation. These indicators are especially suited to measure the scale and nature of policy intervention. These indicators should be interpreted jointly with the relevant background information (exact definition, assumptions, representativeness). Context information: Each portfolio will have to be assessed in the light of key context information, and by referring to past, and where relevant, future trends. The list of context information proposed is indicative and leaves room to other IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

218 background information that would be most relevant to better frame and understand the national context. Within each strand portfolio, for the sake of streamlining, a reduced number of primary EU and national indicators has been suggested as a condensed set of lead indicators which cover all essential dimensions of the defined objectives and/or highlight the social situation of key sub-populations (portfolio criteria 1 and 2); whereas secondary (EU and national) indicators would support these lead indicators by providing a greater insight into the nature of the problem (portfolio criteria 3). In chapters 3, 4 and 5 we describe how these overall guiding principles have been applied to the selection of an overarching portfolio (chapter 3), for a streamlined social inclusion portfolio (chapter 4), and for a streamlined pensions portfolio (chapter 5). In 2006, the report adopted by the SPC only contained a preliminary list of indicators in the area of health care and long-term care, also highlighting areas for development. In April 2008, the Social Protection Committee adopted a new list of indicators for the monitoring of the health care and long-term care objectives of the Open Method of Coordination on Social Protection and Social Inclusion, as well as two new health related indicators to be included in the overarching portfolio. Chapter 6 presents the newly adopted portfolio. 3. THE OVERARCHING PORTFOLIO As agreed by the March 2006 EPSCO Council, the 3 overarching objectives of the social protection and social inclusion processes are to promote: (a) (b) (c) social cohesion, equality between men and women and equal opportunities for all through adequate, accessible, financially sustainable, adaptable and efficient social protection systems and social inclusion policies; effective and mutual interaction between the Lisbon objectives of greater economic growth, more and better jobs and greater social cohesion, and with the EU's Sustainable Development Strategy; good governance, transparency and the involvement of stakeholders in the design, implementation and monitoring of policy Specific guiding principles for the selection of indicators for the overarching portfolio On the basis of these objectives, the ISG has defined a reduced set of new or already agreed EU or national indicators to monitor each of these broad objectives. In selecting these indicators, the ISG has taken into account the current and planned common indicators used in the 3 social OMCs. In order to enhance the interaction with the Lisbon strategy and the Sustainable Development Strategy, it has also looked at the existing list of structural indicators used for monitoring the Lisbon strategy, as well as at the Sustainable Development Indicators recently adopted by the Commission. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

219 While examining the appropriate methodological principles for the selection of overarching indicators, the ISG reached the following conclusions: The portfolio should reflect fully the overarching objectives, including dimensions that are "overarching" (Social Protection expenditures, Labour Market participation rates) and not specific to a strand in particular. Indicators do not need to be allocated to objectives (a) and (b) separately, since a number of them illustrate both objectives, as indicated in the first column of the table The portfolio should include indicators reflecting the link between the main policy areas and ultimate social cohesion outcomes, this could be achieved through an adequate combination of indicators reflecting social outcomes (e.g. at-risk-poverty rates, other income and living conditions indicators, unemployment rates, educational attainment, etc.) and indicators reflecting the scale and nature of social policy interventions (e.g. social protection expenditures, etc) The portfolio should reflect the main priorities of each strand in a balanced way (e.g., reinforce the health dimension) The list of 14 indicators and 12 context information items presented below is the result of two plenary session discussions and two written consultations. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

220 3.2. Overarching portfolio The table indicates for each indicator the key dimension covered, the name and definition of each indicator and whether it is considered a commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) or a commonly agreed national indicator (NAT). Key dimension overarching objectives concerned Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 1 Definition Breakdowns 1a Risk of poverty (a) EU: At-risk-of-poverty rate Share of persons aged 0+ with an equivalised disposable income below 60% of the national equivalised median income2. By age: Total, 0-17, 18-64, Illustrative threshold value In future consider the possibility to add Atpersistent risk of poverty rate Value of the at-risk-of-poverty threshold (60% median national equivalised income) in PPS for an illustrative household type (e.g., single person household) Source: SILC 1b Intensity of poverty risk (a) EU: Relative median poverty risk gap Difference between the median equivalised income of persons aged 0+ below the at-risk-of poverty threshold and the threshold itself, expressed as a percentage of the at-risk-of poverty threshold. By age: Total, 0-17, 18-64, Commonly agreed national indicators based on commonly agreed definitions and assumptions that provide key information to assess the progress of MS in relation to certain objectives, while not allowing for a direct cross-country comparison, and not necessarily having a clear normative interpretation. These indicators/statistics should be interpreted jointly with the relevant background information (exact definition, assumptions, representativeness). 2 Equivalised median income is defined as the household's total disposable income divided by its "equivalent size", to take account of the size and composition of the household, and is attributed to each household member (including children). Equivalization is made on the basis of the OECD modified scale. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

221 Key dimension overarching objectives concerned Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 1 Definition Breakdowns 2 Income inequalities (a) EU: S80/S20 Ratio of total income received by the 20% of the country's population with the highest income (top quintile) to that received by the 20% of the country's population with the lowest income (lowest quintile). None Income must be understood as equivalised disposable income. Source: SILC 3 Health inequalities (a) NAT: Healthy life expectancy Number of years that a person at birth, at 45, at 65 is still expected to live in a healthy condition (also called disabilityfree life expectancy). At birth, at 45, at 65 By sex To be interpreted jointly with life expectancy Source: EUROSTAT IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

222 Key dimension overarching objectives concerned Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 1 Definition Breakdowns 4 Educational outcome and human capital formation (a)/(b) EU: Early school leavers Share of persons aged 18 to 24 who have only lower secondary education (their highest level of education or training attained is 0, 1 or 2 according to the 1997 International Standard Classification of Education ISCED 97) and have not received education or training in the four weeks preceding the survey. Source: LFS By sex 5 Access to labour market (a)/(b) EU: People living in jobless households Proportion of people living in jobless households, expressed as a share of all people in the same age group3. This indicator should be analysed in the light of context indicator N 8: jobless households by main household types By age: 0-17, By sex (18+ only) Source: LFS 3 Students aged years who live in households composed solely of students are not counted in neither numerator nor denominator IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

223 Key dimension overarching objectives concerned Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 1 Definition Breakdowns 6 Financial Sustainability of social protection systems (a) NAT: Projected Total Public Social expenditures Age-related projections of total public social expenditures (e.g. pensions, health care, long-term care, education and unemployment transfers), current level (% of GDP) and projected change in share of GDP (in percentage points) ( ) Specific assumptions agreed in the AWG/EPC. See "The 2005 EPC projections of age-related expenditures ( ) for EU-25: underlying assumptions and projection methodologies" Source: EPC/AWG 7a Pensions adequacy (a) EU: Median relative income of elderly people Median equivalised income of people aged 65+ as a ratio of income of people aged Source: EU-SILC IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

224 Key dimension overarching objectives concerned Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 1 Definition Breakdowns 7b Pensions adequacy (a) EU: Aggregate replacement ratio Median individual pensions of relative to median individual earnings of 50-59, excluding other social benefits By sex Source: EU-SILC 8 Inequalities in access to health care (a) NAT: Self reported unmet need for medical care NAT: Care utilisation Total self-reported unmet need for medical care for the following three reasons: financial barriers + waiting times + too far to travel To be analysed together with care utilisation defined as the number of visits to a doctor (GP or specialist) during the last 12 months. By Sex, By Age 4 groups: 18-44; 45-54; 55-64; 65+; 75+ Source: EU-SILC available annually subject to adjustment of EU-SILC in the future 9 Improved standards of living resulting from economic growth EU: At-risk-of-poverty rate anchored at a fixed moment in time (2005) Possibly replaced or supplemented in future by material deprivation or consistent poverty Share of persons aged 0+ with an equivalised disposable income below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold calculated in year 2005 (1st EU-SILC income reference year for all 25 EU countries), up-rated by inflation over the years. By age: Total, 0-17, 18-64, 65+ By sex (18+ only) 4 Note that for the age breakdown of people aged 75 and more there may be some potential statistical difficulties due to the size of samples and non coverage of collective households by household surveys. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

225 Key dimension overarching objectives concerned Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 1 Definition Breakdowns (a)/(b) indicators Source: SILC 10 Employment of older workers (a)/(b) EU: Employment rate of older workers Possibly replaced or supplemented by "average exit age from the labour market" when quality issues are resolved Persons in employment in age groups and as a proportion of total population in the same age group Source: LFS By age: 55-59; By sex 11 In-work poverty (a)/(b) EU: In-work poverty risk Individuals who are classified as employed5 (distinguishing between wage and salary employment plus self-employment and wage and salary employment only) and who are at risk of poverty. This indicator needs to be analysed according to personal, job and household characteristics. It should also be analysed in comparison with the poverty risk faced by the unemployed and the inactive. By sex Source: SILC 5 Individuals classified as employed according to the definition of most frequent activity status. The most frequent activity status is defined as the status that individuals declare to have occupied for more than half the number of months in the calendar year. 1 IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

226 Key dimension overarching objectives concerned Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 1 Definition Breakdowns 12 Participation in labour market (a)/(b) EU: Activity rate Possibly replaced or supplemented in future by MWP indicators Share of employed and unemployed people in total population of working age Source: LFS By sex and age: 15-24, 25-54, 55-59; 60-64; Total 13 Regional cohesion (a)/(b) NAT: Regional disparities coefficient of variation of employment rates Standard deviation6 of regional employment rates divided by the weighted national average (age group years). (NUTS II) Source: LFS 14 Per capita health expenditure (a)/(b) NAT: total health expenditure per capita Total health expenditure per capita in PPP Source: EUROSTAT based on system of health accounts (SHA) data 6 Standard deviation measures how, on average, the situation in regions differs from the national average. As a complement to the indicator a graph showing max/min/average per country is presented. Possible alternative measures: Regional disparities underperforming regions. Source LFS 1. Share of underperforming regions in terms of employment and unemployment (in relation to all regions and to the working age population/labour force) (NUTS II). 2. Differential between average employment/unemployment of the underperforming regions and the national average in relation to the national average of employment/unemployment (NUTS II) Thresholds to be applied: 90% and 150% of the national average rate for employment and unemployment, respectively. (An extra column with the national employment and unemployment rates would be included) IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

227 3.3. Context information: The overarching indicators will have to be assessed in the light of key context information and by referring to past, and where relevant, future trends. The list of context information is indicative and leaves room to other background information that would be most relevant to frame and understand better the national socio-economic context (1) GDP growth (2) Employment rate, by sex Unemployment rate, by sex, and key age groups Long term unemployment rate, by sex and key age groups (3) Life expectancy at birth and at 65 (4) Old age dependency ratio, current and projected (5) Distribution of population by household types, including collective households (6) Public debt, current and projected, % of GDP (7) Social protection expenditure, current, by function, gross and net (ESPROSS) (8) Jobless households by main household types (see breakdown of Social Inclusion indicator 1a) (9) Making work pay indicators (unemployment trap, inactivity trap (esp. second earner case), low-wage trap. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

228 (10) Net income of social assistance recipients as a % of the at-risk of poverty threshold for 3 jobless household types 7. (11) At-risk of poverty rate before social transfers (other than pensions), 0-17, 18-64, (12) NAT: Change in projected theoretical replacement ratio 9 for base case accompanied with information on type of pension scheme (DB, DC or NDC), and change in projected public pension expenditure (These results should systematically be presented collectively in one table). + assumptions and relevant background information on representativeness + present also calculations of changes in replacement rates for one or two other cases, if suitable (for instance OECD) This indicator refers to the income of people living in households that only rely on "last resort" social assistance benefits (including related housing benefits) and for which no other income stream is available (from other social protection benefits e.g. unemployment or disability schemes or from work). The aim of such an indicator is to evaluate if the safety nets provided to those households most excluded from the labour market are sufficient to lift people out of poverty. This indicator is calculated on the basis of the tax-benefit models developed jointly by the OECD and the European Commission. It is only calculated for Countries where non-categorical social benefits are in place and for 3 jobless household types: single, lone parent, 2 children and couple with 2 children. This indicator is especially relevant when analysing MWP indicators This indicator is meant to compare the observed risk of poverty with a hypothetical measure of a risk of poverty in absence of all social transfers (other than pensions) all things being kept equal. In particular, household and labour market structure are kept unchanged. This measure does not take into account other types of transfers that have an impact on household disposable income such as transfers in kind and tax rebates. Definition: Change in the theoretical level of income from pensions at the moment of take-up related to the income from work in the last year before retirement for a hypothetical worker (base case), percentage points, , with information on the type of pension scheme (DB, DC or NDC) and changes in the public pension expenditure as a share of GDP, This information can only collectively form the indicator called Projected theoretical replacement ratio. Results relate to current and projected, gross (public and private) and total net replacement rates, and should be accompanied by information on representativeness and assumptions (contribution rates and coverage rate, public and private). Specific assumptions agreed in the ISG. For further details, see 2006 report on Replacement Rates. Source: ISG and AWG IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

229 4. STREAMLINED SOCIAL INCLUSION PORTFOLIO The new streamlined social inclusion objectives For the social inclusion strand the aim is to make "a decisive impact on the eradication of poverty and social exclusion by ensuring: (d) access for all to the resources, rights and services needed for participation in society, preventing and addressing exclusion, and fighting all forms of discrimination leading to exclusion; (e) the active social inclusion of all, both by promoting participation in the labour market and by fighting poverty and exclusion; (f) that social inclusion policies are well-coordinated and involve all levels of government and relevant actors, including people experiencing poverty, that they are efficient and effective and mainstreamed into all relevant public policies, including economic, budgetary, education and training policies and structural fund (notably ESF) programmes. The methodological approach to reviewing the Laeken list Indicators to be used for monitoring the social inclusion strand of the Social Protection and Social Inclusion Strategy largely draw from the existing set of "Laeken indicators" in its present form. Also the methodological framework that was originally used to set up the list is maintained in its essence. That is, it is proposed to maintain the distinction between primary and secondary indicators. Accordingly, primary indicators would still be a restricted number of "lead indicators which cover the broad fields that have been considered the most important elements in leading to social exclusion"; whereas secondary indicators would support these lead indicators by describing in greater detail the nature of the problem or by describing other dimensions of the problem. Member States are expected to use at least the primary indicators in their national strategy reports, if only to emphasise that in the context of the EU social inclusion process poverty and social exclusion are a relative concept that encompasses income, access to essential durables, education, health care, adequate housing, distance from the labour market. The agreed list contains 11 primary indicators, 3 secondary indicators and 11 context indicators In practice, the primary list has been re-focused to contain only the most important indicators that describe the various dimensions of poverty and social exclusion. A few indicators that were in IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

230 the primary list became secondary indicators. Other Laeken indicators are now included in the overarching portfolio, either because they are considered as more appropriate to monitor overall social cohesion (in which case they are only kept as context information) or because they are considered crucial indicators to monitor both social cohesion (and/or its interaction with employment and growth) and social exclusion and poverty (in this case, they are included in both lists). Finally, a few indicators were considered redundant and were dropped: persistent poverty calculated with a 50% threshold, long-term unemployment share and very long-term unemployment rate. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

231 4.1. Proposed list of primary indicators Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 10 Definition Age breakdown Gender breakdown Comments SI- P1 EU: At-risk-of poverty rate + illustrative threshold values Share of persons aged 0+ with an equivalised disposable income below 60% of the national equivalised median income. Equivalised median income is defined as the household's total disposable income divided by its "equivalent size", to take account of the size and composition of the household, and is attributed to each household member. Equivalization is made on the basis of the OECD modified scale. Complemented by the value of the at-risk-of-poverty threshold (60% median national equivalised income) in PPS for two illustrative households: a single-person household and a household consisting of two adults and two children. Age groups: 0-17; 18-64; 65+ Yes, applying to people aged 18+ The full range of age breakdowns originally agreed upon for this indicator could be contained in the secondary list, as well as in the pension indicators' list for what concerns the older age group. For each country, the poverty risk indicator must be assessed by looking at both the number of people whose income is below the threshold and the comparative level (in PPS) of this threshold. This indicator is also included in the overarching portfolio (indicator 1a). 10 Commonly agreed national indicators based on commonly agreed definitions and assumptions that provide key information to assess the progress of MS in relation to certain objectives, while not allowing for a direct cross-country comparison, and not necessarily having a clear normative interpretation. These indicators/statistics should be interpreted jointly with the relevant background information (exact definition, assumptions, representativeness). IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

232 Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 10 Definition Age breakdown Gender breakdown Comments SI- P2 EU: Persistent at-risk of poverty rate Share of persons aged 0+ with an equivalised disposable income below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold in the current year and in at least two of the preceding three years. Age groups: 0-17; 18-64; 65+ Yes, applying to people aged 18+ Not for 2006 report (use alternative national/eu measures if opportune). This indicator will become available as from 2009, when four years of longitudinal data from EU-SILC will be available for the 13 EU countries that launched EU-SILC in It will be available for all 25 MS as from SI- P3 EU: Relative median poverty risk gap Difference between the median equivalised income of persons aged 0+ below the at-risk-of poverty threshold and the threshold itself, expressed as a percentage of the at-risk-of poverty threshold. Age groups: 0-17; 18-64; 65+ Yes, applying to people aged 18+ This indicator is also included in the overarching portfolio (indicator 1b) SI- P4 EU: Long term unemployment rate Total long-term unemployed population ( 12 months' unemployment; ILO definition) as a proportion of total active population aged 15 years or more. No Yes The long term unemployment rate needs to be interpreted in the light of information on the activity/inactivity rate of the population. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

233 Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 10 Definition Age breakdown Gender breakdown Comments SI- P5 EU: Population living in jobless households Proportion of people living in jobless households, expressed as a share of all people in the same age group. Students aged years who live in households composed solely of students are counted in neither numerator nor denominator. This indicator should be analysed in the light of context indicator N 7: jobless households by main household types Age groups: ; Yes (for only) This indicator is also proposed as an indicator to monitor the overarching objectives. It sheds light on an important aspect of social exclusion as it reflects the lack of contact of children and working-age adults with the world of work. It also reflects polarization of employment across households. This indicator is also included in the overarching portfolio (indicator 5) SI- P6 EU: Early school leavers not in education or training Share of persons aged 18 to 24 who have only lower secondary education (their highest level of education or training attained is 0, 1 or 2 according to the 1997 International Standard Classification of Education ISCED 97) and have not received education or training in the four weeks preceding the survey. No Yes This indicator is also included in the overarching portfolio (indicator 4) The definition of this indicator may be amended following the recommendation by Eurostat to focus on the age group years (and in line with EMCO). IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

234 Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 10 Definition Age breakdown Gender breakdown Comments SI- P7 NAT: Employment gap of immigrants Percentage point difference between the employment rate for non-immigrants and that for immigrants. Immigrants are defined on the basis of the variable "born abroad11" (and it is up to each Country to decide whether to include nationals born abroad or not, as appropriate) No Yes This indicator needs to be supplemented by relevant national data covering other key aspects of inclusion of immigrants. SI- P8 EU: Material deprivation To be developed Age groups: 0-17; 18-64; 65+ Yes Not for 2006 report (use alternative national measures if opportune). Indicator to be developed based on information available in EU-SILC 11 The indicator should be presented both for EU25 and non EU-25 migrants. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

235 Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 10 Definition Age breakdown Gender breakdown Comments SI- P9 Housing To be developed Age groups: 0-17; 18-64; 65+ Yes Not for 2006 reporting On the basis of national sources, Member States have to report on homelessness, housing costs and decent housing Indicator to be developed based on information available in EU-SILC IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

236 Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 10 Definition Age breakdown Gender breakdown Comments SI- P10 NAT: Self reported unmet need for medical care NAT: Care utilisation Total self-reported unmet need for medical care for the following three reasons: financial barriers + waiting times + too far to travel To be analysed together with care utilisation defined as the number of visits to a doctor (GP or specialist) during the last 12 months. Source: EU-SILC available annually subject to adjustment of EU-SILC in the future Yes: Age 12 groups: 18-44; 45-54; 55-64; 65+; 75+ Yes By income quintile. Future developments: resolve discrepancies in EU-SILC translation between countries. Comment 1: for 2008 and to look at care utilisation we can use the number of physician consultations (contact with a GP or specialist) per capita based on OECD health data and national sources for non-oecd members. For future reporting exercises, EU-SILC data is to be used (EU-SILC module 2009). Comment 2: also included in the overarching portfolio. SI- P11 Child well-being To be developed 12 Note that for the age breakdown of people aged 75 and more there may be some potential statistical difficulties due to the size of samples and non coverage of collective households by household surveys. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

237 4.2 Proposed list of secondary indicators Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 13 Definition Age breakdown Gender breakdown Comments SI- S1 EU: At-risk-of poverty rate Share of persons aged 0+ with an equivalised disposable income below 60% of the national equivalised median income. Full age breakdow n: 0-17; 18-24; 25-54; 55-64; 65+ Yes, applying to people aged 18+ Full range of age breakdowns For each country, the poverty risk indicator must be assessed by looking at both the number of people whose income is below the threshold and the comparative level (in PPS) of this threshold. 13 Commonly agreed national indicators based on commonly agreed definitions and assumptions that provide key information to assess the progress of MS in relation to certain objectives, while not allowing for a direct cross-country comparison, and not necessarily having a clear normative interpretation. These indicators/statistics should be interpreted jointly with the relevant background information (exact definition, assumptions, representativeness). IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

238 Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 13 Definition Age breakdown Gender breakdown Comments SI- S1a EU: Poverty risk by household type Poverty risk for the total population aged 0+ in the following household types: Households with no dependent children: - Single person, under 65 years old - Single person, 65 years and over - Single women - Single men - Two adults, at least one person 65 years and over - Two adults, both under 65 years - Other households Already specified in the typology of households. Already specified in the typology of households. Households with dependent children14: - Single parent, 1 or more dependent children - Two adults, one dependent child - Two adults, two dependent children - Two adults, three or more dependent children - Three or more adults with dependent children 14 Dependent children are all individuals aged 0 17 years as well as individuals aged years if inactive and living with at least one parent. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

239 Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 13 Definition Age breakdown Gender breakdown Comments SI- S1 b EU: Poverty risk by the work intensity of households Poverty risk for the total population aged 0+ in different work intensity categories and broad household types. The work intensity of the household refers to the number of months that all working age household members have been working during the income reference year as a proportion of the total number of months that could theoretically be worked within the household. Age groups: 0-17; 18-64; 65+ Yes, applying to people aged Individuals are classified into work intensity categories that range from WI=0 (jobless household) to WI=1 (full work intensity). SI- S1c EU: Poverty risk by most frequent activity status Poverty risk for the adult population (aged 18 years and over) in the following most frequent activity status groups: employment (singling out wage and salary employment); unemployment; retirement; other inactivity. - Yes (applying to people aged 18 +). The most frequent activity status is defined as the status that individuals declare to have occupied for more than half the number of months in the calendar year for which information on occupational status is available. SI- S1 d EU: Poverty risk by accommodation tenure status Poverty risk for the total population aged 0+ in the following accommodation tenure categories: - Owner-occupied or rent free - Rented Age groups: 0-17; 18-64; 65+ Yes, applying to people aged 18 + This breakdown may have to be reconsidered once imputed rent can be taken into account in indicator 1 IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

240 Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 13 Definition Age breakdown Gender breakdown Comments SI- S1e EU: Dispersion around the at-risk-of-poverty threshold Share of persons aged 0+ with an equivalised disposable income below 40%, 50% and 70% of the national equivalised median income. Age groups: 0-17; 18-64; 65+ Yes, applying to people aged 18 + SI- S2 EU: Persons with low educational attainment Share of the adult population (aged 25 years and over) whose highest level of education or training is ISCED 0, 1 or 2. Definition subject to change following current Eurostat work on this indicator Age groups: 25-34; 35-54; 55-64; 65+; Yes Please note the reduction of the age breakdowns SI- S3 EU: Low reading literacy performance of pupils Share of 15 years old pupils who are at level 1 or below of the PISA combined reading literacy scale N.A. Yes Available every three years. Benchmark indicator of the education and training OMC IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

241 4.3 Context information SI-C1 Income quintile ratio (S80/S20) - This indicator is also included in the overarching portfolio (indicator 2) SI-C2 Gini coefficient SI-C3 Regional cohesion: dispersion in regional employment rates - This indicator is also included in the overarching portfolio (indicator 13) SI-C4 Healthy Life expectancy and Life expectancy at birth, at 65, (by Socio-Economic Status when available) - This indicator is also included in the overarching portfolio (indicator 3) SI-C5 At-risk-of-poverty rate anchored at a moment in time - This indicator is also included in the overarching portfolio (indicator 9) SI-C6 At-risk-of-poverty rate before social cash transfers (other than pensions) 15 SI-C7 Jobless households by main household types (see breakdown of secondary indicator 1a) SI-C8 SI-C9 In-work poverty risk, breakdown full-time/part time Making work pay indicators (unemployment trap, inactivity trap (esp. second earner case), low-wage trap. SI-C10 Net income of social assistance recipients as a % of the at-risk of poverty threshold for 3 jobless household types 16. SI-C11 Self reported limitations in daily activities by income quintiles, by sex, by age (0-17, 18-64, 65+) 15 This indicator is meant to compare the observed risk of poverty with an hypothetical measure of a risk of poverty in absence of all social transfers (other than pensions) all things being kept equal. In particular, household and labour market structure are kept unchanged. This measure does not take into account other types of transfers that have an impact on household disposable income such as transfers in kind and tax rebates. 16 This indicator refers to the income of people living in households that only rely on "last resort" social assistance benefits (including related housing benefits) and for which no other income stream is available (from other social protection benefits e.g. unemployment or disability schemes or from work). The aim of such an indicator is to evaluate if the safety nets provided to those households most excluded from the labour market are sufficient to lift people out of poverty. This indicator is calculated on the basis of the tax-benefit models developed jointly by the OECD and the European Commission. It is only calculated for Countries where non-categorical social benefits are in place and for 3 jobless household types: single, lone parent, 2 children and couple with 2 children. This indicator is especially relevant when analysing MWP indicators IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

242 5. STREAMLINED PENSIONS PORTFOLIO The list of streamlined indicators to reflect the three streamlined objectives as regards pensions is based on the available set of indicators developed by the ISG (as reflected by the list of indicators and data used for the 2005 National Strategy Reports on pensions and on previous ISG reports on work in progress as regards indicators on pensions in late 2002). The agreed list contains 11 primary indicators, 11 secondary indicators and 5 context indicators regrouped according to the streamlined objective to which they refer. Since the perspective dimension is fundamental for pensions, national indicators based on commonly agreed definitions and assumptions (as explained in section 2) have also been included. The ISG has also agreed to consider developing other indicators which would cover the following dimensions: Material deprivation of older people (regarding first streamlined objective for pensions); Age of entry into the labour market (regarding first streamlined objective for pensions); Coverage rate of public statutory pension schemes and private pensions (as a percentage of the working age population and active population) (regarding first streamlined objective for pensions); Financial incentives to work longer (regarding first two streamlined objectives for pensions); Administrative costs of private pensions (regarding second streamlined objective for pensions); Assets in all pension schemes (statutory and occupational, including reserve funds), current and projected (as percentage of GDP) up to 2050 (regarding second streamlined objective for pensions); Past ten years performance on pension funds (average and standard deviation) (regarding second streamlined objective for pensions); Share of active population having access to information on their individual pension entitlements (regarding third streamlined objective for pensions); Average typical length of vesting/waiting periods (regarding third streamlined objective for pensions); Replacement rates associated with non standard careers (career breaks, succession of several pension schemes) (regarding third streamlined objective for pensions); Number of pensions' beneficiaries Aggregate replacement ratio calculated with longitudinal data; Further developments associated with theoretical prospective replacement rates (see below). IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

243 5.1. First Streamlined objective pensions - adequate pensions "Ensure adequate retirement incomes for all and access to pensions which allow people to maintain, to a reasonable degree, their living standard after retirement, in the spirit of solidarity and fairness between and within generations" Primary indicators Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Definition Breakdowns Comments Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 17 PN- P1 EU: At-risk-of-poverty rate of older people Risk of poverty for people aged 0-64, 65+ Complemented by composition of income By age: 0-64, 65+ By sex (see 5.3) Poverty rate of 65+ (at the 60% threshold of equivalised income) provides a key indication of the capacity of pension systems to provide adequate income to older people PN- P2 EU: Median relative income of elderly people Median equivalised income of people aged 65+ as a ratio of income of people aged 0-64 By sex (see 5.3) This indicator informs on the overall adequacy of income of older people. Related context information: composition of income This indicator is also included in the overarching portfolio (indicator 7a) 17 Commonly agreed national indicators based on commonly agreed definitions and assumptions that provide key information to assess the progress of MS in relation to certain objectives, while not allowing for a direct cross-country comparison, and not necessarily having a clear normative interpretation. These indicators/statistics should be interpreted jointly with the relevant background information (exact definition, assumptions, representativeness). IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

244 Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Definition Breakdowns Comments Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 17 PN- P3 EU: Aggregate replacement ratio Median individual pensions of relative to median individual earnings of 50-59, excluding other social benefits, By sex (see 5.3) This indicator informs on the overall adequacy of income of pensioners, in relation to older workers This indicator is also included in the overarching portfolio (indicator 7b) IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

245 Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Definition Breakdowns Comments Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 17 PN- P4 NAT: Change in projected theoretical replacement ratio for base case accompanied with information on type of pension scheme (DB, DC or NDC) and change in projected public pension expenditure ) These results should systematically be presented collectively in one table. + assumptions and relevant background information on representativeness + present also calculations of changes in replacement rates for one or two other cases, if suitable (for instance OECD) Change in the theoretical level of income from pensions at the moment of take-up related to the income from work in the last year before retirement for a hypothetical worker (base case), percentage points, , with information on the type of pension scheme (DB, DC or NDC) and changes in the public pension expenditure as a share of GDP, This information can only collectively form the indicator called Projected theoretical replacement ratio. Results relate to current and projected, gross (public and private) and total net replacement rates, and should be accompanied by information on representativeness and assumptions (contribution rates and coverage rate, public and private). Specific assumptions agreed in the ISG. For further details, see 2006 report on Replacement Rates. Source: ISG and AWG Information on the development of future adequacy has to be complemented by information on future sustainability (projections of pension expenditures). Theoretical replacement rates provide key elements on the current replacement levels and their likely evolution, in response to enacted reforms, especially for DC schemes. They provide comprehensive similar information for DB schemes when if used with appropriate information regarding the sustainability of such schemes. Other NAT indicators : other cases including differences in careers and in retirement age (present OECD calculations if suitable) This indicator needs to be further developed, notably as regards to incorporating financial sustainability into the calculations. One could examine the possibility to include into the calculations a theoretical projected contribution rate for the base case, corresponding to a situation where no increase in pension expenditures (as a % of GDP) would occur. Further developments could also reflect the question of different cases (career development and breaks), and incentives to work longer, or also the balance between contributions made and benefits. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

246 Secondary indicators Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Definition Breakdowns Comments Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 18 PN- S1 EU At-risk-of-poverty rate of older people Risk of poverty for people aged 0-59, 0-74, 60+, By age: 0-59, 0-74, 60+, Poverty rate of elderly people (at the 60% threshold of equivalised income). By sex These breakdowns allow to isolate the specific situation of different age groups (younger / older) than the primary indicator. PN- S2 EU Median relative income of elderly people (60+) Median equivalised income of people aged 60+ as a ratio of income of people aged 0-59 By sex This indicator informs on the overall adequacy of income of older people Related indicator: composition of income PN- S3 EU Aggregate replacement ratio (incl. other social benefits) Median individual pensions of relative to median individual earnings of 50-59, including other social benefits By sex 18 Commonly agreed national indicators based on commonly agreed definitions and assumptions that provide key information to assess the progress of MS in relation to certain objectives, while not allowing for a direct cross-country comparison, and not necessarily having a clear normative interpretation. These indicators/statistics should be interpreted jointly with the relevant background information (exact definition, assumptions, representativeness). 19 One should note that for the age breakdown of people aged 75 and more, there may be some potential statistical difficulties due to the size of samples, and non coverage of collective households by household surveys. 20 One should note that for the age breakdown of people aged 75 and more, there may be some potential statistical difficulties due to the size of samples, and non coverage of collective households by household surveys. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

247 Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Definition Breakdowns Comments Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 18 PN- S4 EU: Income inequality (S80/S20) among population aged 65+ By age: 0-64, 65+ This indicator informs on the first part of the objective (solidarity between generations) and provides an indication on the income distribution for 0-64, 65+ and oldest people PN- S5 EU: Risk of poverty gap of elderly people Poverty gap by age brackets (for 65+ and 75+) at the 60% threshold By age 65+, 75+ This indicator complements indicators on poverty rates and is complementary to sensitivity analysis PN- S6 EU: Risk of poverty of pensioners Art risk of poverty rate restricted to the field of people whose main activity status is 'retired' By sex This indicator complements indicators on poverty rates for people whose status is retired. See also indicators for the third streamlined objective PN- S7 EU: Incidence of risk of elderly poverty by the housing tenure status Incidence of risk of poverty for people belonging to the 60+, 65+ and 75+ age groups by the housing tenure status of their households Different housing status : owner-occupied, rent-free and rented accommodation By age: 60+, 65+, 75+ This indicator complements indicators on poverty rates for different housing tenures status PN- S8 EU: Risk of poverty calculated at 50% and 70% of median national equivalised income for elderly Risk of poverty calculated at 50% and 70% of median national equivalised income for people aged 60+, 65+ and 75+. By age: 60+, 65+, 75+ Sensitivity tests for different income thresholds Context indicators PN-C1 EU: Composition of income by source (pensions; other social benefits; earnings from work; other sources) and by income quintile for people aged 60+, 65+, 75+ IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

248 5.2. 2nd Streamlined objective pensions sustainable pensions Ensure the financial sustainability of public and private pension schemes, bearing in mind pressures on public finances and the ageing of populations, and in the context of the three-pronged strategy for tackling the budgetary implications of ageing, notably by: supporting longer working lives and active ageing; by balancing contributions and benefits in an appropriate and socially fair manner; and by promoting the affordability and the security of funded and private schemes." Primary indicators Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Definition Breakdowns Comments Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 21 PN- P5 NAT: Total Current Pension expenditure (% of GDP) "Pension expenditure" is the sum of seven different categories of benefits, as defined in the ESSPROS Manual 1996: disability pension, early retirement benefit due to reduced capacity to work, old-age pension, anticipated old-age pension, partial pension, survivors' pension and early retirement benefit for labour market reasons. In development: breakdown between public / private Source: ESSPROS 21 Commonly agreed national indicators based on commonly agreed definitions and assumptions that provide key information to assess the progress of MS in relation to certain objectives, while not allowing for a direct cross-country comparison, and not necessarily having a clear normative interpretation. These indicators/statistics should be interpreted jointly with the relevant background information (exact definition, assumptions, representativeness). IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

249 Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Definition Breakdowns Comments Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 21 PN- P6 EU: Employment rate % persons employed in relation to the total number of people in a given age group. Source: LFS By age: 25-54; (55-59 and 60-64); and all by sex Employment rate of people is an essential aspect of sustainability These breakdowns are essential to analyse more in details the change in employment rates with age brackets and paths of early exit from the labour market Gender breakdowns also enable to isolate the structural effect of the trend of the increase in women employment rates. PN- P7 EU: Effective labour market exit age The average age of withdrawal from the labour market, based on a probability model considering the relative changes of activity rates from one year to another at a specific age. By sex The central challenge is probably the extent to which pension reforms will translate into an increase of the effective retirement age Source: LFS Comment : some further statistical / methodological work would be necessary PN- P8 NAT: Projections of Pension expenditure, public and total, (% of GDP) Specific assumptions agreed in the AWG. For further details, see "The 2005 EPC projections of age-related expenditure ( ) for the EU-25 Member States: underlying assumptions and projection methodologies". Source: AWG Projections of pension expenditures also reflect assumptions made on economic trends (notably evolution of employment rates, in particular for older workers). Attention should be drawn to the extent that the various methodologies used by Member States may not ensure full consistency and comparability (in particular in the coverage of private and occupational pensions) IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

250 Secondary indicators Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Definition Breakdowns Comments Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 22 PN- S9 NAT: Total social Protection expenditures (% of GDP) ESSPROS - In development: gross / net expenditure PN- S10 NAT: Decomposition of the projected increase in public pension expenditure Decomposition with the old age dependency ratio, the employment effect, the take-up ratio and the benefit ratio. Specific assumptions agreed in the AWG. - Projections of pension expenditures also reflect assumptions made on economic trends (notably evolution of employment rates, in particular for older workers). For further details, see "The 2005 EPC projections of age-related expenditure ( ) for the EU-25 Member States: underlying assumptions and projection methodologies". Source: AWG Attention should be drawn to the extent that the various methodologies used by Member States may not ensure full consistency and comparability (in particular in the coverage of private and occupational pensions) 22 Commonly agreed national indicators based on commonly agreed definitions and assumptions that provide key information to assess the progress of MS in relation to certain objectives, while not allowing for a direct cross-country comparison, and not necessarily having a clear normative interpretation. These indicators/statistics should be interpreted jointly with the relevant background information (exact definition, assumptions, representativeness). IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

251 Context indicators PN-C2 EU: Old-age dependency ratio (Current and projected for 2010, 2030, 2050) - ESTAT 23 PN-C3 EU: Evolution of life expectancy at birth and at ages 60 and 65, by gender (current and projected) PN-C4 NAT: Pension system dependency ratio (Number of pensioners relative to contributors, current and projected up to Specific assumptions by AWG) 24 PN-C5 NAT: Contribution to public and private pension schemes (Pension contributions to public pension schemes as a share of GDP, current and projected to 2050) Source: AWG The development of dependency ratios provides key information on future pressures on pension systems expenditures and resources. 24 For further details, see "The 2005 EPC projections of age-related expenditure ( ) for the EU-25 Member States: underlying assumptions and projection methodologies". Projections of pension expenditures also reflect assumptions made on economic trends (notably evolution of employment rates, in particular for older workers). Attention should be drawn to the extent that the various methodologies used by Member States may not ensure full consistency and comparability (in particular in the coverage of private and occupational pensions) 25 See above IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

252 5.3. 3rd Streamlined objective pensions - modernised pensions "Ensure that pension systems are transparent, well adapted to the needs and aspirations of women and men and the requirements of modern societies, demographic ageing and structural change; that people receive the information they need to plan their retirement and that reforms are conducted on the basis of the broadest possible consensus". Primary indicators Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Definition Breakdowns Comments Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 26 PN- P9 EU: Gender differences in the risk of poverty See at-risk of poverty rate 0-65, 65+ Total + women/men living alone Related secondary indicators: by age group (60+ and 75+ and below 60, 75); PN- P10 EU: Gender differences in the relative income of older people See relative income for 65+, in relation to the 0-64 population Total + women/men living alone Related secondary indicators: by age group (60+ and 75+ and below 60, 75); PN- P11 EU: Gender differences in aggregate replacement ratio See aggregate replacement ratio 26 Commonly agreed national indicators based on commonly agreed definitions and assumptions that provide key information to assess the progress of MS in relation to certain objectives, while not allowing for a direct cross-country comparison, and not necessarily having a clear normative interpretation. These indicators/statistics should be interpreted jointly with the relevant background information (exact definition, assumptions, representativeness). IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

253 Secondary indicators Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Definition Breakdowns Comments Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 27 PN- S11 EU Gender differences in the relative income older people See relative income for 65+, in relation to the 0-64 population, by age group (60+ and 75+ and below 60, 75); Total + women/men living alone 27 Commonly agreed national indicators based on commonly agreed definitions and assumptions that provide key information to assess the progress of MS in relation to certain objectives, while not allowing for a direct cross-country comparison, and not necessarily having a clear normative interpretation. These indicators/statistics should be interpreted jointly with the relevant background information (exact definition, assumptions, representativeness). IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

254 6. HEALTH PORTFOLIO PRELIMINARY LIST, WORK IN PROGRESS (LIST IS INCOMPLETE) The following is a proposal for the set of common indicators to reflect the common objectives in the area of health care and long-term care. The proposed list is based on various meetings by the Indicators Sub-Group (ISG) and associated discussion papers regarding health and long-term care statistics that started in December These discussions built on the statistics used on the 2006 national reports on social protection and social inclusion, on various projects regarding the development of health indicators such as the European Community Health Indicators project (ECHI) and the OECD Health Care Quality Indicators project (OECD HCQI) amongst others reviewed, and on current data availability at international sources such as EUROSTAT, OECD health data, WHO health for all database (WHO-HFA) and national sources. It is the result of a joint effort by Member States delegates (notably of the ISG of the Social Protection Committee but also of Economic Policy Committee) and various Commission services such as DG EMPL, EUROSTAT, DG SANCO and DG ECFIN. Note that while there is a large pool of statistics related to health and health care, this proposal focuses on those indicators relevant to social protection and that best covered the agreed common objectives for health and long-term care as part of the Open Method of Coordination in the field of social protection and social inclusion. The list includes EU and national indicators as defined in 2006 (see section 2). The list includes outcome indicators as well as input and process indicators, as a combination of such types of indicators was deemed necessary in the area of health care and long-term care especially when addressing health and long-term care issues from a social protection perspective. The proposed list is made up of 18 primary indicators, 12 secondary indicators and 4 context indicators regrouped according to the common objective they refer to. The list is comprehensive and attempts to cover the three common objectives of 1) accessibility and health inequalities, 2) quality and 3) longterm sustainability. Nevertheless, the indicators based on EU surveys in development (EHIS available in 2010, and SHA) will be reviewed when the data becomes available before final adoption. Similarly, long-term care is becoming a growing field of interest which may not be fully reflected in the current set of indicators. This is mainly because of the lack of international and comparable data. Hence, the ISG has agreed to consider developing other indicators covering the following dimensions: Mortality, life expectancy and healthy life years by socio-economic status (related to health inequalities) Care utilisation including the probability of using various types of care and the number of visits or inpatient/day patient days notably by socio-economic status (related to access to care and inequity of access) Out-of-pocket payments by households (related to access to care and inequity of access) Avoidable mortality (related to health inequalities and also quality of care) IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

255 Colorectal cancer screening (related to quality of care notably effectiveness of care) Diabetes screening and control (related to quality of care notably effectiveness of care) Asthma care (related to quality of care notably effectiveness of care) Infections acquired in the course of medical care (related to quality of care notably safety of care) Physical activity (related to long-term sustainability notably health promotion and disease prevention) Mental health (related to long-term sustainability notably health promotion and disease prevention) Long-term care including statistics regarding provision and dependency rates IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

256 6.1. Indicators regarding access to care (including inequity in access to care) and inequalities in outcomes (objective 1) Primary indicators Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 28 Definition Age breakdown Gender breakdown Other breakdowns and Comments HC- P1 NAT: Self reported unmet need for medical care NAT: Care utilisation Total self-reported unmet need for medical care for the following three reasons: financial barriers + waiting times + too far to travel To be analysed together with care utilisation defined as the number of visits to a doctor (GP or specialist) during the last 12 months. Source: EU-SILC available annually subject to adjustment of EU-SILC in the future Yes: Age 29 groups: 18-44; 45-54; 55-64; 65+; 75+ Yes By income quintile. Future developments: resolve discrepancies in EU-SILC translation between countries. Comment 1: for 2008 and to look at care utilisation we can use the number of physician consultations (contact with a GP or specialist) per capita based on OECD health data and national sources for non-oecd members. For future reporting exercises, EU-SILC data is to be used (EU-SILC module 2009). Comment 2: also included in the overarching portfolio. 28 Commonly agreed national indicators based on commonly agreed definitions and assumptions that provide key information to assess the progress of MS in relation to certain objectives, while not allowing for a direct cross-country comparison, and not necessarily having a clear normative interpretation. These indicators/statistics should be interpreted jointly with the relevant background information (exact definition, assumptions, representativeness). 29 Note that for the age breakdown of people aged 75 and more there may be some potential statistical difficulties due to the size of samples and non coverage of collective households by household surveys. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

257 Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 28 Definition Age breakdown Gender breakdown Other breakdowns and Comments HC- P2 NAT: Self reported unmet need for dental care NAT: Dental care utilisation Total self-reported unmet need for dental care for the following three reasons: financial barriers + waiting times + too far to travel To be analysed together with dental care utilisation defined as the number of visits to the dentist. Source: EU-SILC available annually Yes: Age groups: 18-44; 45-54; 55-64; 65+; 75+ Yes By income quintile. Future developments: resolve discrepancies in EU-SILC translation between countries. Comment: for 2008 and to look at care utilisation we can use the number of dentist consultations per capita based on OECD health data and national sources for non-oecd members. For future reporting exercises EHIS data is to be used. HC- P3 NAT: The proportion of the population covered by health insurance The percentage of the population covered by public health insurance (which is defined as tax-based public health insurance and income-related payroll taxes including social security contribution schemes) + the percentage of the population covered by private health insurance including: Private mandatory health insurance, Private employment group health insurance, Private community-rated health insurance, and Private risk-rated health insurance. Source: OECD and national data sources. No Yes Member states should highlight the role of the insurance according to the OECD classification i.e. primary, complementary, duplicate and supplementary. This should be taken into account in the presentation of the indicator in the EU reporting exercise. Member States should provide this information either directly using national data sources or via OECD data. Comment: If applicable and available information on insurance coverage should be provided by gender. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

258 Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 28 Definition Age breakdown Gender breakdown Other breakdowns and Comments HC- P4a EU: Life expectancy Life expectancy defined as the mean number of years that a newborn child (or that of a specific age) can expect to live if subjected throughout life to the current mortality conditions (age specific probabilities of dying). Yes: at birth, at 45, at 65 Yes See next. Source: EUROSTAT HC- P4b NAT: Life expectancy by socio-economic status Life expectancy defined as above but presented by socioeconomic status (such as level of education or income quintile) (at birth = socio-economic status of parents). Source: national data sources - Yes. Comment 1: for 2008 life expectancy by socio-economic status is to be reported using national data sources when available until EU comparable breakdown data becomes available. Comment 2: If available and statistically meaningful, socioeconomic status information could be further disaggregated by gender. HC- P5a NAT: Healthy Life years Number of years that a person is expected to live in a healthy condition i.e. the numbers of years of life free of any activity limitation (also called disability- free life expectancy). Based on self-perceived limitations in daily activities. Composite indicator. Yes: at birth, 45 and 65 Yes Comment: Healthy life years is also included in the overarching portfolio. To be interpreted jointly with life expectancy Source: EUROSTAT IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

259 Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 28 Definition Age breakdown Gender breakdown Other breakdowns and Comments HC- P5b NAT: Healthy life years by socio-economic status Healthy life years defined as above but presented by socio economic status (such as level of education, income quintile) (at birth = socio economic status of parents). Source: national data sources - Yes. Comment 1: For 2008 healthy life years by socio-economic status is to be reported using national data sources when available until EU comparable breakdown data becomes available. Comment 2: If available and statistically meaningful, socioeconomic status information could be further disaggregated by gender. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

260 Secondary indicators Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 30 Definition Age breakdown Gender breakdown Other breakdowns and Comments HC -S1 NAT: Self-perceived limitations in daily activities Self-perceived limitations in daily activities defined as the percentage sum of people reporting to be limited or very limited. Source: EU-SILC Yes: Age groups: 18-44; 45-54; 55-64; 65+; 75+ Yes By income quintile. HC -S2 NAT: Self-perceived general health Self-perceived general health defined as the percentage sum of people reporting bad or very bad health. Source: EU-SILC Yes: Age groups: 18-44; 45-54; 55-64; 65+; 75+ Yes By income quintile. 30 Commonly agreed national indicators based on commonly agreed definitions and assumptions that provide key information to assess the progress of MS in relation to certain objectives, while not allowing for a direct cross-country comparison, and not necessarily having a clear normative interpretation. These indicators/statistics should be interpreted jointly with the relevant background information (exact definition, assumptions, representativeness). IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

261 Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 30 Definition Age breakdown Gender breakdown Other breakdowns and Comments HC - S3 a EU: Infant mortality Infant mortality rates defined as the ratio of the number of deaths of children under one year of age during the year to the number of live births in that year. The value is expressed per live births. No Yes See next. Source: EUROSTAT HC - S3 b NAT: Infant mortality by socio-economic status Infant mortality as defined above but presented by socioeconomic status of parents (such as level of education, income quintile). No No Comment: for 2008 infant mortality by socio-economic status of parents is to be reported using national data sources when available until EU comparable breakdown data becomes available. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

262 6.2. Indicators regarding quality of care: effectiveness, safety and patient centeredness (2nd objective) Primary indicators Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 31 Definition Age breakdown Gender breakdown Other breakdowns and Comments HC -P6 EU: vaccination coverage in children % of infants reaching their 1st birthday in the given calendar year who have been fully vaccinated against pertussis (whooping cough), diphtheria, tetanus (DPT) and poliomyelitis. and % of infants reaching their 2nd birthday in the given calendar year who have been fully vaccinated against measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) No No Comment 1: to measure effectiveness of care, one dimension of quality of care Source: WHO-Health for All database 31 Commonly agreed national indicators based on commonly agreed definitions and assumptions that provide key information to assess the progress of MS in relation to certain objectives, while not allowing for a direct cross-country comparison, and not necessarily having a clear normative interpretation. These indicators/statistics should be interpreted jointly with the relevant background information (exact definition, assumptions, representativeness). IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

263 Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 31 Definition Age breakdown Gender breakdown Other breakdowns and Comments HC -P7 EU (NAT in 2008) 32 : cervical cancer screening Defined as the % of women aged that were screened for cervical cancer using a cervical smear test over the past 3 years. Source: EHIS No Not applicable Comment 1: to measure effectiveness of care, one dimension of quality of care. Future developments: EHIS data will be available in Data can then be analysed to agree on presentation and final adoption of the indicator. The EHIS also allows us to see the reason behind the screening notably if it was part or a screening programme or e.g. requested by the doctor. Comment 2: For 2008 EUROSTAT provides information from the 2004 data collection from national health interview surveys. Member States not covered can use other national sources HC -P8 NAT: cervical cancer survival rates Defined as the % of those still alive 5 years after the disease has been diagnosed compared to a non-diseased comparison group of similar age-structure (relative rates). Source: ECHI information based on information provided by the international agency on research on cancer (IARC) No Not applicable Comment 1: to measure effectiveness of care, one dimension of quality of care. Comment 2: for 2008 ECHI data and national sources can be used. 32 Once the data from EHIS becomes available the status of this indicator will be reviewed and possibly reclassified as an EU indicator. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

264 Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 31 Definition Age breakdown Gender breakdown Other breakdowns and Comments HC -P9 NAT: colorectal cancer survival rate Defined as the % of those still alive 5 years after the disease has been diagnosed compared to a non-diseased comparison group of similar age-structure (relative rates).. Source: ECHI information based on information provided by the international agency on research on cancer (IARC) No Yes Comment 1: to measure effectiveness of care, one dimension of quality of care. Comment 2: for 2008 ECHI, OECD data and national sources can be used. HC - P10 NAT: satisfaction with health care services Defined as the proportion of the population satisfied i.e. that find the following type of services good (very plus fairly good) a) GPs/family doctors b) specialists c) hospitals d) dental care services No Yes Comment 1: to measure system responsiveness to patients or patient centeredness, one dimension of quality of care. Comment 2: for 2008 can use the Special Eurobarometer 283. Source: EHIS IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

265 Secondary indicators Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 33 Definition Age breakdown Gender breakdown Other breakdowns and Comments HC -S4 EU (NAT in 2008) 34 : influenza vaccination for adults over 65+ % of those aged 65+ that have been vaccinated against influenza in the last year Source: EHIS No Yes Comment 1: to measure effectiveness of care, one dimension of quality of care. Comment 2: for 2008 OECD data and national sources can be used. 33 Commonly agreed national indicators based on commonly agreed definitions and assumptions that provide key information to assess the progress of MS in relation to certain objectives, while not allowing for a direct cross-country comparison, and not necessarily having a clear normative interpretation. These indicators/statistics should be interpreted jointly with the relevant background information (exact definition, assumptions, representativeness). 34 Once the data from EHIS becomes available the status of this indicator will be reviewed and possibly reclassified as an EU indicator. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

266 Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 33 Definition Age breakdown Gender breakdown Other breakdowns and Comments HC -S5 EU (NAT in 2008) 35 : breast cancer screening Defined as the % of women aged that were screened for breast cancer using a mammography over the past year Source: EHIS No Not applicable Comment 1: to measure effectiveness of care, one dimension of quality of care Future developments: EHIS data will be available in Data can then be analysed to agree on presentation and final adoption of the indicator. The EHIS also allows us to see the reason behind the screening notably if it was part or a screening programme or e.g. requested by the doctor. Comment 2: For 2008 EUROSTAT provides information from the 2004 data collection from national health interview surveys. Member States not covered can use other national sources HC -S6 NAT: breast cancer survival rate Defined as the % of those still alive 5 years after the disease has been diagnosed compared to a non-diseased comparison group of similar age-structure (relative rates). Source: ECHI information based on information provided by the international agency on research on cancer (IARC) No Not applicable Comment 1: to measure effectiveness of care, one dimension of quality of care. Comment 2: for 2008 ECHI, OECD data and national sources can be used. 35 Once the data from EHIS becomes available the status of this indicator will be reviewed and possibly reclassified as an EU indicator. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

267 Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 33 Definition Age breakdown Gender breakdown Other breakdowns and Comments HC -S7 NAT: perinatal mortality Defined as number of foetal deaths (over 1000g) plus neonatal deaths (0-6 days) per 1000 live births No No Comment 1: to measure safety of care, one dimension of quality of care. Source: EUROSTAT based on WHO health for all database IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

268 6.3. Indicators regarding long-term sustainability of systems: expenditure and efficiency (3 rd objective) Primary indicators Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 36 Definition Age breakdown Gender breakdown Other breakdowns and Comments HC- P11 NAT: total health expenditure per capita Total health expenditure per capita in PPP Source: EUROSTAT based on system of health accounts (SHA) data No No Comment 1: for Luxembourg to be computed as per person insured. Comment 2: SHA validated data is available at Eurostat for 15 EU MS. SHA data is in course of validation for 5 more countries and will be available from Eurostat. Data is expected for 2 more MS by the end of other MS are conducting feasibility/pilot studies. 3 MS do not currently report or are currently conducting any pilot or feasibility study regarding the computation of expenditure data using the SHA. Comment 3: for 2008 use ESTAT SHA data; use OECD data if ESTAT SHA data not available and use WHO-HFA database for MT and LV. Comment 4: also included in the overarching portfolio. 36 Commonly agreed national indicators based on commonly agreed definitions and assumptions that provide key information to assess the progress of MS in relation to certain objectives, while not allowing for a direct cross-country comparison, and not necessarily having a clear normative interpretation. These indicators/statistics should be interpreted jointly with the relevant background information (exact definition, assumptions, representativeness). IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

269 Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 36 Definition Age breakdown Gender breakdown Other breakdowns and Comments HC- P12 NAT: Total health care expenditure as a % of GDP total, public and private expenditure on health as % of GDP (see definition of public and private expenditure next) Source: EUROSTAT based on SHA data No No Comment 1: SHA validated data is available at Eurostat for 15 EU MS. SHA data is in course of validation for 5 more countries and will be available from Eurostat. Data is expected for 2 more MS by the end of other MS are conducting feasibility/pilot studies. 3 MS do not currently report or are currently conducting any pilot or feasibility study regarding the computation of expenditure data using the SHA. Comment 2: for 2008 use EUROSTAT SHA data; use OECD data if EUROSTAT SHA data not available and use WHO-HFA database for MT and LV. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

270 Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 36 Definition Age breakdown Gender breakdown Other breakdowns and Comments HC- P13 NAT: Total long-term care expenditure as a % of GDP Defined as expenditure on long-term nursing care (category HC.3 in the SHA) plus expenditure with administration and provision of social services in kind to assist living with disease and impairment (category HC.R.6.1 in the SHA). as % of GDP Source: EUROSTAT based on SHA data No No Comment 1: SHA validated data is available at Eurostat for 15 EU MS. SHA data is in course of validation for 5 more countries and will be available from Eurostat. Data is expected for 2 more MS by the end of other MS are conducting feasibility/pilot studies. 3 MS do not currently report or are currently conducting any pilot or feasibility study regarding the computation of expenditure data using the SHA. Comment 2: for 2008 use EUROSTAT SHA data; use OECD data if EUROSTAT SHA data not available and use WHO-HFA database for MT and LV. HC- P14 NAT: projections of public expenditure on health care as % of GDP Age-related projections of health care, current level (% of GDP) and projected change in share of GDP (in percentage points) ( ) Source: EPC/AWG (2006) No No Comment 1: Specific assumptions agreed in the AWG/EPC. See "The 2005 EPC projections of age-related expenditures ( ) for EU-25: underlying assumptions and projection methodologies". Comment 2: From 2009 new projections will be available and thus will be used in the next reporting exercise. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

271 Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 36 Definition Age breakdown Gender breakdown Other breakdowns and Comments HC- P15 NAT: projections of public expenditure on long-term care as % of GDP Age-related projections of long-term care, current level (% of GDP) and projected change in share of GDP (in percentage points) ( ) Source: EPC/AWG (2006) No No Comment 1: Specific assumptions agreed in the AWG/EPC. See "The 2005 EPC projections of age-related expenditures ( ) for EU-25: underlying assumptions and projection methodologies". Comment 2: From 2009 new projections will be available and thus will be used in the next reporting exercise. HC- P16 NAT: hospital inpatient discharges Hospital inpatient discharges per inhabitants Source: EUROSTAT No No Comment 1: this indicator provides one measure of the output of the system and hence can be seen as a measure of the efficiency of the health care system. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

272 Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 36 Definition Age breakdown Gender breakdown Other breakdowns and Comments HC- P17 NAT: hospital daycases Hospital daycases per inhabitants Source: EUROSTAT No No Comment 1: this indicator provides one measure of the output of the system and hence can be seen as a measure of the efficiency of the health care system. HC- P18 EU (NAT in 2008) 37 : obesity Defined as the % of obese persons in the population i.e. the % of the population with BMI >= 30kg/m2 Source: EHIS Yes: Age groups: 18-44; 45-54; 55-64; 65+; 75+ Yes By income quintile. Comment 1: to measure life-styles or healthy behaviour. Comment 2: For 2008 EUROSTAT provides information from the 2004 data collection from national health interview surveys. Member States not covered can use OECD health data or WHO-HFA database or other national sources. 37 Once the data from EHIS becomes available the status of this indicator will be reviewed and possibly reclassified as an EU indicator. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

273 Secondary indicators Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 38 Definition Age breakdown Gender breakdown Other breakdowns and Comments HC- S8 NAT: sales of generics Defined as the % of generics sales in all prescribed medicine sales No No Comment 1: this indicator provides one measure of the efficiency of the health care system. Source: national sources HC- S9 NAT: acute care bed occupancy rates Defined as the number of acute care beds effectively occupied in inpatient institutions divided by the number of available acute care beds and multiplied by 100. No No Comment 1: this indicator provides one measure of efficiency of the health care system. Source: OECD health data and WHO-HFA database for non- OECD countries 38 Commonly agreed national indicators based on commonly agreed definitions and assumptions that provide key information to assess the progress of MS in relation to certain objectives, while not allowing for a direct cross-country comparison, and not necessarily having a clear normative interpretation. These indicators/statistics should be interpreted jointly with the relevant background information (exact definition, assumptions, representativeness). IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

274 Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 38 Definition Age breakdown Gender breakdown Other breakdowns and Comments HC- S10 NAT: hospital average length of stay Computed by dividing the number of days stayed in the hospital by the number of hospital discharges or deaths in hospital. Source: EUROSTAT No No Comment 1: this indicator provides one measure of the efficiency of the health care system. Member States may want to use this indicator together with a readmission rate (e.g. 28 days emergency readmission rate following ECHI) HC- S11 EU (NAT in 2008) 39 : regular smokers Defined as the % of daily cigarette smokers in the population aged 15+ Source: EHIS Yes: Age groups: 18-44; 45-54; 55-64; 65+; 75+ Yes By income quintile. Comment 1: to measure life-styles or healthy behaviour. Comment 2: For 2008 EUROSTAT provides information from the 2004 data collection from national health interview surveys. Member States not covered can use OECD health data or WHO-HFA database or other national sources. 39 Once the data from EHIS becomes available the status of this indicator will be reviewed and possibly reclassified as an EU indicator. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

275 Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 38 Definition Age breakdown Gender breakdown Other breakdowns and Comments HC- S12 EU (NAT in 2008) 40 : alcohol consumption Defined as the number of litres of pure alcohol per person per year Source: EHIS Yes: Age groups: 18-44; 45-54; 55-64; 65+; 75+ Yes By income quintile. Comment 1: to measure life-styles or healthy behaviour. Comment 2: For 2008 EUROSTAT provides information from the 2004 data collection from national health interview surveys. Member States not covered can use OECD health data or WHO-HFA database or other national sources. 40 Once the data from EHIS becomes available the status of this indicator will be reviewed and possibly reclassified as an EU indicator. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

276 6.4. Context indicators Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 41 Definition Age breakdown Gender breakdown Other breakdowns and Comments HC- C1 NAT: physicians Total number of practising physicians per inhabitants. This indicator can be use to look at staff needs for the whole country and the distribution of staff across the country. Time trends may also help us identify staff shortages due to migration. No No Comment: Member States may, if they wish, provide this information by health region as a proxy for geographical disparities of supply. Source: EUROSTAT HC- C2 NAT: nurses and midwives Total number of practising nurses and midwives per inhabitants. This indicator can be use to look at staff needs for the whole country and the distribution of staff across the country. Time trends may also help us identify staff shortages due to migration. No No Comment: Member States may, if they wish, provide this information by health region as a proxy for geographical disparities of supply. Source: EUROSTAT 41 Commonly agreed national indicators based on commonly agreed definitions and assumptions that provide key information to assess the progress of MS in relation to certain objectives, while not allowing for a direct cross-country comparison, and not necessarily having a clear normative interpretation. These indicators/statistics should be interpreted jointly with the relevant background information (exact definition, assumptions, representativeness). IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

277 Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 41 Definition Age breakdown Gender breakdown Other breakdowns and Comments HC- C3 NAT: Public and private expenditure as % of total health expenditure a) total public expenditure which includes government spending HF.1.1 (central government HF.1.1.1, state/provincial government HF and local/municipal government HF.1.1.3) plus social security funds HF.1.2 according to SHA. b) total private expenditure which includes private health insurance (private social insurance HF private insurance other then social insurance HF.2.2) plus private households out of pocket expenditure HF.2.3 plus non-profit institutions HF.2.4 and private corporations other than health insurance such as private companies funding occupational health care HF.2.5 according to SHA c) private health insurance expenditure HF HF.2.2 d) out-of-pocket payments expenditure HF.2.3 as % of total health expenditure Source: EUROSTAT based on SHA data No No Comment 1: According to EUROSTAT 15 EU Member States have already reported data according to the SHA and this information has been validated. Five more countries have submitted SHA data and this is being validated or is awaiting a green light by the authorities so that it can be made publicly available. Data is expected for two more Member States by the end of 2008, which will bring us to 22 Member States. Two other Member States are conducting feasibility/pilot studies. Only 3 Member States do not currently report or are currently conducting any pilot or feasibility study regarding the computation of expenditure data using the SHA. Comment 2: for 2008 use EUROSTAT SHA data; use OECD data if EUROSTAT SHA data not available and use WHO-HFA database for MT and LV. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

278 Commonly agreed EU indicator (EU) Commonly agreed national indicators (NAT) 41 Definition Age breakdown Gender breakdown Other breakdowns and Comments HC- C4 NAT: Total expenditure on main types of activities or functions of care This means analysing the proportion of total current health care expenditure that is allocated to the following activities or functions of care. a) services of curative (HC.1) + b) services of rehabilitative care (HC.2) (together) c) ancillary services to health care (HC.4) d) medical goods dispensed to outpatients (HC.5) e) prevention and public health (HC.6) as % of total current health expenditure This analysis is also to look at pharmaceutical expenditure in more detail by looking at expenditure on e) pharmaceuticals and other medical non-durables (HC.5.1) as % of total current health expenditure and as % of GDP No No Comment 1: According to EUROSTAT 15 EU Member States have already reported data according to the SHA and this information has been validated. Five more countries have submitted SHA data and this is being validated or is awaiting a green light by the authorities so that it can be made publicly available. Data is expected for two more Member States by the end of 2008, which will bring us to 22 Member States. Two other Member States are conducting feasibility/pilot studies. Only 3 Member States do not currently report or are currently conducting any pilot or feasibility study regarding the computation of expenditure data using the SHA. Comment 2: for 2008 use EUROSTAT SHA data; use OECD data if EUROSTAT SHA data not available and use WHO-HFA database for MT and LV. Source: EUROSTAT based on SHA IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

279 Annex IV IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

280 IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

281 ANNEX 4: Country fiches Austria Characteristics and evolution in national policy of social inclusion in the period Institutional framework The elaboration of NAP inclusion has been co-ordinated by the Federal Ministry for social security and the generations during the period. Presently, Federal Ministry for Social Security, the Generations and Consumer Protection has the responsibility of the NAP. The regions (Länder) have been involved in co-ordinating the elaboration of NAPInc , jointly with representatives from the national ministry. Federal Ministries, the regions (Länder), social partners, the Local Authority Association (Städte-und Gemeindebund), NGOs and representatives from higher education institutions were consulted (in opportunities for consultation were limited by the short timescale available for preparing the NAP), and a partnership approach was chosen to develop the content of the NAPs. These stakeholders has been collected in a working group to accompany the development and implementation and evaluation of the NAPincl An additional task for this group was to prepare the subsequent NAP ( ) and to develop indicators. All relevant actors for the fight against poverty are engaged in a dialogue through the federal platform for social inclusion (Bundesplattform für soziale Eingliederung). This meets regularly to accompany and discuss the implementation of the NAP inclusion. A couple of horizontal structures support the creation of employment measures aimed at eradicating poverty. The Territorial Employment Pacts (TEPs), existing in all 9 regions, are very important for networking regional governments, employment service, social partners, the Federal Social Agency (Bundessozialamt), districts and Local Authorities as well as regional bodies responsible for schools. Objectives and priorities in National Policy of Social Inclusion The NAPincl was basically focused on ongoing measures and a few new policy developments (e.g. old-age insurance for women, disabled persons, family poverty). Measures are organized under three common objectives: Objective 1: Facilitating participation in employment. The emphasis is on employment targets, and references are made to elements developed in the NAPempl. Access to employment straond s includes measures relating to education and training as well as combining jobs and family. Improving employability strand s focus on particular target groups (women, migrants, the disabled) as well as lifelong learning and protection of employees. Objective 2: Facilitating access to resources, rights, goods and services for all. Reference is made to the social security system (in particular child care support, pensions for women, basic protection, extending the activating elements of the social security system), housing, health care and care for the elderly, rural regions and the right to participate in society. Objective 3: Preventing the risk of exclusion. Three policy areas are mentioned in order to prevent the risk of exclusion: the use of information technology, measures to support solidarity within families and other primary groups and help in specific situations of need (e.g. being in debt). An innovative approach to prevent homelessness is mentioned in the NAPincl (e.g. Vienna). IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

282 The NAPincl is structured around two objectives: Objective 1: facilitating access to resources and Objective 2: Preventing the risk of exclusion. The measures included in the NAPincl are designed to address specific problems not yet satisfactorily covered by more general policies of social protection. Gender mainstreaming actions have been launched to improve framework conditions and reduce the care burden for women. The NAPincl focuses around 4 priorities/targets: disabled, migrants, extending (mobile) social care and access of disadvantaged people to education, health services and homes. The National Strategy Report for Social Protection and Social Inclusion 1 picks up the themes from the previous NAPs and structures the document around these. The report covers four key challenges 2 : Fighting poverty and social exclusion of children and young people. The objective is to reduce the poverty risk of families with children and to further improve the development opportunities of disadvantaged children and young people within the next ten years. This is intended to break the vicious circle of poverty and social exclusion through the following measures: child care facilities (e.g. innovative projects, support for disadvantaged children); education (day care and information of parents thereof; language tutorials in Kindergarden and elementary school; improving reading skills); employment for young people (vocational training places for young people, a job coaching and placement project); maintenance payments for lone parents; health care programmes; social care in crisis situations (joint parenting after divorce supported by public assistance programmes pilot projects; preventing indebtedness of pupils); resocialisation of young offenders (plans to introduce individualised education and training measures and low-threshold work training programmes together with assistance by social workers). More Labour Market Opportunities. Women, migrants, individuals with low skills are specifically mentioned in the Strategy Report are the long-term unemployed. An important measure is the job initiative (unternehmen Arbeitsplatz) aiming at sustaining the current positive development in the labour market. Interventions for the long-term unemployed include combination wage since 2006, temporary wage cost subsidies, promotion of non-profit employment projects and socio-economic enterprises, job coaching and awareness raising among employers in cooperation with social partners. Measures for older people include training, employment subsidies, incentives to recruit older workers, health awareness programmes. As far as women, NAPs include a special programme called women in crafts and engineering ( ) where (young) women are supported for three years in their attempts to widen the range of job options and embark on non-traditional vocational careers; supporting women with care duties (especially supporting women to return to the labour market after having a baby). Measures for migrants include: guidance, completing secondary education, improving access to higher qualified jobs; assistance with job seeking and applications. This objective also includes training measures for low-skilled people. Enhanced participation of people with disabilities. Austrian government s disability policy is devoted to create the necessary framework to provide opportunities to disabled people as similar as possible to those provided to non-disabled people. People with disabilities should have the opportunity to attend kindergarten, school and training establishments together with non-disabled children and adolescents. Employment promotion should focus on the primary labour market. Participation in public life should be made possible by providing a non-discriminatory infrastructure. 1 Republik Österreich Nationaler Bericht über Strategien für Sozialschutz und soziale Eingliederung, 2 Republic of Austria National Report on Strategies for Social Protection and Social Inclusion, p. 3. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

283 Measures include specific activities for children and young people (early years support); assistance for young people to support them from school into employment (measure Clearing ); continuation of the employment campaign for people with disabilities; measures on employment and housing for severely disabled people; supporting barrierfree premises (SMEs). Main impacts of social OMC in the evolution of national policies Austria has experimented, in the last year s NAPIncl., some changes in national policy agendas. In particular, a more in depth focuses has been put on some specific target group and issues. Under the first NAP, and in particular under the NAP, a wide range of objectives have been formulated. The 2004 light update covers ten topics where supplementary measures were introduced. Programmes to facilitate transition from school to work for young people were renewed and increased in volume. Austria's priorities for social inclusion policies in National Strategy Report for Social Protection and Social Inclusion are to enhance development opportunities for children and young people; to improve employability and labour market integration; to implement a means-tested guaranteed minimum income. These priorities are largely a continuation from the previous National Action Plan on Social Inclusion. The additional priority on integrated measures in other policy areas expresses a more comprehensive approach to address the multi-dimensionality of poverty and social exclusion. Moreover, governance has been strengthened in the preparation of NAPIncl. during the years, through a substantial consultation process with a wide range of stakeholders. The section on inclusion of the Strategic Report was drafted in consultation with the major players at national, regional and local levels, including social partners and umbrella NGOs. The tight timetable, however, did not allow extensive discussion of the underlying strategic decisions. Efforts have been made to enhance the involvement of NGOs by inviting the two main umbrella organizations to carry out a survey of existing reform needs, which will be used for future policy planning. It is envisaged to set up a group of independent experts to continuously monitor and evaluate implementation. Transparency was ensured by the publication of all comments on the website of the Federal Ministry of Social Affairs and Consumer Protection. Reference documents National Action Plan on Social Inclusion, National Action Plan on Social Inclusion Republic of Austria National Report on Strategies for Social Protection and Social Inclusion, _en. pdf. Joint report on Social Inclusion, 2002 ( social_inclusion/2002_joint_report_en.pdf). Joint report on Social Inclusion, 2004 ( social_inclusion/final_joint_inclusion_report_2003_en.pdf). Joint report on Social Inclusion, Joint report on Social Inclusion, country profile, 2006, IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

284 Belgium Characteristics and evolution in national policy of social inclusion in the period Institutional framework Social policy is covered by both federal and regional levels. Regions and communities are competent for social housing, worker placement and aspects of unemployment policies, personal aid (child protection, disabled persons) and health care (hospitals, prevention). Social security aspects (family allowances, pensions, child benefits, health care and unemployment insurance), labour market policies and the management of industrial relations, remain centralised at the federal level. The federal Labour and Employment Ministry play a central role, consultaing Regional or Community agencies if relevant issues arise. Representation at the different levels within the EU Council is leaded by the central government. Regions and Communities are only indirectly involved. Social policies are firmly embedded in the central level, the central government being competent for wage policies, collective bargaining and social security. This is strongly supported by labour unions and employer unions who manage important branches of the social security system. The actors contributing to social policy are federal and regional authorities, local authorities (The Union of towns and villages), social partners (National Council of Labour), experts from universities and research centres, representatives of associations of vulnerable persons. Objectives and priorities in National Policy of Social Inclusion Belgium designed two National Action Plans on Social Inclusion: and These plans are connected with the National Reform Programmes on Employment (until 2005, National Action Plans), as well as with the Federal Plan of Sustainable Development and different political regional documents (e.g. Vlaams armoedeplan, le Contrat d Avenir pour la Wallonie, etc). Strategic Report on social protection and social inclusion established as key objectives: affordable and accessible housing, activation measures aiming at increasing participation on labour market among the risk groups and fighting against child poverty. Belgium included in the NAPsInc the objectives agreed at The European Council of Lisbon. Objective 1: to facilitate access to employment, access to resources, rights, goods and services for all (with a focus on better integration on labour market of various categories like youth, women etc, increasing social security benefits for vulnerable categories, affordable housing, quality education and healthcare). Objective 2: to prevent social exclusion risks (with regard to implementing paths for social inclusion for the disabled, the migrants and the ethnic minorities). Objective 3: support for vulnerable groups (using mechanisms like integration on the labour market of long term unemployed and other vulnerable groups as well as social housing, quality education and better healthcare for at risk groups). Objective 4: Mobilisation of all actors (with a focus on better integrating and coordinating policies in the fields of housing, education and healthcare as well as increased participation of associations representing the poor). IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

285 Main impacts of social OMC in the evolution of national policies The measures included in the NAPIncl are closely linked to the priorities and objectives identified in the National Reform Programme (NRP) with a view to achieving the aims of the Lisbon Strategy and the WTO s social objectives. The strategy proposed by Belgium presents numerous similarities in all the plans, and it reflects a good understanding of the multidimensional nature of social exclusion. Thus, priorities and challenges are globally unchanged over the years, but better coordinated. The measures and strategies described in the 2007 NSR evidence a clear view to achieving the aims of the Lisbon Strategy. Key challenges and priorities identified are fully coherent with OMC objectives and are consistent with the objectives laid down for 2010 by the Lisbon Strategy for the employment rate (70%), participation in lifelong learning (12.5%) and a reduction in early school-leaving (10%). Concerning the governance process, the preparation of each of the pillars of the NSR has seen consultation and coordination among the competent legislative authorities at all levels and has involved a wide range of stakeholders, including the social partners and associations of people living in poverty and social exclusion. However, the 2007 Joint report considers that cooperation between players from the three pillars remains limited, as a result of which the links between the pillars are inadequate. The plan was drawn up by two working groups on "actions" and "indicators" acting in close cooperation and coordinated by the Public Planning Service for Social Integration. The groups include representatives from the federal level and the various Communities and Regions, as well as delegates from other (primarily local) authorities (Union of Towns, Cities and Municipalities), the social partners (National Labour Council), experts and associations of persons living in poverty and social exclusion. The two working groups have been enlarged to take in representatives from all parts of civil society. In developing indicators and identifying targets, the "indicators" group has also made extensive use of the results of debates, research and reports. Monitoring of progress towards meeting targets will be the responsibility of the working groups, but the various competent authorities will themselves be able to enter data on the website of the Public Planning Service for Social Integration so that the implementation of their respective activities can be followed. In 2007 a public forum on the plan will be organized with a view to formulating recommendations for the future. Reference documents Atkinson T., Cantillon B., Marlier E., Nolan B. (2005), Taking Forward the EU Social Inclusion Process. Report Commissioned by the Luxembourg Presidency of the European Union, 172 p. Belgium Progress report 2006, Lisbon Strategy. National Reform Programme Beyers J., Bursens P., The European Rescue of the Federal State: How Europeanisation Shapes the Belgian State, West European Politics, 29 (5) , European Commission Joint Report on Social Inclusion 2004, incl. Statistical Annex, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, Joint report on Social Inclusion country profile, European Commission Commission Staff Working paper. Evaluation of the Open Method of Coordination for Social Protection and Social Inclusion. A synthesis of replies by Member States and other actors to an evaluation questionnaire on the Open Method of Coordination in the fields of Social Inclusion and sustainable pensions, IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

286 European Commission, The European Social Fund : investing in people, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, European Commission, COM(2008) 418 final, A renewed commitment to social Europe: Reinforcing the Open Method of Coordination for Social Protection and Social Inclusion, National Reform Programmes (until 2005, National Action Plans), Plan d Action National Inclusion Sociale , Rapport sur la mise en oeuvre du Plan d Action National Inclusion et ses perspectives pour Vanhercke B., The operation of the social protection and social inclusion OMC in Belgium: a hybrid policy instrument between hard and soft law. EUSA Tenth Biennial International conference. May 17-19, 2007 Montreal, Canada. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

287 Cyprus Characteristics and evolution in national policy of social inclusion in the period Institutional framework Task Force for the National Action Plan for Social Inclusion was set up in 2003 and contained stakeholders from fifteen Government bodies such as the Ministries of Finance, Justice and Public Order, Education and Culture, Interior, and Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment. It also included three semi-governmental Bodies such as the Human Resource Development Authority, one Local Authority, three non-governmental organizations such as the Pancyprian Welfare Council, and six Social Partners such as Employers and Industrialists Federation and the Pancyprian Union of Public Servants. A Monitoring Committee for the NAP/Empl had been set up prior to the publication of the NAP/Incl and was planned in the first instance to take up the monitoring of the NAP/Incl 3. Then, it was envisioned that a separate Monitoring Committee would be set up for the updating of NAP/Incl. The stakeholders for didn t changed with the Ministry of Labour and Social Insurance responsible for finalising the Report 4. The group started with a seminar on the National Strategies for Social Protection and Social Inclusion in order to discuss the content for the report. There was representation from Government Services, the Unions of Municipalities and Communities, the social partners, voluntary organisations, organisations representing various vulnerable groups and also academic bodies such as the University of Cyprus and the Sociological Association of Cyprus 5. Objectives and priorities in National Policy of Social Inclusion Public Assistance System 6 is the main responsible for assisting victim of social exclusion. The amendment of the Public Assistance and Services Laws constitutes the primary instrument towards improvement of the performance of the whole system, towards better responsiveness to current problems. NAP/Incl has been elaborated in this period of changes in employment law. The Equal Treatment in Employment and Occupation Law was launched in 2004 to lay down a general framework for combating discrimination of racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, age or sexual orientation groups as regards employment and occupation 7. Moreover, a tax reform took place to adjust public finances and shift the tax burden towards indirect taxation. Despite a fiscal consolidation programme drawn up in order to deal with the expanding public deficit contains a series of austerity measures, the level of social transfers will be at least maintained in real terms 8. The most essential intervention for the promotion of social cohesion would be measures necessary to return to conditions where the macroeconomic developments are supportive of social policy that is to prevent the danger of destabilization which is reflected in the NAP/Incl s Strategic Objective 9. 3 Republic of Cyprus Ministry of Labour and Social Insurance National Action Plan P48. 4 Ministry of Labour and Social Insurance National Report on Strategies for Social Protection and Social Inclusion. 5 Ministry of Labour and Social Insurance National Report on Strategies for Social Protection and Social Inclusion. P26. 6 Republic of Cyprus Ministry of Labour and Social Insurance National Action Plan P21. 7 Republic of Cyprus Ministry of Labour and Social Insurance National Action Plan P28. 8 European Commission DG Employ Report on social inclusion: An analysis of the National Action Plans on Social Inclusion ( ) submitted by the 10 new Member States Joint document. p Republic of Cyprus Ministry of Labour and Social Insurance National Action Plan P14. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

288 The most important point in the social inclusion strategy in Cyprus is the continuation of a stable development path which leads to income increases and does not leave anyone behind in addition to targeting certain groups which have been found to be at risk of social exclusion. NAP/Incl stress a series of interventions in crucial areas such as employment, education, health, social protection, and housing. The NAPIncl s objectives and their targets are: Objective 1.1: Facilitating participation in employment (Stimulating employment for the whole population, Targeted measures for employment access Women, Targeted measures: Activation of beneficiaries of public assistance, Targeted measures: the unemployed) Objective 1.2: Facilitating access to resources, rights, goods and services for all (Public assistance towards a safety net, Access to housing, Access to other goods) Objective 2: Prevention of the risk of exclusion (Facing the digital divide and e-exclusion, Support for the family) Objective 3: Actions for the most vulnerable groups (People with disabilities, Foreign workforce multiculturalism, Actions for Turkish-Cypriots, Juvenile delinquents, Drugs, Child poverty, Regional-Geographical dimension) With the transition to the period, a new set of general objectives has been defined 10 : Objetvive 1: Promoting social cohesion, equality between men and women and equal opportunities for all. Objective 2: Promoting effective and mutual interaction between the Lisbon objectives. Objetive 3: Promoting good governance, transparency and involvement of stakeholders. These general objectives for would be achieved by the measures below 11 : Policy Measure 1: Reducing the Risk of Poverty (Public Assistance, The General Social Insurance Scheme, Child benefit) Policy Measure 2: Integrating Vulnerable Groups into the Labour Market (Individual guidance and support, Employment policy for foreign workers, Vocational training, Minimum wage) Policy Measure 3: Preventing the Social Exclusion of Children (Educational Priority Zones, Supportive Teaching Programme, Literacy Programmes, Support for Children with Special Needs, Communication and Information Technologies, Pre-primary Education, All-Day School, Multicultural Education, Preventing the risk of drug dependency) Main impacts of social OMC in the evolution of national policies The overall strategic approach of Cyprus, in line with its National Reform Programme, is concerned with embedding in the country the conditions for improving social cohesion, for the most part through the active inclusion of vulnerable groups into employment. The priorities selected respond to the main challenges faced by the country. The priorities set by the Commission in 2005 for inclusion are addressed in the NAP, although analyzed in different degrees of detail. Thus, the eradication of child poverty, flexibility in the labour market, longer working lives, the integration of migrants, improving access and tackling inequalities in health care, bettering the position of persons with disabilities, modernizing the social protection system and tackling educational disadvantages, all receive attention. 10 Republic of Cyprus Planning Bureau Single Programming Document of Objective 3 Human Resources. P Republic of Cyprus Planning Bureau Single Programming Document of Objective 3 Human Resources. P IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

289 The challenges and priorities identified in the Cypriot National Strategy for and the Joint Report of 2007 remain relevant, especially with regards to risk of poverty and social inclusion of disadvantaged groups. Emphasis on measures for vulnerable groups has improved. However, there is still room for further improvement. Policies towards the training, adaptation and inclusion of immigrants and mainstreaming of persons with disabilities can be further enhanced. Gender equality is addressed in greater detail in accordance with the Government's National Action Plan for Equality, while further progress in the area is encouraged. Setting up of an interdepartmental committee for monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the National Strategy is a positive development in ensuring adherence to the policy objectives. Progress has been made on the issue of monitoring and evaluation of policies, with efforts being deployed to assume a comprehensive approach, even though monitoring and evaluation arrangements remain stronger for some policies and weaker for others, with the policies supported by the ESF receiving a better follow-up. In this context, a proposal to set up a monitoring and evaluation committee has been put forward. Proceeding with this arrangement would politically strengthen the social inclusion policy. Reference documents National Action Plan on Social Inclusion National Action Plan on Social Inclusion Annex. National Action Plan on Social Inclusion Update. National Action Plan on Social Inclusion Update Annex. Cyprus Strategic Development Plan National Report on Strategies for Social Protection and Social Inclusion Joint report on Social Inclusion country profile, IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

290 Czech Republic Characteristics and evolution in national policy of social inclusion in the period Institutional framework NAPs on Social Inclusion have been developed in close co-operation with all stakeholders involved in fighting poverty and social exclusion. In 2003, the Government of the Czech Republic approved the establishment of the Committee on Elaboration of the Social Inclusion Memorandum and of the Action Plan on Social Inclusion, composed by 40 members representing ministries, other Government bodies (e.g. Czech Statistical Office, Government Board for People with Disabilities, Government Council for Roma Community Affairs), the Ombudsman office, local government (Association of Regions of the CR, Union of Towns and Municipalities of the CR), social partners, NGOs (the Czech Catholic Charity, Czech National Disability Council), experts. The process of participation at Governmental level is implemented by Government Councils and Government Committees. Five bodies play a key role in the area of social inclusion (Council of Economic and Social Agreement of the CR; Government Council for Non-State Non-Profit Organizations; Government Council on Roma Community Affairs; Government Board for People with Disabilities; and the Council for National Minorities of the Government of the CR). The process of elaboration of NAP/incl started from the institutional arrangements set up in the previous periods and has been modified according to requirements arising from the developing needs of society and reflections of assessment reports. Objectives and priorities in National Policy of Social Inclusion The principle of social inclusion has been included and reflected in all national policies with a social impact. Specific tools for the implementation of the social inclusion policies were developed: the Strategy on the integration of Roma, the National Plan for Equalization of Opportunities for People with Disabilities, the Medium-term Strategy on State Policy concerning People with Disabilities, the National Programme on Preparation for Ageing , and the Strategy on Integration of Foreigners Living in the CR territory. National Employment Action Plan 2002 included several measures for disadvantaged groups, in particular within the Employability Pillar. The Joint Inclusion Memorandum on Social Inclusion (JIM, 2003), launched the process of preparation of the Czech Republic for full participation to the Open Method of Coordination on Social Inclusion upon accession, outlined the principal challenges in relation to tackling poverty and social exclusion and presented the major policy measures pursuit by the country. The National Action Plan on Social Inclusion for (NAPSI) sets the country s main social priority: combating unemployment and reducing welfare dependency. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

291 Assessment of the implementation of NAPSI in concluded that the social protection system (social insurance, state social support and social assistance), successfully protects citizens from poverty but it need to adapt the system to new social trends (ageing population, changes in family composition, structural changes, and the development of a knowledge-based society). Problems still remain with the category of people relying for long periods on social benefits (due to unemployment, in particular long-term unemployment), as, after the support period of unemployment benefits expires, recipients are transferred to the social assistance system. According to the report, main groups at risk of social exclusion are persons with disabilities, children, young people and young adults, elder persons, ethnic minorities, immigrants and asylum-seekers, homeless, persons leaving a facility for institutional or protective care, ex-prisoners, victims of criminal offences, victims of domestic violence, commercially abused persons and victims of trafficking in human beings 12. Among anti-discriminatory measures, a series of official statements, devoted to social inclusion, have been collected. The final version of the Strategy on Roma Integration developed the priorities to be achieved by 2020, such as removing external and internal barriers to integration, improving the social situation of Roma communities, the creation of an anti-discriminatory climate, and the promotion of the Roma language and culture. A new Medium-term Strategy for National Policy on People with Disabilities has been approved by the Government. As part of the National Development Strategy of the CR ( ), two programmes of the Ministry for Regional Development were launched in 2004: Regional Programme to Assist Economically Depressed Regions Afflicted by Structural Adaptation and the Regional Programme to Promote Development of the North- Western Bohemia and the Moravia-Silesia Region. National Action Plan on Social Inclusion for (NAPSI) included common objectives with the EU social policy: Objective 1.1 Facilitate participation in employment Objective 1.2 Facilitate access by all to resources, rights, goods and services, Objective 2 Preventing the risk of social exclusion Objective 3 Helping the most vulnerable Objective 4 Mobilizing all relevant bodies Based on the abovementioned report, three priorities were set in the National Action Plan on Social Inclusion (NAP/incl.) for : 1. Strengthening the integration of socially excluded persons or persons at risk of social exclusion, eliminating barriers to entry and retention on the labour market for such persons (long-term unemployed, disabled persons, elder persons, persons from socially excluded Roma communities, migrants, victims of criminal activity and domestic violence, commercially abused persons and victims of trafficking in human beings, persons leaving a facility for institutional or protective care and persons leaving prison, persons dependent on addictive substances and homeless persons). 2. Strengthen the cohesion of the family and awareness of its importance; strengthen awareness of intergenerational solidarity and the rights of the child (families with children, families with an elder person, children in one-parent families, children of underage parents, children with serious disabilities, children of parents with a low educational attainment, children of parents under criminal prosecution, children in alcoholics and drug addicts families, children in institutional care, children of foreigners unaccompanied by a statutory representative, etc.) 12 National Report on Strategies for Social Protection and Social Inclusion for , Czech Republic, 2006, pag.7-9. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

292 3. Support for decision-making processes at the local and regional level and the development of partnership in social inclusion policy. The NSR objective for reinforcing governance in the period from 2006 to 2008 is to incorporate the principles of Mainstreaming Social Inclusion into political practise at the national, regional and particularly local level and increase awareness about the issue of social inclusion in the CR and improve the level of cooperation of all relevant actors at all levels 13. Main impacts of social OMC in the evolution of national policies The Czech Republic chose to limit its previous multi-dimensional approach to social inclusion to a targeted approach focused on the most disadvantaged groups and families. The objectives are in line with the main features of the country s situation, in particular the fact that the rate of poverty is very low and concentrated among some population groups. An effort to involve regional and local levels in the strategy will aim to overcome the hitherto rather administrative and formal approach to implementing and mainstreaming social inclusion and will also endeavour to tackle regional disparities. In comparison to the last NAP/incl., which stressed employment as the most important way out of poverty, the current strategy focuses more on social services development and considers employment only in relation to the NRP The synergies between social policies and employment are thus less evident. The 2006 Joint Report identified two challenges for the Czech Republic regarding social inclusion: to support the implementation of social inclusion policies at regional and local level and to improve the situation of vulnerable groups (for example the Roma) and disadvantaged regions. Concerning the most vulnerable groups, progress is particularly evident as regards the Roma. Moreover, governance has been strengthened in the preparation of NAPIncl. during the years, through a substantial consultation process with a wide range of stakeholders. The social inclusion part of the Report was prepared by Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs together with the Committee on Social Inclusion (CSI), which was created in 2003 to draft the Joint Inclusion Memorandum. It consists of representatives of ministries, governmental, regional/local authorities, social partners, NGOs, and experts. Reference documents Marek Mora, 2005, ECFIN Country Focus. Pension reform in the Czech Republic: ageing rapidly, reforming slowly, Economic analysis from the European Commission s Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs, Volume 2/2005. Jana Váňová, 2007, Social Social Inclusion Inclusion Czech Republic. Community Action Programme to Combat Social Exclusion MoLSA, Process of Social Inclusion in the Czech Republic, Third report, Revision after comments sent by the MoLSA, April, 2005, Group of non-governmental experts in the fight against poverty and social exclusion, Czech expert: Jiri Vecernik. Czech Republic, 2003, Joint Memorandum on Social Inclusion of Czech Republic. Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, 2004, National Action Plan on Social Inclusion , Czech Republic. 13 National Report on Strategies for Social Protection and Social Inclusion for , Czech Republic, 2006, pag IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

293 Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, 2006, National Report on Strategies for Social Protection and Social Inclusion for , Czech Republic. Hana Velecká (Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs of the CR), Participation Czech Republic. European Commission, 2006, Annex to the Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion - Country Profiles. European Commission, Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, 2007, Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion Social inclusion, Pensions, Healthcare and Long Term Care. Joint report on Social Inclusion country profile, IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

294 Denmark Characteristics and evolution in national policy of social inclusion in the period Institutional framework The coordinating authority responsible for drawing up the NAP is the Ministry of Social Affairs. A preliminary meeting of ministries potentially involved in establishing the various objectives and sub-objectives required to form part of the action plan took place in January 2001 (Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Urban and Housing Affairs, the Ministry of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Information Technology and Research, the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Economic Affairs). A steering committee was set up, consisting of representatives of the Ministries and of the Department of Gender Equality. On March, a seminar on the continued work on the action plan was held with representatives from the EU Commission, the Ministries involved, the social partners, the local authorities, the Danish Council of Organizations of Disabled People and the Danish Committee on Volunteer Effort. The Social Council, the Danish Committee on Volunteer Effort, the National Handicap Council the National Council on Children and the National Narcotics Council have been consulted regarding the plan, and it has been presented to the EU Special Committee on labour market and social issues, the EU Committee and the Foreign Policy Committee. Moreover, in order to involved stakeholders in the process of elaboration of the NAP , a steering group with representatives from 10 ministries was established. NGO s, volunteer organisations, the Confederation of Trade Unions (LO) and the Confederation of Danish Employers (DA) were involved in seminars and meetings. The ministries contributed with the sections of the NAPincl dealing with their area of responsibility (for example, the sections in the NAP concerning integration of ethnic minorities have been defined by the Ministry of Integration 14 ). Objectives and priorities in National Policy of Social Inclusion Danish strategy in social policy has included the most important factors to afford poverty and social exclusion. In particulars, it concerns initiatives regarding cash assistance and sickness benefit claimants, rehabilitees, etc., whereas initiatives regarding persons insured against unemployment stands under the labour market policy. Active social policy lies with the local authorities. The policy is aimed at employment to make as many people as possible self-supporting. Additionally, labour market-, health-, education-, urban-, housing- and fiscal policies have also played a significant role fighting against poverty 15. The NAP 2001 had the character of compilation of separate policies rather than being discrete, complementary measures in approaching the same global objective. It concerned issues like: 1) social dimension of the activation approach and the inclusive labour market; 2) working life and family life; 3) education policy; 4) urban and housing policy; 5) Health Policy; 6) vulnerable groups (i.e. the mentally ill, drug misusers, alcohol misusers, the homeless, the disabled, ethnic minorities, Children and young people with special needs); 7) Mainstreaming and gender equality. 14 Denmark's National Action Plan to combat poverty and social exclusion (NAPincl) 2001/2003; Update of Denmark s National Action Plan to Combat Poverty and Social Exclusion (NAPincl 2003/2005); Trends, Recent Developments, Active Inclusion and Minimum Resources. First Semester Report Denmark. 15 Denmark's National Action Plan to combat poverty and social exclusion (NAPincl) 2001/2003; Update of Denmark s National Action Plan to Combat Poverty and Social Exclusion (NAPincl 2003/2005); Kvist, Jon & Saari, Juho IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

295 Denmark s first NAP (2001/2003) focused on the active social policy. The overall objective was the promotion of a more inclusive labour market. The creation of flexible and sheltered working arrangements, the anticipatory pension scheme and the introduction of the 'working capacity method' are the main achievements in these fields. The local coordination committees are expected to play a pivotal role in implementation 16. Multi-faceted approach to combating poverty and social exclusion continued in NAP. Denmark s overall focus was on activities for the most socially disadvantaged and marginalised groups. Special efforts were needed to prevent problems from intensifying, to improve the individual s options for personal development, activation and social integration, as well as to set out more cohesive and holistic offers. The activities focused on the citizen, introducing free choice, strengthening legal protection, improving voluntary work and enhancing the interplay between public systems. These efforts were supplemented with employment activities aimed at boosting labour market integration, preventing long-term unemployment and ensuring the expansion of a more socially inclusive labour market 17. The NAP for 2003/2005 put special emphasis on the initiatives aimed at the most disadvantaged groups, considered a highly relevant focus area in Denmark. Combating negative intergenerational transmission was another special focus area. The Plan differed from the first one by avoiding any overlaps with the corresponding action plan on employment. Moreover, all relevant players in the area, particularly voluntary organisations, had been involved far more greatly during the preparation stage. The objective of this action plan was to look ahead, as the Danish government did not see it as its task to provide a status description, unless warranted in a given context. As the Danish NAP was a compilation of a number of different policy documents, it was not considered as an overarching strategic document, but more a sinthesys ofdifferent initiatives and action plans in different areas 18. Denmark s strategy for social protection and social inclusion continued the same multifaceted approach to combating poverty and social exclusion in It has based on principles of universality, accessibility, gender equality, adequacy and sustainability. Systems are primarily tax-financed and depend only to a limited extent on labour-market attachment. That means, for example, that all citizens have access to health services, that all citizens obtain the right to old-age pension and that all citizens are, to the extent that they fulfill legislative conditions, entitled to a comprehensive selection of social services and offers 19. Main impacts of social OMC in the evolution of national policies The overall strategic approach for social inclusion policies in Denmark is the assumption that a strong and competitive society requires social cohesion without too many social and economic differences. The key priority for Denmark for obtaining an inclusive society is therefore through intensive involvement of and dialogue with social partners and key stakeholders to ensure that vulnerable and marginal groups also have sufficient access to the labour market. This strategic approach can be seen as bridging well the three strand objectives for social inclusion. A major challenge of the social inclusion strategy is to establish analysis of the impact of policy initiatives on the situation of vulnerable groups. 16 Denmark's National Action Plan to combat poverty and social exclusion (NAPincl) 2001/ Update of Denmark s National Action Plan to Combat Poverty and Social Exclusion (NAPincl 2003/2005). 18 National Action Plan to Combat Poverty and Social Exclusion (NAPincl 2003/2005); Trends, Recent Developments, Active Inclusion and Minimum Resources. First Semester Report Denmark. 19 National Report on Strategies for Social Protection and Social Inclusion. Denmark. Ministry of Social Affairs Ministry of Interior Affairs and Health. September IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

296 In particular, the social situation of certain immigrants especially affected by reduced social allowances in recent years has been highlighted regularly by key stakeholders, such as the Government's independent "Council of Socially Marginalised People". Within the action programme Our collective responsibility II" the Government has now taken first steps to address this. The involvement of stakeholders has been extensive during the preparation of the National Strategic Report. A national conference took place in April 2006 with the participation of a large spectrum of key stakeholders, including social partners, civil society, evaluators, regional authorities and relevant ministries. Based on contributions from various ministries, a first draft of the National Strategic Report was then submitted to a hearing procedure for all participants at the initial national conference. The policies for social inclusion and social protection are presented as an integral part of the Danish Lisbon strategy, and the measures are seen as key elements in pursuing the targets of this strategy. Denmark has a very long tradition of cooperation between NGOs and the public sector in social matters. This is one of the strongest points in the Danish policy on social inclusion, and makes an important contribution to Denmark's successful and inclusive society. The Danish Government has recently taken steps to improve the monitoring and evaluation of the social policies. Reference documents Denmark's National Action Plan to combat poverty and social exclusion (NAPincl) 2001/2003. DG Employment and Social Affairs, Implementation of NAP/inclusion in Denmark Second report October Implementation and update report on the nap/inclusion Denmark. Joint Report on Social inclusion, Pensions, Healthcare and Long Term care. Kvist, Jon & Saari, Juho The Europeanisation of Social Protection. The Policy Press. National Report on Strategies for Social Protection and Social Inclusion. Denmark. Ministry of Social Affairs Ministry of Interior Affairs and Health. September Non-Government Expert Report on Social Inclusion in Denmark Report no. 1 June Update of Denmark s National Action Plan to Combat Poverty and Social Exclusion (NAPincl 2003/2005). Joint report on Social Inclusion country profile, IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

297 Estonia Characteristics and evolution in national policy of social inclusion in the period Institutional framework The elaboration of the NAP was coordinated by the Ministry of Social Affairs. A steering committee consisting of representatives of the most of the Ministries in the Government and of social partners employers and trade unions, was convened. Moreover, seminars on particular policy area were organized. The seminars were attended by not-for-profit organizations involved in these issues, representatives of associations of local municipalities and members of the steering committee. The Ministry of Social Affairs played a coordinating role in the implementation of the NAP. Few citizens associations in Estonia were directly engaged in activities for the reduction of poverty and exclusion, and the existed organizations rather provided services than participated in the process of development of policies 20. Objectives and priorities in National Policy of Social Inclusion Estonia has a particularly high at risk of poverty rate. Although the overall performance of the Estonia economy in recent years, structural problems remain, such as high youth unemployment and a long-term unemployment rate. In order to afford such structural problems, in JIM (Joint Memorandum on Social Inclusion 2003) were included key challenges like developing an inclusive labour market, tackling educational disadvantage, guaranteeing adequate income through employment of social security, improving access to health care and health situation of disadvantaged groups, improving housing conditions and preventing homelessness, promoting an integrated approach to tackle poverty and exclusion and mobilizing all relevant players and promoting local partnerships 21. Where JIM sets long-term objectives for the solution of problems related to poverty and social exclusion, the NAPIncl. focused mainly on objectives and activities in the years The NAPIncl. was based on the principles to decrease poverty and exclusion, considerning that work is the best protection against poverty and social exclusion and education is an investment in the individual and decent social protection for those in a need. The key objectives of different policy areas included in the NAP are the following: Employment - Preventing long-term unemployment and inactivity, as well as dependency of benefits, enabling long-term unemployed people and those excluded from the labour market get work; providing unemployed people with more active and effective assistance in seeking and getting work Social Protection - Decrease and prevent poverty of families with children; Prevent exclusion of children with special needs; Improve disabled peoples independence; Secure appropriate income for elderly people; Ensure decent social assistance and prevent long-term dependence on benefits Education - Enable the employed, unemployed and risk groups to take advantage of lifelong learning opportunities o E-inclusion - Promote the information society at regional and local levels in order to prevent and decrease regional poverty and exclusion Estonia s National Action Plan for Social Inclusion Joint Memorandum on Social Inclusion of Estonia Estonia s National Action Plan for Social Inclusion 2004 IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

298 Some of the priorities included in the first NAP has been reinforced in National Report on Strategies for Social Protection and Social inclusion , that is: Prevention and reduction of long-term unemployment and exclusion form the labour market Prevention and alleviation of poverty and social exclusion of families with children To improve the population s health and extend the quality life To improve the quality and availability of health and long-term care services To ensure sustainability of health and long-term care systems 23 Other important measures in the context of social inclusion has been taken by the Government, that is: Gender equality Act (2004), aiming at ensuring equal treatment and to promote gender equality of men and women as a fundamental human right and for the public good in all areas of social life. Labour market services and benefits Act (2006), aimng at achieving maximum possible employment rates among the working population, and preventing their long-term unemployment and exclusion from the labour market. Unemployment Insurance Act and to Employment Contract Act, aaiming at improving protection of people who have repeatedly experienced unemployment. For better protection of the unemployed the law stipulates prolongation of the insurance reference period required for entitlement to the benefit from 24 months to 36 months. Main impacts of social OMC in the evolution of national policies The key policy challenges highlighted in the NRS are increasing labour market participation and eliminating child poverty, which reflect the challenges identified in the 2006 Joint Report for Estonia. The priority objectives for for increasing social inclusion are the prevention and reduction of long-term unemployment and exclusion from the labour market; and the prevention and alleviation of poverty and social exclusion among families with children. Estonia provides a reasonably multi-dimensional synthesis of the situation and main trends to justify focussing on reducing structural unemployment and supporting children in the context of the family, although the experience of implementing the 2004 NAP/inclusion is not reported. The approach chosen is nevertheless quite compatible with the common objectives under the social inclusion strand. According to the independent national expert of Estonia, the main new challenges in the fight against poverty and social exclusion worth emphasizing are the need in the coordinated activities for promotion of gender equality in all policy spheres (gender mainstreaming). It is needful to increase administrative capacity and develop institutional capacity for the assessment of impacts on genders, raise the competence of state and local government officials for integration of gender equality as a horizontal policy into state and local government strategies and action plans. It is also important to focus more targeted attention to the ethnic minorities. Still acute on the agenda is the need to solve homelessness and housing problems National Report on Strategies for Social Protection and Social Inclusion Viies, Mare Report on Regional and Local Implementation of the Estonian National Action Plan for Social Inclusion. Independent expert report. Peer review and Assessment in Social Inclusion; Viies, Mare Trends, Recent Developments, Active Inclusion and Minimum Resources. First Semester Report Independent expert report. Peer review and Assessment in Social Inclusion. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

299 Moreover, governance has been strengthened in the preparation of NAPIncl. during the years, through a substantial consultation process with a wide range of stakeholders and the governance arrangements nevertheless appear slightly stronger than before. Reference documents Joint Memorandum on Social Inclusion of Estonia Joint report on Social Inclusion country profile, Estonia s National Action Plan for Social Inclusion Report on Social Inclusion An analysis of the National Action Plans on Social Inclusion ( ) submitted by the 10 new Member States. Summary Description of the Community Initiative EQUAL in Estonia. National Report on Strategies for Social Protection and Social Inclusion Viies, Mare Report on Regional and Local Implementation of the Estonian National Action Plan for Social Inclusion. Independent expert report. Peer review and Assessment in Social Inclusion. Viies, Mare Trends, Recent Developments, Active Inclusion and Minimum Resources. First Semester Report Independent expert report. Peer review and Assessment in Social Inclusion. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

300 Finland Characteristics and evolution in national policy of social inclusion in the period Institutional framework The NAP/NRS was drawn up following the Finnish Governnamental administrative structure in cooperation with different ministries. Organizations representing the poor and socially excluded, labour market organizations, research institutes, local government representatives, and social work representatives of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland have been consulted. A ministerial social exclusion working group was set up in 1999 to 2003, charged with coordinating inter-sectoral measures to prevent social exclusion and designing new measures to interrupt social exclusion trends. Actors in the civil society increasingly cooperate with the public authorities in developing measures to combat poverty and social exclusion. There has been growing cooperation between employment offices, local offices of the Social Insurance Institution, the social welfare and health care authorities and NGOs in recent years 25. Objectives and priorities in National Policy of Social Inclusion The NAPincl strategy in the 2000 s could be synthetized in four general policies: Promoting health and ability to leas an active life, Increasing attractiveness of working life, Prevention and combating social exclusion and, Ensuring effective services and a reasonable level of income system 26. The strategy of the the NAPs has been drawn in order to preserve the basic structure of the Finnish social security system, by emphasizing the primacy of work. The improvement of basic income security was also called for. Target groups threatened by social exclusion have mainly be catered within the coverage of services and benefits intended for entire population, but the need to complement the universal system with specially targeted measures was underlined as well 27. The NAPs set out objectives for employment, development of the service system, income support, education, and housing, as wella as complementary objectives for measures targeted at risk groups. Measures and reforms to facilitate participation in employment, the National Health Project and the National Development Project for Social Services, the development of pupil welfare and counseling, the programs to reduce homelessness are the main set o f interventions defined and implemented by Finland in order to reduce social exclusion. In particular, as far as years, 4 issues closely connected with poverty and social inclusion had been subject of public discussion, that is the debate concerning the development of the Finnish public service model (i.e. the role, tasks and municipalities visà-vis the state), the situation of income inequality, the risks of social exclusion on low- 25 Joint report on social inclusion 2002; Joint report on social inclusion 2004; Joint report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion 2007.Virtanen, Petri Report on Social Inclusion in Finland. First progress Report written for the European Commission, DG Employment. Independent expert report. Peer review and Assessment in Social Inclusion. 26 National Action Plan against Poverty and Social Exclusion for Finland; National Action Plan against Poverty and Social Exclusion for Finland. 27 Virtanen, Petri Report on Social Inclusion in Finland. First progress Report written for the European Commission, DG Employment. Independent expert report. Peer review and Assessment in Social Inclusion. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

301 income families with children and the mass dismissals of employees by important national companies (UPM-Kymmene). Despite the greatest part of citizens has a good means of subsistence and lives healthily without deficits of welfare, the growth of income inequality is still an evident problem. The unemployed people have not benefited from the tax reduction policy. Furthermore, the risks of poverty concern single parent families and families with several children increased. As a consequence, there cannot be found a huge difference between the issues of NAPs and National Report on Strategies for Social Protection and Social Inclusion. The key objectives for combating social exclusion and poverty in Finland in namely are: Guaranteeing work opportunities for all Prevention of social problems and social risks Safeguarding the continuity of the existence of measures that prevent and correct social exclusions and poverty Ensuring the supply of skilled labour in services safeguarding the welfare of residents. The NSR strategy also emphasizes the importance of availability, quality and funding possibilities of health care and long-term care systems as well as stresses a healthy foundation for funding the pension system 28. Main impacts of social OMC in the evolution of national policies It can be said that Finland belongs to the family of Scandinavian welfare states which have often considered the most advanced welfare states in the Western World. The peculiarity of the Finnish welfare state in contrast to the other Scandinavian countries is Finland s late and fast development as well as the fact that the coverage of social security in Finland has been wide but the level of benefits has been moderate. Before the NAPinc the governments of Finland did not have specific policies against poverty and social exclusion. In fact, it was only the programme of Lipponen s II government (for the years ) when the concept social exclusion was mentioned in such an official document. In Finland, the institutional model of social protection is based on collectivity, risks, residence, and individualized rights. These principles explain quite clearly why the NAPinc was produced only after the major external input from the EU. As a consequence, the overarching objectives of the OMC for social protection and social inclusion are addressed in the Finnish NAP/NRS over the years. The idea of action plan does not fit without some institutional and mental adjustment into the Finnish system of social protection. This adjustment took some time. It tuned out, that the first round of the NAPinc had four major consequences for the Finnish social policymaking. It made union endogenous for social policy-making, strengthened the position of NGOs, forced the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, and others to learn a new approach, and caused some constitutional disagreement. However, as said before, the cooperation increased between different actors nationally and regionally. Reference documents National Action Plan against Poverty and Social Exclusion for Finland. National Action Plan against Poverty and Social Exclusion for Finland. Joint report on social inclusion Joint report on social inclusion National Reports on Strategies for Social Protection and Social inclusion Finland. Publications of the Ministry of Social Affairs and health 2006:24. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

302 Joint report on Social Inclusion country profile, Annex to the draft Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion Country Profiles Hietala, Kari ESR-viitekehyksen arviointi: Strategiat hallintaan. Strategisten viitekehysten arviointi. Helsinki: Työministeriö. Virtanen, Petri Report on Social Inclusion in Finland. First progress Report written for the European Commission, DG Employment. Independent expert report. Peer review and Assessment in Social Inclusion. Virtanen, Petri & Jalava, Janne Trends, Recent Developments, Active Inclusion and MinimumResources. First semester report Independent expert report. Peer review and Assessment in Social Inclusion. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

303 France Characteristics and evolution in national policy of social inclusion in the period Institutional framework The national approach on social inclusion strategy included multiple social actors. Ministries, NGO s networks and social workers were involved in social exclusion evaluation and research in order to elaborate the Plan. In particular, National Council of Policy against Social exclusion and Poverty (CNLE) has a central role in national social exclusion policy. Furthermore, the National Agency for Social Cohesion and Equal Opportunities 29 and The National Council of Policy against Social exclusion and Poverty (Conseil National des politiques de lutte contre la pauvrete et et de l'exclusion sociale) increased their efforts to adapt their research and work to the economic and social developments and policy. Tha National Plan put a strong emphasis on an integrated approach connected to decentralization process, involving new modes of relationship, management and evaluation of the policies concerned. The integration relies also on better co-ordination between Ministries (with several major monitoring and evaluation operations planned), on modernising the administration and on raising awareness among all players and the general public. Objectives and priorities in National Policy of Social Inclusion Reducing poverty and social exclusion have been an important issues for all French governments and the policy efforts against exclusion are being strengthened after the 1998 national law against social exclusion. The transformation of the economic and employment climate after 2000 generated a strategy that gives priority to people in difficulty in order to prevent the most vulnerable from being the first victims of the economic slow-down ( ). In 2005 a new law on social cohesion was approved, base on 3 main pillars: employment, social housing and equality of opportunities. The French NAPIncl , and are based on the continuation of a strategy established in 1998, taking in account the multi-dimensional character of social exclusion. Thus, the strategy is mainly focused on active policies such as the reintegration of people on the labour market by guarantying the effective access to all fundamental rights. The challenges identified in the first NAP Inclusion remain broadly unchanged and reinforced in the strategies of the last NAPs, that is: Improving the precarious existence of a large part of the population, and in particular of marginalised populations; Access to employment and improvement of occupational income; Effective access to rights, and inequalities between regions, depressed neighbourhoods, rural areas. Also the most vulnerable groups remain the same: unemployed, working poor, children under 18, unskilled young people, large and single parent families, women over 65 and, in terms of specific populations, asylum seekers and travellers, who admittedly do not constitute a homogeneous category. 29 L'Observatoire national de la pauvrete et l'exclusion sociale (created in 1998) and replaced since 2006 by The National Agency for Social Cohesion and Equal Opportunities (Agence Nationale pour la Cohesion Sociale et l'egalite des chances). IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

304 The National Strategic Report on Social protection and Social inclusion pays a special attention to the youth in difficulty by measures to improve the access to education, to discourage early school leaving and to increase the access to the labour market. Moreover, the NSR identifies three priorities, consistent with the European objectives and the main challenges identified in the 2006 Joint Report: access and return to employment of people removed from the labour market, social and occupational integration of young people, especially those affected by problems of discrimination subsidised housing and the provision of accommodation. Main impacts of social OMC in the evolution of national policies In the French social model, high-quality full employment and greater social cohesion are considered to be indispensable to growth. Its strategic dimension is more and more marked NAP/NSR over the years, with three major thrusts consistent with the European overarching objectives: to improve the financial position of the social security schemes in order to make the French social model sustainable over the long term and maintain a high level of social protection; to enhance the quality and accessibility of health care and longterm care and ensure that they are adapted to needs; to pursue a global and integrated strategy of social inclusion based essentially on employment (with the emphasis on the integration of target groups, especially young people), housing and equal opportunities (over-arching approach). The contribution of the social cohesion plan is underlined, especially in terms of employment, with the restructuring of the public employment service, the enhanced accompanying measures, the focus on apprenticeship or the root-and-branch reform of subsidised contracts, which have made a major contribution to the fall in the employment rate over the past year. Reference documents Combating poverty and Social Exclusion in France OECD (2007). Plan national d action français contre la pauvreté et l exclusion sociale PNAI Bilan et d actualisation. Plan national d action francais contre la pauvrete et l exclusion sociale Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion 2007, country profile. Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion Singerman Alan J La France et la politique sociale de l'union européenne, The French Review, Vol. 75, No. 2 (Dec., 2001), pp Rapport sur les stratégies pour la protection sociale et l inclusion sociale FRANCE /nap/ france_fr.pdf. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

305 Germany Characteristics and evolution in national policy of social inclusion in the period Institutional framework Federal Ministry for Health and Social Security is the lead organization responsible for the content of the NAPs and for managing the mainstreaming process, whereas the responsibility for the programme rests with the Federal Government. Permanent partners for developing the NAP inclusion were: the office of the Federal Chancellor, the Federal Ministry of Finance, the Federal Ministry for Families, Senior Citizens, Women and Young People, the Green Party (parliamentary faction), the social democratic party (parliamentary faction), the federal statistics office, the Parliament and the Bundesrat. Regions and Local Authorities provide advisory on content, and draw on local and regional strategies. A large number of additional organisations were included in the production of the NAP, including regional ministries, charitable and other not-for-profit organizations. As far as the compilation of the National Plans of Action for Social Integration since 2001, a process has become established in Germany, based on the participation of the Federal Government, Länder and local authorities and from civil society. A Permanent Group of Advisers for Social Integration has now established itself, in which a total of 25 associations from non-governmental organisations (charitable associations, self-help initiatives, National Poverty Conference, etc.), employers, trades unions, churches, Länder and local authorities are represented. Academics from the academic body of experts for poverty and wealth reporting are incorporated in the negotiations for the National Plan of Action on Social Integration. The implementation of social security is organized by single areas a the regional level, where a lot of actors are involved, many of them non-governmental organizations active at Local Authority level. These also run a range of non-statutory services 30. An effective collaboration of the different levels is the precondition for effective administration of social services (Sozialverwaltung). At Local Authority level in particular progress was made in the last years with the aim of a citizen-centric administration. Social partners and non-statutory welfare services so make a decisive contribution to the success of social protection in Germany. They participate together with the federal government in the pact for work, vocational training and competitiveness (Bündnis für Arbeit, Ausbildung und Wettbewerbsfähigkeit) at the regional and Local Authority level. NGOs participate in the development of relevant legislation, e.g. the current reform of the disability law. Objectives and priorities in National Policy of Social Inclusion Overcoming unemployment was the biggest and most important objective of the federal government and was seen as the most effective tool for addressing social inclusion in the first years of the decade. This priority has been introduce in both the and NAPs. In particular, NAPs has been focuse on the promotion of access to long-term and qualified work for all by developing a programme which supports members of the weakest social groups (recipients of social security benefits, migrants, the disabled, young people) until they have found work and making use of all the opportunities offered by the education system. 30 Strategien zur Stärkung der Sozialen Integration. Nationaler Aktionsplan für Deutschland zur Bekämpfung von Armut und Sozialer Ausgrenzung , p. 43. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

306 According to the NSR, reducing unemployment has the utmost priority for the Federal Government 31. There is now a priority on improving labour market participation including measures like examining combined wage models and their interaction with the tax and contribution system, an extending by one or two years of previously introduced specific measures for older people as well as additional measures for long-term unemployed older people and further training for poorly qualified older workers in SMEs. Other measures focus on qualifications and employability of younger people as well as measures targeting languages skills, school and vocational education of migrants. Combining job and family policies includes the following priorities: funding childcare interventions; making it easier to combine job and family; supporting those caring for dependents; provisions for part time work; improving employability through ongoing training; lifelong learning for all. The NSR contains new priorities for the family policy to reduce risks of social exclusion and strengthen opportunities and fair participation 32. The focus is on the social inclusion of disabled or disadvantaged social groups (disabled, migrants, people in difficult social circumstances). NSR includes also priorities devoted to disadvantaged young people and young people not native speakers of German. The integration of migrants remains a priority in the report which now contains a separate priority on strengthening the integration of migrants 33. From 2008, disabled people will have a legal entitlement to personal budgets which will allow them to organize their care ( rehabilitation ) themselves. The project jobs without barriers, which aims at improving the qualification and employment of disabled people, will continue. Main impacts of social OMC in the evolution of national policies This NSR in Germany identifies seven political priorities for , namely enhancing labour market participation, reducing disadvantages in education and vocational training, modernising child and family policies to eradicate child poverty, improving the integration of immigrants, fighting discrimination against disabled people, strengthening the role of social services and civil society and improving governance. With these national priorities, the strategy should help improve access to resources, rights and services for all, which constitutes one of the Common Objectives for social inclusion. The continued emphasis on labour market participation in German national policies will also contribute to the second Common Objective for social inclusion. Concerning the coordination of social policies at all levels (third Common Objective), Germany has demonstrated good progress in comparison with previous National Action Plans. From the first NAP/Incl. in 2001, the cooperation between federal government, Länder and NGOs has continuously improved. This improvement is largely attributable to the parallel process for producing the Federal Poverty and Wealth Report. 31 Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales National Strategy Report Social Protection and Social Inclusion 2006, p Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales National Strategy Report Social Protection and Social Inclusion 2006, p Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales National Strategy Report Social Protection and Social Inclusion 2006, p. 25. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

307 Reference documents National Action Plan on Social Inclusion National Action Plan on Social Inclusion National Action Plan on Social Inclusion Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales National Strategy Report Social Protection and Social Inclusion Joint report on Social Inclusion country profile, IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

308 Greece Characteristics and evolution in national policy of social inclusion in the period Institutional framework NAPs on social Inclusion ( and ) and the National Strategy Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion were coordinated and drawn up by the Ministry of Employment and Social Protection. Social Partners active in the field of social protection and social inclusion also contributed the NAP definition. NAP and NSR are based on the idea that the major challenge in implementing actions against exclusion involves the conncetion between the individual at risk of exclusion and the agencies responsible for providing services. Therefore, they stress the need for social infrastructure at the local level, since it is these bodies which come into contact with excluded individuals. The Welfare Services Reform aimed at developing a modern, decentralized and effective social care network offering services to all citizens. In particular, the reform aimed at a) the administrative re-organisation and decentralization of social services at regional level; b) the promotion of voluntarism, social solidarity and social participation; c) promotion of autonomy for the disabled; d) de-institutionalisation of those living in institutions; e) introduction of continual assessment and quality control for social care providers. Social Welfare Map was drafted to describe the entire range of social services in each municipality. Then, the Education Reform aimed at preventing social exclusion linked to early school dropout, learning difficulties, cultural and religious discrimination experienced by pupils and students and special education needs. Objectives and priorities in National Policy of Social Inclusion According to the need of Greek society, the general policy objective for combating social exclusion was to fill gaps in the social safety net by improving the mix of actions and interventions aimed at addressing social exclusion in order to maximize the synergy and efficacy of the relevant services, structures and policies. NAPincl objectives relate in particular to both general and specialized policies. NAPincl recognizes the need to a) create a favorable macro-economic climate (e.g. vulnerable groups on low fixed incomes tend to benefit from low inflation; b) to address labour market rigidities (jointly with NAPempl and CSF funding), tackling unemployment and promoting employment as the most effective solution to low family incomes; c) to reform the education system so as to act as an effective preventative mechanism against social inclusion. As far as specialized policies, NAPincl aimed at addressing poverty and social exclusion by a) the introduction of new policies aimed at groups at risk of exclusion, e.g. poor rural households, poor families with under-aged children, the older long-term unemployed, etc.; b) the extension of existing policies aimed at groups facing serious social inclusion difficulties such as the most vulnerable groups, e.g. Roma population, immigrants, Greek repatriates, the disabled, ex-offenders, drug-users, etc. In the period up to 2002, targeted actions such were also aimed at elderly and low-income pensioners (EKAS - Pensioner Social Solidarity Grant). The main objectives of the NAPincl were the integrated development of the countryside with a view to eliminating the disparities in the quality of life between rural and urban populations. With regard to social services the aim was to guarantee equal access to health and care services for the inhabitants of rural areas and ensure access to a broader range of services, especially for individuals with special needs. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

309 Moreover, the Income policy for the older pensioners would provide for increases the rate of inflation for the basic pension. The national strategy ( ) on social protection system reform and higher social cohesion levels is underpinned by guidelines for three sector policies (social inclusion, social security system, health and long term care). The priorities are as follows: Priority 1: boosting of employment, particularly for women, young people, long term unemployed and vulnerable population groups Priority 2: Dealing with individuals and groups disadvantage position in education and training Priority 3: Support to families and the elderly Priority 4: Social inclusion of disabled individuals, immigrants and individuals/groups with cultural/religious particularities. Main impacts of social OMC in the evolution of national policies Over the years, in Greece there has been recognition of the need for social policy adjustments. As a consequence, efforts have been made to improve the social protection system and specifically the ability to meet existing and emerging needs of all those citizens at risk of social exclusion and poverty. The strategy announced in the NSR follows the rationale of the previous NAP inclusion, and is based on specific national challenges. Within this framework, three strategic priorities are identified, namely a) improving governance, b) promoting employment and fighting unemployment among vulnerable groups by upgrading their abilities and c) securing a dignified socioeconomic standard of living and ensuring high-quality social services for all, especially with regard to education, health and social security and protection systems. However, the links between the strategic priorities and the proposed interventions need more efforts towards the adoption and implementation of a strategy addressing fully and comprehensively all three overarching objectives of the Open Method of Coordination for social protection and social inclusion. Despite the positive steps, social policy adjustments carried out so far have failed to address effectively the multidimensionality of problems and needs in the area of poverty and social exclusion. The majority of measures undertaken appear to be fragmented as the appropriate institutional mechanisms to facilitate the adoption of an integrated approach are still at an early stage of development. Anyway, in Greece, there is a notable attempt to link the NSR, and national policies as a consequence, with the interventions presently carried out and co-financed by ESF. Nevertheless the role of this contribution to achieving the overarching objectives looks very important, the link with the NSR could benefit from more clarity, because many of the envisaged interventions will solicit ESF co-financing. Reference documents Community Support Framework National Plan for Social Inclusion National Plan for Social Inclusion Implementation Report of National Plan for Social Inclusion National Report on Structural Reforms - Greece, 2001 (includes information on Pensions Reform). National strategy report on social protection and social inclusion Ministry of employment and social protection Joint report on Social Inclusion country profile, IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

310 Hungary Characteristics and evolution in national policy of social inclusion in the period Institutional framework National Report on Strategies for Social Protection and Social Inclusion and (as well as of the former NAP) has been elaborated by the Committee against Social Exclusion, composed by the representatives of all ministers involved, the Central Statistical Office and the Alliance of Social Professionals (one of the largest civil umbrella organization in the social field). The Ministry of Social Affairs and Labour ensures the coordination bureau of the Committee 34. Objectives and priorities in National Policy of Social Inclusion The Hungarian NAP on Social Inclusion, , focuses on main challenges identified in the Joint Inclusion Memorandum, 2003, and sets 6 objectives of social inclusion: 1. Promoting employment - Ensuring an employment-friendly economic environment, Active labour market programmes for disadvantaged groups, Improving employability, Promoting the employment of women and the reconciliation of work and family life, Providing community-based services that support reintegration to the labour market; 2. Guaranteeing access to public services - Creating equal opportunities in access to public services, Social services, Education, Health care, Information technology, Culture and sports, Reducing regional disparities, Ensuring an accessible service environment and justice, reducing discriminatory practices; 3. Reducing persistent and deep poverty - Targeted social assistance, Improving housing security, Reducing homelessness; 4. Investing in the future: guaranteeing child well-being - Benefits and services for families, Enabling education, Enhanced enforcement of children s rights; 5. Mainstreaming the fight against social exclusion in respect of the main target groups - Mainstreaming the fight against the social exclusion of the Roma, Mainstreaming the fight against the social exclusion of people living with disabilities, Gender mainstreaming, Activation and dignity for the elderly, Supporting persons with mental disorders or addictions, Promoting the social integration of immigrants and refugees 6. Mobilising all relevant bodies for social inclusion - Cooperation between sectors and levels of the public administration, The involvement of the civil society The target setting of the NSR on Social Protection and Social Inclusion was driven by three objectives of the Government's strategy, namely restoring the macroeconomic balance; implementing a reform process encompassing the entire operation of the state, with special emphasis on public administration, health-care services, the pension system and education; and elaborating and implementing a comprehensive development policy, based on funding from the Structural Funds. 34 NRS , page IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

311 As far as social inclusion is concerned, the main objective is to prevent the growth in social inequalities, strengthening social inclusion, supporting disadvantaged people in the period of economic corrections as comprehensive objective, and in particular: 1. to ensure a life spent on active work for as many people as possible, and in relation to the foregoing to strengthen the work-incentive effect of the social services system. 2. to fight child poverty and to break the inter-generational transmission of exclusion, primarily through ensuring equal opportunities in the field of education/training, promoting parents employment, cash benefits granted to children and families, and through social services, by protecting the health of children and young people, as well as via strengthening the family as an institution or community. 3. to promote community development and changes in service management, to improve housing conditions and to manage the indebtedness of the population with special emphasis on the integration of the Roma. 4. to strengthen transparency, democratic and civil control, and the system of social feedback; to strengthen evaluation, and to establish a more systematic and complex system of monitoring of individual services and programmes. Main impacts of social OMC in the evolution of national policies The Overarching OMC objective of the social inclusion strand is the prevention of further increases in social inequalities, the strengthening of social inclusion and the compensation of disadvantaged people in the period of budgetary adjustment. However the third element has only received limited attention in the priorities. For the rest, the specific objectives correspond to the priorities: active inclusion, tackling child poverty and helping the most disadvantaged areas to catch up. In line with the challenge identified by the 2006 Joint Report of improving employment performance and addressing inactivity, including the review of benefit systems the first priority targets labour market inclusion in a manner that is consistent with the NRP. This is based on the "work first" principle without, however, limiting the scope of benefits and services. The interventions address crucial elements of the interaction between the social and the employment spheres, such as the redesign of the rehabilitation services and disability benefits. On the other hand, resources dedicated to fighting poverty and exclusion, in particular among the Roma minority are unlikely to be increased in the context of budgetary restraint. Considerable efforts have been made to improve cooperation among the relevant governmental bodies and to better mobilise civil society in the preparation of policies, however their role in implementation and monitoring is not visible. Hungary has made a significant effort to involve all relevant actors in the preparation of the new social inclusion strategy. Reference documents National Action Plan on Social Inclusion Hungary, Joined Memorandum on Social Inclusion-Hungary, Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion- Country Profiles- Hungary, European Commission, Beate Sissenich, Cross-National Policy Networks and the State: EU Social Policy Transfer to Poland and Hungary, European Journal of International Relations; 14; 455. Susana Borrás, Kerstin Jacobsson, The open method of co-ordination and new governance patterns in the EU, Journal of European Public Policy; 11:2, , Ana M. Guillén, Bruno Palier, Introduction: Does Europe matter? Accession to EU and social policy developments in recent and new member states, Journal of European Social Policy, ; Vol. 14(3): , Paris, France. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

312 A renewed commitment to social europe: reinforcing the open method of coordination for social protection and social inclusion, Communication from the commission to the European parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions, Brussels, Joint report on Social Inclusion country profile, IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

313 Ireland Characteristics and evolution in national policy of social inclusion in the period Institutional framework NAPincl in Ireland was drawn by the Department of Social Community and Family affairs, taking into account submissions from all relevant national, regional and third sector contributors. The main actors involved were: County and City Development Boards; the Combat Poverty Agency; Department of Social, Family Affairs; National Economic and Social Council, National Economic and Social Forum; Economic and Social Research Institute, Training and Employment Authority; Irish Business and Employers Confederation; Irish Congress of Trade Unions; NAPS Inter-Departmental Policy Committee; Local Employment Services; Money Advice and Budgeting Services 35. The Office for Social Inclusion has been charged with monitoring and reporting on social inclusion matters of the NSSPI (National Strategy for Social Protection and Inclusion) strategies, as previously in the NAPincl. Senior Officials Group is the responsible of the monitoring and evaluation process. The Steering Group for the Social Partnership Agreement will also have a related oversight role, ensuring that the social partners have a direct involvement in the process 36. Objectives and priorities in National Policy of Social Inclusion National Action Plans against Poverty and Social Exclusion and drew predominantly on the pre-existing ten year National Anti-Poverty Strategy (NAPS) , a inter-departmental initiative which provided a framework for action to help achieve the objective of eliminating poverty in Ireland. It also drew on the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF), which aimed to involve partners across the statutory and voluntary sectors to promote a fair and inclusive society in Ireland 37. The National Strategy for Social Protection and Inclusion (NSSPI) draws much of its content from the new Irish social partnership agreement, Towards This agreement outlines a new framework within which to address key social challenges, and it has been developed around the lifecycle approach (Children, People of Working Age, Older People, and People with Disabilities 38 ) which offers a streamlined, cross-cutting and visible approach to tackling poverty and social exclusion as well as developing greater social protection. The objectives for the NAPincl and were developed around the 4 key priorities: Objective 1 Facilitating involvement in employment and access by all to resources, rights, goods and services Objective 2 To prevent the risk of exclusion Objective 3 To help the most vulnerable Objective 4 To mobilise all relevant bodies The review process of the NAPS in led to further targets and measures, which were outlined in the revised NAPS, Building an Inclusive Society. 35 NAPincl : Chapter 5: p NSSPI : NAPincl p3. 38 NSSPI Report:9. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

314 The NAPincl introduced several new priorities in term of activities and target groups 39 : Ending Child Poverty. Tackling Educational Disadvantage Literacy, Numeracy and Early School Leaving. Long-term Unemployed, Vulnerable Workers and those who have been made redundant. Care Children, People with Disabilities and Older People. Migration and Interculturalism. Housing and accommodation. Alcohol/Drug Misuse. Including Everyone in the Information Society. The National Strategy report structures priorities slightly differently. In the area of social inclusion, objectives include: 1 - Child Poverty, 2- Access to Quality Work and Learning Opportunities; 3- Integration of Immigrants; 4 - Access to Quality Services 40 The NSSPI introduced a range of measures to remove potential barriers in the decision to take up or return to employment in the event of a sudden loss of benefits. Examples of such measures include 41 : Means disregards in social assistance schemes and tapered withdrawal of benefits as earnings increase; Exemption from social insurance contribution Employment support schemes such as the Back To Work Allowance and Back to Education Allowance; Improvement of the Family Income Supplement scheme; Retention of Rent/Mortgage Interest Supplement and other secondary benefits on a tapered basis. Over the period a more integrated programme of measures was developed to support the movement of lone parents into more full-time and quality employment, which would comprise the following elements 42. Reform of income support schemes; Expanded availability and range of education and training opportunities for lone parents; Extension of the National Employment Action Plan to focus on lone parents; Focused provision of childcare ;Improved information services for lone parents. Main impacts of social OMC in the evolution of national policies The Irish National Strategy Report can generally be said to contain a coherent strategic approach which builds upon the achievements of the earlier National Anti-Poverty Strategy and the National Plan against Poverty and Social Exclusion Mirroring the outcome of the negotiations on a new Social Partnership Agreement, Towards 2016, it adopts a lifecycle approach which makes for a cogent analysis of the issues being addressed in tackling social exclusion. The priorities identified in NSR and for national policies are appropriate and consistent with EU priorities and in most cases clear, ambitious but achievable targets are included, again drawing to a considerable extent from Towards NAPincl : p NSSPI report: NSSPI report:7. 42 NSSPI report:8. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

315 The strategic approach can be viewed as a further development of the strategy followed in Ireland to date in the National Anti-Poverty Strategy and the previous NAP/inclusion and sets out the intention to continue reform of the social welfare system, to address access to the labour market, enhance employability and improve access to better quality education, health and other services. Ireland continues to demonstrate a clear commitment to wide-ranging consultation in the preparation of its inclusion strategy. An extensive consultation process was undertaken, including a public call for submissions, regional public consultations, a meeting of the Social Inclusion Forum and consultation with the local authorities. Reference documents National Action Plan on Social Inclusion National Action Plan on Social Inclusion National Development Plan Joint report on Social Inclusion country profile, IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

316 Italy Characteristics and evolution in national policy of social inclusion in the period Institutional framework The elaboration of NAPs on Social Inclusion was coordinated by the Ministry of Labour and Social Policies. The Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Interior, Justice, Education, Higher Education and Research and Health as well as the Department of Public Duties and Equal Opportunities as well as the Regions were also involved in drafting and sharing the general objectives. Provinces are also responsible for analysing needs, resources and the type of care and assistance offered and the municipalities are assigned administrative duties related to social action. Third sector organisation representatives are responsible for providing services and the service network in a form of horizontal subsidiarity. NAPIncl presents horizontal measures to develop social dialogue with professional associations and other representative association, to widespread the use of the negotiated procedure and to involve social actors and local and regional public authorities. National Law n 328/00 gets the Social Services reform off the ground defining: (a) the integration of social services with other services to people and communities (such as educational services, cultural and recreational ones) and with the labour market and training active policies; (b) the concertation and cooperation among the different institutional levels, such as Local Governments, Regions and State. The Reform establishes an integrated system of interventions and social services addressed to people, families and communities and with characteristics of universality. It is specifically addressed to people in poverty conditions or with low income or unable to take care of themselves because of physical and psychical inabilities, difficulties to be inserted in the active social life and in the labour market. The reform of Title V of the Italian constitution introduced some important principles in the responsibilities between the state and regions and exclusive responsibilities of the regions are defined. Central government is charged to decide on basic social services and care and of defining the basic standards for services, while the regions are requested to plan, coordinate and steer social action with the help of local authorities and to check implementation in their respective areas and make optimal use of the private no-profit sector and third sector with regard to planning and implementing social action and services. Objectives and priorities in National Policy of Social Inclusion The priorities of the NAPIncl and (extended also to 2006) were grouped under the three objectives: Objective 1: to facilitate access to employment, access to resources, rights, goods and services for all. Development of employment and skills with particular focus on women and the south of Italy; Increased employment rate for over 55s; Increased number of disabled people in the labour market; Promotion of integration of convicts into society and the world of work; Promotion of legalisation of undeclared employment. Objective 2: to prevent social exclusion risks. Reduction of young exclusion in schools, promotion of equality of opportunities for all and on successful education and training. Objective 3: support for vulnerable groups. Measures devoted to disabled people, immigrants, drug addicts, convicts and ex-convicts and aimed at improving the accessibility to services for disabled people. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

317 NAPs also present specific provisions for categories at risk of exclusion presenting a new income scheme called the Income of Last Resort ( reddito di ultima istanza ) meant to replace RMI (insertion minimum income) as a means to combat social exclusion. A new law (2003), enacted under delegated power to implement the labour market reforms contained in the White Paper of October The priority measures regarded: o o o o o Increasing the female employment rate Increasing the employment rate for all categories at risk of social exclusion; Ensuring same opportunities to access legal, good quality employment to all; Facilitate access to part-time work and other flexi-time contracts; Reconcile work and family and social life; The National Report on Strategies for Social Protection and Social Inclusion reinforced the strategy developed in the previous years focusing on: o o o o o Reducing poverty especially in the South Regions and for minors; Increasing female participation to the labour market and reducing gender gaps in employment; Increasing and supporting the development of social services; Defining essential level of assistance for social service provisions; Increasing interventions for immigrants, disabled people, elderly people, minors; Main impacts of social OMC in the evolution of national policies In Italy, in last years, social inclusion and social protection policies seem to have gained in importance in the government agenda. Frequent references to gender issues in the NSR and attention to and visibility of gender equality can be considered adequate. Particularly in the last NSR ( ), and as a consequence in the national policies, all three overarching objectives of the new OMC are addressed, even if the result is not always satisfactory. The social inclusion strand of the Italian National Strategy Report is based on a multidimensional approach, and efforts to enhance the integration of policy fields and different government levels are clearly pursued. As far as the key challenges identified in the 2006 Joint Report are concerned, the most relevant progress concerns Italy's employment. The Italian government seems intent on re-launching the approach introduced by the 2000 national reform, characterized by an institutional framework based on subsidiarity principles. A large number of governance instruments are foreseen, such as permanent conferences, programming agreements, co-decision mechanisms, monitoring systems and consultation bodies. For preparation of the NSR there was little opportunity to involve many stakeholders (mainly due to the limited time available since the formation of the new government), but some attempts were made to adopt a more systematic and coherent method. Reference documents National Action Plan on Social Inclusion National Action Plan on Social Inclusion (extended to 2006). National Reform Strategy Report on national strategies for future pension systems (2002 and 2005). Joint Report on Social Inclusion and Social Protection 2007 Country Profile. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

318 Latvia Characteristics and evolution in national policy of social inclusion in the period Institutional framework The elaboration of National Action Plan for Reduction of Poverty and Social Exclusion ( ) has been coordinated by the Ministry of Welfare and it has been elaborated by the participation of representatives of ministries and other state institutions, municipalities and social partners, NGOs and research institutions. Regional development agencies were included in the working group. Objectives and priorities in National Policy of Social Inclusion In 2004 Latvia elaborated its first National Action Plan for Reduction of Poverty and Social Exclusion. Vulnerable groups such as unemployed, people with disabilities, ex-prisoners, homeless people and vagrant children identified have been included ih the main priority of the NAP, the reduction of poverty being one of the priority tasks of the Government of Latvia since Along with the economic development salaries and pension increased on a regular basis. Furthermore, in the autumn of 2007 the government took the decision to raise the minimum wage and several proposals expressed by the Ministry of Welfare for the improvement of the state social insurance system have been made after The growing of the standard of living has thus affected positively also to social inclusion politics of Latvia 43. However, measures aimed at raising employment, the promotions of business activities have contributed more to the working population, whereas the impacts on no-working population (children, pensioners etc.) are not as positive. Considering that in Latvia the social security system is mainly based on the state social insurance contributions by the individual, and the support provided within the frame of the system is proportional to the contribution of the individual, the no-working population gain much less than the rest of population. According to the Joint Memorandum on Social inclusion, the Government of Latvia and the EU agreed that the most immediate policy priorities in relation to tackling poverty and social exclusion were: to make education more relevant to the modern labour market, to expand and adequately resource active labour market measures aimed particularly at those who are at highest risk of long-term unemployment, to ensure an adequate minimum income for all 44.. As far as disable people, the objective of the new policy is to prevent, as much as possible, the risk of becoming disabled. It means that additional complex rehabilitation services, financed by the state, were made available also to the people facing the risk of disability. Moreover, the priority objectives of National Report on Strategy for Social Protection and Social Inclusion followed the objectives of the first NAP: Improve the access of children and young people subjected to the risk of poverty and social exclusion to education and labour market services. Improve the accessibility of resources and services to families, particularly large and single-parent families. 43 Joint Memorandum on Social Inclusion of Latvia; Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion Country profiles: Latvia, 2006; Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion Joint Memorandum on Social Inclusion of Latvia. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

319 Improve the accessibility of resources and services to retired persons subjected to the risk of poverty, in particular to those living alone 45. Main impacts of social OMC in the evolution of national policies The Latvian National Report on Strategy for Social Protection and Social Inclusion emphasizes the importance of integrated and mutually supportive policies in the fields of social inclusion, pensions, health and long-term care. Latvia, striving to ensure flexicurity, focuses on the social protection system's ability to react to population ageing, a shrinking labour force and to adequacy of benefits. An inclusive labour market is being developed. There is a strong focus on health care, preventive measures and healthy lifestyles. Latvia also puts emphasis on promoting education and a family-friendly environment. The reduction of social exclusion risks for pensioners is among the national priorities. Overall social inclusion issues raised in the NRS include barriers faced by at-risk groups in access to resources, education, quality jobs, social care and health care, ICT and housing. As regards its strengths, the NRS demonstrates that the choice of new inclusion priorities is a result of analyses of the current situation and wide consultations. Efforts are made to have an impact on the eradication of poverty and social exclusion by improving access to basic resources and social services. There have been efforts to achieve better governance, transparency and involvement of stakeholders. Considerable efforts are made to better include relevant actors, and to accommodate the needs of local governments and at-risk groups; still, the issue of tackling regional differences remains important. Reference documents Latvian National Action Plan for Reduction of Poverty and Social Exclusion ( ). Report on social inclusion An analysis of the National Action Plans on Social Inclusion ( ) submitted by the 10 new Member States. Joint Memorandum on Social Inclusion of Latvia. Joint Report on Social Protection and social Inclusion Country Profiles: Latvia, Joint report on Social Inclusion country profile, Lace, Tana The 3 rd Report on the Latvian National Action Plan for the Reduction of Poverty and Social Exclusion ( ). Independent expert report. Lace, Tana Trends, Recent Developments, Active Inclusion and Minimum Resources. First Semester Report Independent expert report. Peer review and Assessment in Social Inclusion. Lace, Tana Trends, Recent Developments, Feeding in and Feeding out. A Study of National Policies. Independent expert report. Peer review and Assessment in Social Inclusion. National Report on Strategy for Social Protection and Social Inclusion Rajevska, Feliciana Social Policy in Latvia. Welfare state under double pressure. Fafo. Rajevska, Feliciana (ed.) Insiders view about Social Inclusion and Social Security in Latvia. Fafo. 45 National Report on Strategy for Social Protection and Social Inclusion IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

320 Lithuania Characteristics and evolution in national policy of social inclusion in the period Institutional framework The Ministry of Social Security and Labour has overall responsibility for development and implementation of the NRS. The Ministry was assisted in the drafting process by a joint task group comprising representatives from governmental institutions, social partners, NGOs and the Association of Municipalities. The plan has been coordinated with ministries, departments and representatives of social partners, and has gained the support at the ministerial-level meeting 46. It is also planned to establish a wide partnership-based NRS Monitoring Group to take over the tasks of the current NAP Monitoring Group during the period Objectives and priorities in National Policy of Social Inclusion The evolution of Lithuania s policy of social inclusion can be driven on the Poverty Reduction Strategy (2000) aimeing at reducing unemployment, ensuring the availability and accessibility of a high quality and holistic education to all children and increasing social integration of drug addicts, alcoholics, persons released from prison and other places of imprisonment and suppression 47. Laws, legal acts and decisions which were amended, complemented or formulated in line with ideas and proclaimed by JIM and NAP, such as: Law on Social Integration of the Disabled, approved in The new version of the law takes new non-discriminatory, integrated and inclusive approach to disability and the disabled. Law on the Social Assistance in cash for Low-Income Families and the Law on Assistance Pensions (2004). An important step towards making labour market more equitable and accessible to those who experience difficulties re-entering employment was Draft law on social enterprise, on approval by the Government. The direct target beneficiaries of this law were groups of the population at high risk of poverty and social exclusion (disabled, long-term unemployed, ex-convicts etc.). The objectives and most important policies of the NAP for the elimination of poverty and social exclusion were: Assistance for vulnerable persons (Elimination of social exclusion among the highly vulnerable children; Assistance for refugees and immigrants; Reduction of social exclusion of Roma people; Assistance for the HIV-infected and persons with aids) Boosting of employment, enhancement of opportunities to use resources, rights, goods and services (Increasing opportunities of employment, Promoting the implementation of the principles of social economy; Promoting ocational training, consultation and life-long learning ; Facilitating access to resources, rights, goods and services (social protection, provision of housing and promoting healthy life style in the society and health care) Prevention of social exclusion risks (Using the opportunities of knowledge-based economy; Prevention of indebtedness; Preservation of family solidarity and 46 National Action Plan against Poverty and Social Exclusion Republic of Lithuania. 47 Joint Memorandum on Social Inclusion of Lithuania 2003; Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion 2007; Rimkute, Jolanta & Voloschuk, Irina The process of the preparation of NAP in Lithuania. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

321 prevention of social exclusion of children; Prevention of problems that give rise to social exclusion) Ensuring gender equality 48 The priorities for social inclusion included in the National Report on Strategies of Lithuania for Social Protection and Social inclusion were: Increase labour market participation Improving access to quality services (social, legal and cultural services) Eliminate child poverty and enhance assistance to families Tackling disadvantages in education and training Ensure sufficient income and satisfactory living level to all retired individuals Security of better adaptation of pension systems to the needs of men and women, transparency and information supply Development of health care and long-term care systems 49. Main impacts of social OMC in the evolution of national policies The overall strategic approach to social protection and social inclusion is to promote social integration through employment of all those able to work and to ensure efficient and adequate social protection for those who are unable. The National Strategy on social protection and social inclusion identifies five key challenges: (1) to increase the activity rate of vulnerable groups; (2) to use the means available to the social protection system more efficiently and fairly; (3) to ensure the rights of children and youth; (4) to create more possibilities of social integration for vulnerable groups; and (5) to mainstream gender equality. Lithuania has addressed all three overarching objectives of the OMC. On social cohesion, Lithuania aims to develop adequate, accessible and efficient social protection systems and social services. Another specific focus of the National Strategy Report is on support to families, children and youth. There are also some elements of gender mainstreaming. The National Strategy Report also interacts with the Lisbon objectives. Its focus on employability and activation of vulnerable groups, and the declared intentions to increase the average exit age from the labour market and to improve social, health and long-term care services should contribute to one of the key Lisbon challenges for Lithuania on increasing the supply of the labour force. Reference documents Joint Memorandum on Social Inclusion of Lithuania Joint report on Social Inclusion country profile, National Action Plan against Poverty and Social Exclusion Republic of Lithuania. National Report on Strategies of Lithuania for Social Protection and Social Inclusion Povliunas, Arunas Regional and Local Implementation of NAP/inclusion: Lithuania. Third report. Independent expert report. Peer review and Assessment in Social Inclusion. Povliunas, Arunas Trends, Recent Developments, Active Inclusion and Minimum Resources. First Semester Report Independent expert report. Peer review and Assessment in Social Inclusion. 48 National Action Plan against Poverty and Social Exclusion Republic of Lithuania. 49 National Report on Strategies of Lithuania for Social Protection and Social Inclusion IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

322 Rimkute, Jolanta & Voloschuk, Irina The process of the preparation of NAP in Lithuania. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

323 Luxembourg Characteristics and evolution in national policy of social inclusion in the period Institutional framework National authorities have the central role in designing the national policy on social inclusion and social protection. Regional and local authorities are also involved according to their respective competences. In the Superior Council of social action, a forum including stakeholders in social exclusion, was enlarged and charged of new competences in order to guarantee an integrated approach to social exclusion. An increased social dialogue involved the social partners as well as NGOs, social services and promoted social responsibility of firms. Objectives and priorities in National Policy of Social Inclusion National Action Plans on Social Inclusion and , the National Action Plans on Employment and the National Report on Strategies for Social Protection and Social Inclusion represents the main documents and tools in whici the national policu in social inclusion has been defined. Across Luxembourg has improved its legislation in the field of social protection and social inclusion. Withe the Law of 25 July 2002 Luxembourg had the objective of improving the protection system for workers with a limited working capacity. The Law of 12 September 2003 had the purpose of protecting the disabled by improving their economic security and independence. The law introduce the measure of remuneration for working disabled according to their participation in working activities and not their capacity or productivity. Afeter 2003 increased efforts have been undertaken in order to increase social dialogue. The social partners concentrated on promoting education and training throughout working life, reforming part time working contracts, introducing a juridical regime for teleworking as well as on promoting women participation in the labour market. Moreover, increased attention was given to personalised social, psychological and educational services provided to job seekers, in order to better understand the needs of the unemployed and better match the demand and the supply on the labour market. This approach was generally maintained during , the focus being on guaranteeing free access to social protection services (adequate level of benefits, a fair redistribution of income and ongoing promotion of social cohesion) and on keeping highquality social services and benefits, respecting equal opportunities for all and personal monitoring of beneficiaries. Promoting employment and improving the labour market integration of all groups of people has been also considered as one of the main goals of the Luxembourg strategy. Luxembourg included in its NAPInclu the Lisbon objectives (Objective 1: to facilitate access to employment, access to resources, rights, goods and services for all; Objective 2: to prevent social exclusion risks; Objective 3: support for vulnerable groups; Objective 4: Mobilisation of all actors). The strategy focused mainly on returning to full employment, preventing failure at school and increasing the skills level, reconciling family and working life and access to housing. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

324 Main impacts of social OMC in the evolution of national policies Emphasising the need to adapt the social inclusion and protection system and the will to maintain the viability of this system, the strategic approach chosen reaffirms five principles of system management: (1) free access to services, appropriate level of benefits, promoting social cohesion, (2) quality of the services and individualised follow-up, 3) financial sustainability of the social protection system, (4) priority to integration through work and (5) maintaining the social dialogue. The strategic choices and the objectives are in line with the Lisbon strategy, with the priorities established in the Luxembourg NRP and with the challenges formulated in the previous reprots. Thus, all three overarching objectives of the Open Method of Coordination for social protection and social inclusion seems to be addressed in NSR and in national policy on social inclusion and social protection in Luxembourg. As far as governance, the system presented provides the means for a wide consultation process, enabling the stakeholders to propose measures to the Government and taking the local dimension (municipalities) into account. Reference documents National Action Plans on Employment social/employment_strategy/national_en.htm. National Strategy Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion, Luxembourg, bourg_en.pdf. Plan national pour l innovation et le plein emploi, Rapport du Grand Duché du Luxembourg a l Union européenne publications/pnr/pnr_luxembourg_final.pdf. Rapport de mise en oeuvre du Plan national pour l innovation et le plein emploi, Plan national pour l inclusion sociale pour le Grand Duché du Luxembourg. Rapport National Plan national pour l inclusion sociale pour le Grand Duché du Luxembourg. Rapport National Rapport de mise en oeuvre du Plan d action national pour l inclusion sociale pour le Grand Duché du Luxembourg. Rapport national Joint report on Social Inclusion country profile, IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

325 Malta Characteristics and evolution in national policy of social inclusion in the period Institutional framework The social inclusion and social protection strategy in Malta is developed under the supervision of the Ministry for Family and Social Solidarity (MFSS), together with other ministries. In addition to the central staff of ministers a series of specialized bodies and organizations have been set up or involved: The Employment and Training Corporation (for disadvantaged groups for efficient use of labour force), Technical Committee on Child Day Care, National Commission for Promoting Equality for Men and Women and NGOs. They have been involved to participate in designin strategy to Facilitate participation in employment: Department for Social Security, Employment and Training Corporation in conjunction with UK Department of Works and Pensions, Foundation for Educational Services, Education Division (providing facilitators for students with disability), Ministry for Education, Youth, and Employment, Foundation for Educational Services, Housing Authority, entrepreneurs, NGOS. They have been involved to participate in designin strategy for the Promotion of access to resources, rights, goods, and service National Commission for Promoting Equality for Men and Women, the Student Service, Caritas New Hope. They have been involved to participate in designin strategy for the Prevention of risk for exclusion: The Appogg Agency, Ministry of Family and Social Solidarity, but also foster families and Police Units has been involved to participate in designing policies to Help the most vulnerable groups. NAP four main directions has been defined after consultations with governmental agencies, voluntary agencies, and people organization (including persons with special needs and immigrants). Moreover, programs led by public institutions or NGOs for more targeted measures have been put into practice, led by various institutional bodies whose infrastructure and resources have been mobilized. These include the EQUAL programme, the National Basic Skills Strategy and Plan, the NWAR, a after-school family literacy program and ASSIST, a program focused on reducing illiteracy under the coordination of Foundation for Educational Services. Objectives and priorities in National Policy of Social Inclusion The actions on social inclusion policies included in Malta s NAP were focused on 4 directions: 1) empowering social cohesion covers actions in the line of personal development (reducing early education leaving, enhancing the link between academic/lifelong learning and employability, encouraging young participation in job clubs, improving professional skills, supporting employment schemes for young people with special needs); well being of people (health, housing conditions and effective welfare services); safeguarding the right of the children and young people enhancing their social inclusion, focusing on educational programmes fostering healthy social relationship; 2) building stronger communities through community development (strengthen ACCESS programmes); prevention and early intervention in order to avoid increasing groups vulnerability; social benefits reform; safeguarding rights of vulnerable groups (targeting victims of violence, persons with disabilities, drug users); 3) strengthening the voluntary sector, aiming at to increase NGOs activity and presence in society through legal adjustments in the favour of voluntary sector; IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

326 4) networking the social welfare sector, aiming at strengthening the network between actors providing social services in order to have a welfare system as effective as possible. NAP actions include: Facilitating participation in employment, with priorities set on increasing employment and employability (for low skilled, inactive for long time, those unable to work full time, parents with dependent children); increasing the female employment rate; and raising the employment rate of people over 55. Promoting access to resources, rights, goods, and services : ensure the sustainability and adequacy of the social protection system in view of future sociodemographic changes; tackle illiteracy and educational underachievement; adequate and affordable housing to vulnerable groups by providing a wider range of services and schemes; promote disadvantaged groups access to service. Preventing the risk for exclusion: enhance rights and safeguard equal opportunity in a scenario of both spouses participating in working life, through further support stemming from gender-based policies; improve the preventive aspect of the programs ensuring the alleviation of risks of poverty and social exclusion occurring from early/school age through early identification of children and youth at risk; set the educational activities, programs and projects offering guidance on issues such as allocation of family responsibilities, prioritization of means among all family members. Helping the most vulnerable and promote child welfare; comprehensive legal framework; focus attention on particular groups of children at high risk of poverty (single parent, parents in prison, suffering abuse at home, in care or leaving care). Main impacts of social OMC in the evolution of national policies The Maltese government has confirmed its commitment to ensure adequate social protection and to consolidate social cohesion. Increasing the overall employment rate (with special attention to measures favouring the participation of women) by investing in human capital, strengthening the welfare system through pension reform, improving access to health-care services and guaranteeing quality health services for all are the four pillars of the Maltese strategy. The strategy is sufficiently ambitious and well focused on the key priorities for Malta, with a good comprehensive approach. There is a clearly visible link with the Lisbon strategy and the NRP, ensuring the necessary coherence between the two strategies. The overarching objectives for social protection/social inclusion are correctly addressed, with an extensive involvement of other stakeholders in the process. As for gender, the strategy makes an important contribution to the promotion of women's participation in employment with comprehensive measures. Reference documents Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee. Brussels, Country Cooperation Strategy at glance. WHO, Malta s NAP on Poverty and Social inclusion, (NAP, ). NAP, , Malta. EUROPEAN Observatory on Health Care System. Health Care system in Transition Countries-Malta, 1999 (Health, 1999). Anita Schwarz, Alberto Musalem, and Tatyana Bogomolova. The Maltese pension system, an analysis of the current system and options for reform, WB, Summary description of the community initiative EQUAL in MALTA (EQUAL, Malta). National Reform Programme, Malta s strategy for growth and jobs, 2005 (NRP, 2005). IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

327 Study on the Social Protection Systems in the 13 applicant countries. Malta. Country study, Abela Anthony, Cordina Gordon, Azzopardi Natasha, 2003 (Abela&all, 2003). Malta s Pension system, main characteristics based on ESSPROS statistics pdf (Pension system, ESSPROS). Welfare in Mediterranean Countries. Malta, Valentina Cima, CAIMED, 2002 (Cima, 2002). Joint report on Social Inclusion country profile, IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

328 The Netherlands Characteristics and evolution in national policy of social inclusion in the period Institutional framework The NAP was designed in a working group co-ordinated by the Ministry for Social Affairs and Employment. A large number of actors and social organizations were also involved, as well as the majority of ministries were involved in the planning process. The policymaking level of local governments was also involved, as an additional significant actor for the prevention of poverty and social exclusion. Over fifty Dutch social organizations that deal with the prevention of poverty and social exclusion take part in the Social Alliance. The Alliance representatives, primarily those of the major unions, the Board of Churches, the Humanist Society, Humanitas, the Board for the Chronically Ill and Disabled, Sjakuus, and the National Consultation Board for Minorities, have taken part in the NAP meetings. Objectives and priorities in National Policy of Social Inclusion In there have been three important intervention in Dutch social policy: the revision of the social security system, the new Health Insurance Act and the Social Support Act. The Social Support Act has the objective to create of a consistent system for the support of its inhabitants to the municipalities. It is a result of the integration of the Social Welfare Act, the Services for the Disable Act and parts of the Exceptional Medical Expenses Act. The national government allowed local governments to establish its own priorities. The aim of the Act is that everyone, old and young, disabled or not, with or without problems, can participate socially. The national strategy for combating poverty and social exclusion was based on four principles: Promotion of participation through paid employment Guaranteeing security of income for people who are not able to support themselves independently Promotion of accessibility of provisions in the areas of housing, education, care, ICT, public transport, legal assistance, integration, care for the homeless and solidarity within the family Encouraging active input by close co-operation between all stakeholders in combating poverty and social exclusion (partnership between the public authorities and community organizations; organizations of vulnerable groups; socially responsible business) The 2001 NAP matched the Dutch tradition on poverty prevention, as it existed at the time. The main objectives of the 2003 NAP followed explicitly the footsteps of the 2001 NAP. The most important objectives of the 2003 NAP are: 1. Increasing participation through paid work; 2. Guaranteeing a minimum income for people who are not able to support themselves independently ; 3. Promoting the accessibility of provisions in the fields of housing, education, care, legal assistance, integration programmes and social relief ; 4. Improving the position of the most vulnerable by providing an integrated service; 5. Encouraging active input by and close cooperation between all stakeholders in combating poverty and social exclusion. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

329 The Dutch Strategy Report on Social Protection and Inclusion is strictly similar to the NAPs 2001/2003 s. New strategy document consist of three different action plans: National strategic report on pensions, National plan for health care and long-term care and, as far as social inclusion issue, National Action Plan to combat poverty and promote participation. The Plan included four main objectives: 1) Increasing participation through the acceptance of work, training and/or socially useful unpaid activities, 2) Tackling poverty and promoting participation among children and young people, 3) Prevention of non-use of income support and 4) Addressing over-indebtedness. Target group included non-western ethnic minorities (assimilation, learning arrears, early school leavers), the chronically ill and the disabled (reintegration, social activation), self-employed persons with small businesses (prevention of poverty among working people and self-employed persons, debt settlement support) and the elderly (non-use of income support) 50. Main impacts of social OMC in the evolution of national policies The NSR and national policies on social inclusion and social protection in The Netherlands largely focuses on the continuation of existing policy measures. The choice of priorities for the inclusion part of the NSR is based on the broad political consensus in the Netherlands that work is the best remedy against poverty. The second guiding principle is that people themselves are responsible for their own living conditions. The key emphasis in preventing long term poverty is therefore put on increasing participation through work acceptance and training. This means equipping people with the necessary skills and offering them possibilities to engage in paid work or, if not possible, in volunteer work. This should also increase the chances for disadvantaged groups to benefit from the economic recovery. To increase effectiveness, priority has been given to preventative measures in an early stage, for example through the new priority on preventing child poverty. Through the focus on increasing labour market participation there is a clear link between inclusion and employment policy. Thus, the first overarching objectives of the Open Method of Coordination for social protection and social inclusion seems to be addressed in NSR and in national policy on social inclusion and social protection in The Netherlands. Reference documents Agentschap SZW. ESF Dutch National Action plan against poverty and social exclusion, Joint Report on Social inclusion, Pensions, Healthcare and Long Term care. Light Update National Action Plan 2003 for combating poverty and social exclusion. National Action Plan for combating poverty and social exclusion 2003 Netherlands. National Strategy Report on Social Protection and Inclusion in the Netherlands in the context of the Lisbon Strategy. Nederland T., Stavenuiter M. & Swinnen H. (2003). Development and implementation of the NAP An evaluation of the National Action Plan the Netherlands for the prevention of poverty and social exclusion. 50 National Strategy Report on Social Protection and Inclusion in the Netherlands in the context of the Lisbon Strategy. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

330 Nederland T., Stavenuiter M. & Swinnen H. (2004). Implementation of the NAP Inclusion The first report on the Implementation of the National Action Plan Inclusion in the Netherlands Nederland T., Stavenuiter M. & Swinnen H. (2006). Netherlands. Trends, Recent Develompments, Active Inclusion and Minimum Resources. First Semester Report Verwey-Jonker Institute. Joint report on Social Inclusion country profile, IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

331 Poland Characteristics and evolution in national policy of social inclusion in the period Institutional framework The leading role in definition of NAPIncl in Poland has been played by the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy. The drafting and consultation process for the NSR involved the representatives of relevant ministries, social partners, NGOs, and higher education entities. Although an effort was made to encourage major actors to engage in active discussion, it seems that the NSR is still not a matter of wide public debate. The situation may improve slightly, especially at local level, once the planned promotion campaign is implemented. Objectives and priorities in National Policy of Social Inclusion Redistribution of income has been the main tool to fight poverty used in Poland. Recently, a multidimensional approach has been adopted. A number of new acts came into force, aiming at both activating vulnerable groups and at improving the institutional effectiveness of the welfare system and the labour market. Poland adopted the Joint Inclusion Memorandum (JIM) in 2003, the National Social Inclusion Strategy (NSIS) and The National Action Plan on Social Inclusion (NAPincl) in They were further detailed and adjusted, most recently in the National Strategy Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion A new Act on Social Employment was introduced in 2003, aiming at social and vocational integration of people affected by social exclusion and providing the legal framework to establish Social Integration Centres, by the local administration and NGO s. In May 2004, a reform, which contained new principles such as determining means-tested for social assistance and family benefits, aimed at avoiding the unjustified accumulation of benefits covering similar functions and allowing for the monitoring of the revenuedependent benefits system as a whole. The Act on Family Benefits introduces new principles for the family policy aimed at improving the efficiency of the benefit support and addresses concrete family needs. The Act on Social Assistance is aimed at counteracting institutional shortcomings of the implementation of social inclusions programs in Poland, by forcing the authorities at different levels of the local administration to develop and implement strategies to solve social problems of families and individuals from vulnerable groups. In 2004, the Act on Employment Promotion and Labour Market Institutions was adopted, putting more emphasis on the vulnerable groups on the labour market. The National Reform Programme includes plans for optimising labour market policies and institutions, integrating disadvantaged persons into the labour market and activating disabled people. The NRP identifies poor housing as a factor in social exclusion, unemployment, and lack of labour mobility and proposes initiatives to address this problem. The programme acknowledges the need for continuing reforms of the pension and health care system. NAP period contains four types of priorities 1) improving educational, social, and health care activities, 2) creation of a social safety network, 3) supporting systems to activate and integrate groups threatened or already affected by exclusion, and 4) actions aiming at reforming the institutions, developing the social services and improving coordination. Morevoer, there are two operational objectives: 5) involving the citizens in social activities, increasing their participation in the activities of non-governmental organizations and 6) increasing the number of local governments which create local strategies for fighting poverty and social exclusion. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

332 Priorities set in the National Report on Strategies for Social Protection and Social Inclusion for are: 1) support for families with children, 2) inclusion by activation, mobilization and partnership, 3) better governance. The strategy included also differentiated forms of local and supra-local civic activities, based on dialog and co-operation, promoting activities of non-governmental organizations, and aiming at ensuring their widest participation in the social life. Main impacts of social OMC in the evolution of national policies Poland set up three priorities for social inclusion: support for families with children aimed at equalising access to goods and services, ensuring economic security and facilitating reconciliation of work and family life; inclusion by activation, mainly through developing the social economy, reforming tools and instruments for active integration and supporting public private partnership; and mobilisation and partnership by reinforcing social assistance institutions, strengthening their cooperation with labour market institutions. The strategic approach for social inclusion policies in Poland, include also in the NSR, is consistent with the common objectives for fighting poverty and social exclusion. It also responds to the country-specific challenges identified for Poland in the 2006 Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion. As far as the governance, although an effort was made to encourage major actors to engage in active discussion, it seems that the NSR is still not a matter of wide public debate. The situation may improve slightly, especially at local level, once the planned promotion campaign is implemented. Reference documents Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion National Action Plans on Social Inclusion Poland. Report on social inclusion An analysis of the National Action Plans on Social Inclusion ( ) submitted by the 10 new Member States. Robert R. Kaufman Market Reform and Social Protection: Lessons from the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland. East European Politics and Societies, (21): 111. Katarzyna Piętka, Social Protection in Poland. CASE Center for Social and Economic Research. Beate Sissenich Cross-National Policy Networks and the State: EU Social Policy Transfer to Poland and Hungary. European Journal of International Relations, (14): 455. Dimiter Toshkov Transposition of EU social policy in the new member states. Journal of European Social Policy. (17): 335. National Report on Strategies for Social Protection and Social Inclusion for , Ministry of Labour and Social Policy. National Strategy Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion , Ministry of Labour and Social Policy. Joint report on Social Inclusion country profile, IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

333 Portugal Characteristics and evolution in national policy of social inclusion in the period Institutional framework The elaboration of NAPs and of the stratey of social inclusion has been coordinated by the Ministry of Employment and of Solidarity, and through the distribution of responsibilities between the Central, Regional and Local Government together with other subjects including private and no profit organisations. Trade Unions and social partners have been involved during the whole process. The roles of stakeholders are defined in the context of the social dialogue (social consultation committee) and partnership between the State and civil society. As far as the NSR , the Ministry of Labour and Social Solidarity is ultimately responsible for coordinating and drafting the Social Inclusion Strategy. A National Coordinator supported by a Technical Team has been appointed to coordinate, draft, monitor and evaluate the strategy. An Inter- Ministerial Commission, established by the Council of Ministers, includes representatives from the various national ministries, from the Autonomous Regions of Azores and Madeira, and from the Non-Governmental Forum for Social Inclusion. This Commission is also responsible for monitoring the whole process. Objectives and priorities in National Policy of Social Inclusion Portugal have adopted a multidisciplinar approach in designing strategy to tackle social exclusion. As a consequence, the NAPS are characterised by a strong integration among national processes in order to coordinate and enhance the coherence between policies, supporting their complementarities in particular as far as the national plans on employment, on pensions, support to innovation and on sustainable development are concerned. The long-term strategic approach of the NAPS is based on economic development which is compatible with the improvement of social cohesion and the elimination of the structural factors which generate exclusion processes. The NAP makes provision for the mainstreaming of social inclusion in all relevant policies, modernisation of social protection systems, and integrated initiatives targeting particularly vulnerable groups and regions. The NAP lays down quantified objectives with a view to eradicating child poverty, reducing absolute poverty and the poverty rate, and fighting poverty in both urban and rural environments. The main priorities in tackling poverty and promoting social inclusion in NAP are based on 6 strategic aims: economic development, social cohesion, equal opportunities, social protection, integration, and a network of social services and facilities. The main objectives of the NAP are: activation of people excluded from the labour market, and lifelong learning in a context of competitive economic development consistent with cohesion needs; development of social protection systems as specific tools for tackling poverty; reintegration of individuals and families in exclusion situations into society and work integrated development of regions affected by exclusion; creation of a network of social services and facilities, with the participation of civil society; promotion of equality between women and men. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

334 In the NAP has not been part of the political debate, but it has contributed to increasing debate among experts in the field, and improved general awareness of social exclusion issues. Consistent modifications in social policies have occurred, particularly in the vocational training and apprenticeship measures (aimed at reducing the number of early school leavers and improving their employment prospects have made important progress) and in the active social policies (aiming at improving social inclusion, founded on partnership and giving priority to integrated assistance methods). The NSR identifies six multidimensional and systemic risks that strongly affect social inclusion in Portugal: (i) child and elderly poverty; (ii) school failure and early school leaving; (iii) low qualification levels; (iv) low participation in life-long learning; (v) infoexclusion; (vi) inequality and discrimination in the access to rights of people with disabilities and immigrants. To address these risks, the NSR has identified five key challenges to address structural weaknesses and promote social cohesion: 1. to pursue economic development, improved competitiveness and budgetary consolidation, while making the necessary changes to structural factors that lead to greater social cohesion; 2. to reduce poverty levels by focusing on extreme and persistent situations of poverty and social exclusion, while preventing the reproduction of inequalities; 3. to reform the social protection system to ensure its efficiency, adequacy and financial sustainability; 4. to improve access to social services (health and long-term care), and to quality social infrastructure; 5. to improve the effectiveness of governance in drafting, implementing and assessing policy. As far as the targets groups, in the NAPS no chabge occurred that deserve special reference while in NSR people with disabilities and immigrants have been identified as particular target groups for tackling discrimination while children and the elderly for fighting poverty. Main impacts of social OMC in the evolution of national policies Social cohesion is one of the key challenges in the Lisbon National Reform Programme (NRP). Strategy for social inclusion in Portugal shows substantial progress in incorporating some of the priorities and measures of the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) on Social Inclusion. Portugal has significantly improved its strategic approach, and focused on a small set of core priorities that address the key challenges in a fairly comprehensive manner. Although not covering the multitude of existing problems, the strategy has the potential to produce a significant impact on social cohesion, if strongly pursued and sustained by all stakeholders, over the long term. Most of the social inclusion measures have identified the necessary financial resources, set quantified targets, and monitoring indicators. Setting clear overall targets for the main political priorities would give the strategy further credibility. Governance of the strategy has been improved by increasing policy coordination mechanisms, and increasing the involvement of the main stakeholders. Reference documents NAP/ INC NAP/ INC NSR Joint report on social inclusion / 2004 / 2005 / 2006 / Guia De Apoio ao Utilizador - 2ª Fase. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

335 Slovakia Characteristics and evolution in national policy of social inclusion in the period Institutional framework The Slovak Republic Government involved all ministries and other central authorities to participate in the preparation of the NAPIncl A working group was set up and composded by representatives of the central authorities, Higher Territorial Units, the Confederation of Towns and Municipalities, the academic institutions, research organisations, social partners and non-governmental organisations. Also the programming of the NRS included consultations with representatives of departments, higher territorial units, municipalities, academic workplaces and research institutions, employees and trade union associations, NGOs and representatives of excluded groups such as homeleness, handicaped, families with several children, impoverished persons, etc. Objectives and priorities in National Policy of Social Inclusion The strategic framework of the NAP 2004 of social inclusion has the objectives to facilitate participation in employment and access to resources, rights, goods and services for all, to prevent the risks of exclusion, to help the most vulnerable and to mobilise all relevant bodies. The employment strategy was implemented through the reform of the social system, rooted in the Act on Employment Services and Act on Assistance in Material Need, and the institutional reform, reflected in the Act on the Organisation of State Administration at the Social Affairs and Employment Section. In specific active measures on the labour market were focused mainly to handicapped applicants for jobs, who have more problems with their participation on the labour market, and consequently they need extended aid 51. In particular, main objectives are the following: 1. Increasing and facilitating participation in employment (supporting the employment and employability of groups with an increased risk of social exclusion and preventing exclusion through supporting labour force adaptability and mobility) 2. Facilitating access to resources, rights, goods and services (guaranteeing essential resources for a decent life, health care service, decent housing, available transport, education, cultural values, etc.) 3. Preventing social exclusion risks (creating the conditions for supporting family, solidarity and preventing the social exclusion of vulnerable groups, ensuring access to information- communication technologies on the basis of the principle of equal opportunity. 4. Helping the most vulnerable (supporting social inclusion of immigrants, asylum seekers, the homeless, unaccompanied children and ensuring a comprehensive approach to solve the exclusion of Roma communities). Most of these objectives were reconfirmed by the National Report on Strategies for Social Protection and Social Inclusion. In particular, the main objectives were: 1. reducing poverty of children and resolving the inter-generation reproduction of poverty; 51 National Report on the Strategies for Social Protection and Social Inclusion , Slovak Republic, Bratislava, 2006, pg. 10. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

336 2. increasing inclusion and fighting against discrimination of vulnerable population groups; 3. improving access to the labour market 4. increasing employment and employability of the population groups threatened with exclusion. Main impacts of social OMC in the evolution of national policies Social cohesion will apply the principles of activation and protection, emphasising prevention and effective social assistance in order to achieve its objectives. The National strategy on social inclusion in Slovakia is in line with the Lisbon strategy and National Reform programme. Systems of social protection and social inclusion started to be interconnected with measures for increasing employment in recent years. The governance objective will be pursued in particular through the creation of partnerships at a horizontal and vertical level, human resources development, and social inclusion mainstreaming. Strategy for social inclusion in Slovakia shows substantial progress in incorporating some of the priorities and measures of the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) on Social Inclusion. Reference documents National Action Plan on Social Inclusion , Slovak Republic, Bratislava, National Report on the Strategies for Social Protection and Social Inclusion , Slovak Republic, Bratislava, Annex to the draft Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion - Country Profiles, Council of European Union, Brussels, National Report on Strategies for Social Protection and Social Inclusion , Bratislava National report on Strategies for Social protection and Social Inclusion , Annex 2.2, Evaluation of the implementation of the NAP/inclusion , Bratislava, Evolution of social protection in 2006, Slovakia, MISSOC- Info 1/ Maydell, Bernd von et al Enabling social Europe. Berlin; New York: Springer. Joint report on Social Inclusion country profile, IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

337 Slovenia Characteristics and evolution in national policy of social inclusion in the period Institutional framework The elaboration of NAP has been coordinated and realized by the Ministry of Labour, Family and Social Affairs by actively including all concerned actors (representatives of employers and employees, NGO s, and associations of municipalities) in the preliminary discussions regarding the adoption of the document. The employees are organized in associations, represented at a national level by six federal and co-federal unions. At a national level the employer s interests are represented through the Association of Employers, The Chamber of Commerce and Industry, The Chamber of Crafts, and The Association of Craft Activity Employers. The Slovenian Government encouraged the idea of building up an organization which included all the NGO s (the Centre for Non - Governmental Organizations of Slovenia - CNVOS). CNVOS includes about 70 different organizations. Objectives and priorities in National Policy of Social Inclusion The main objectives of National Action Plan on Social Inclusion were: Facilitating participation in employment, by increasing employment prospects for disadvantaged persons and promoting social inclusion through an increase in the participation of people with special needs and difficulty in accessing the labour market ; Facilitating access to resources, rights, goods and services, by ensuring access to appropriate resources for life and protection of people with lowest incomes and facilitating access for all to decent housing, health care service, social protection, judicial protection, education, culture, etc. Preventing social exclusion risks. Helping the most vulnerable groups, (disabled persons, Roma, homeless, victims of abuse, persons with mental health problems etc) These objectives were revised once with the presentation of the National Report on Strategies for Social Protection and Social Inclusion Therefore, the main objectives in the area of social inclusion are: Increasing the activity of the beneficiaries of social transfers, raise the level of education and offer more employment possibilities; Providing housing to vulnerable groups; Fighting against discrimination and integrate migrants in society; Ensuring care for the elderly. In 2006 there were made changes in the Employment and Insurance against Unemployment Act, related to the promotion of greater activity of the unemployed persons and new guidelines for active employment policy measures. Changes were brought to the Social Security Act in 2007 as well, in particular: devolution of social security services, programmes and measures from the national to regional and municipal levels; new entitlement conditions for recipients of services and programmes and monetary welfare benefits and involvement of the ministry responsible for social affairs in health, employment, housing and mainstreaming of social inclusion measures and efforts to prevent increases to social security threats. Other relevant changes are refered to the Act regulating adjustments of transfers and households, containing a series of changes such as maintaining the incomes of the most vulnerable groups; a single indexation concept (price and wage growth); a single indexation period (once a year, in January); greater transparency of the indexation for various social transfers. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

338 Moreover, the Bill on Claiming Rights from Public Funds, linked to the process of building a central register of welfare benefits, contains a series of measures that introduce some the simplification of the system of social transfers that depend on the family income. Finally, some changes has been made to the Vocational and Professional Education Act and Adult Education Act in The former introduced considerable changes in the field of matching education and labour, social partnership, programme flexibility and availability and horizontal/vertical transitivity. In 2006, a measure related to promotion and provision of lifelong learning was adopted. A part of the measure was realised in 2006 through the adoption of amendments to the acts on vocational education, adult education, national vocational qualifications and setting-up of the Scholarships and human resources development fund, the other part being scheduled for Main impacts of social OMC in the evolution of national policies The strategy for promoting social inclusion in Slovenia focuses on improving flexibility in the labour market, modernising the system of social transfers, promoting longer working lives through sustainable pension systems, and maintaining the standard of public health care achieved. These priorities address the main challenges Slovenia is facing in the field of social inclusion is strongly interrelated with the Lisbon National Reform Programme, especially in the fields of active inclusion and modernisation of social protection systems. Good governance is promoted by the involvement of relevant stakeholders in drafting the national report, and in monitoring and evaluating its implementation. Reference documents Markovic Hribernik, Tanja, Kirbis, Monika, and Uros Vek Institutional Regulation and the Effectiveness of Absorbing EU Funds: The Experience of Ireland, Estonia and Slovenia National Action Plan on Social Inclusion First annual report on the implementation of National action Plan on Social Inclusion Annex to the draft Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion - Country Profiles National report on Strategies for Social protection and Social Inclusion Amended National Report on Strategies for Social Protection and Social Inclusion Joint report on Social Inclusion country profile, IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

339 Spain Characteristics and evolution in national policy of social inclusion in the period Institutional framework Central government is the main stakeholder involved in programming socials inclusion measures, in collaboration with the third sector represented by NGOs, social agents such as Trade Unions and the Economic and Social Council, and experts represented by universities. In order to strengthen the role of the NGOs representing the affected categories, a Working Group on Social Inclusion was created within the State Council of NGOs. The coordination between the territorial levels of the administration is carried out through councils and sectoral conferences. For the coordination at central level, an Inter-ministerial Commission of the NAP inclusion was created in The coordination with the Autonomous Communities is ensured through a Special Commission of the Nap inclusion. A working Group for Inclusion has been created within the Commission of Social Services of the Spanish Federation of Municipalities with the task to monitor the strategic actions and identify best practices at local level. Objectives and priorities in National Policy of Social Inclusion Spain has been affected, in last 2 decade, of a strong process of decentralisation. As far as the social services, the central administration (Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs - MTAS) plans, coordinates and evaluates them under the scheme of Concerted Plans, which are administrative accords between the Central Administration and the Autonomous Communities for the development of the basic services and benefits by the Local Corporations (municipalities). As for housing and education, the Autonomous Communities have seen their decision making power increasing over the years. The central government through the Ministries of Housing, Education and Culture has competencies in the proposal and execution of their own policies in each of these fields, but it is the Autonomous Communities that are in charge with the development of plans in their territories. As far as employment policies, the majority of the Autonomous Communities, yet in charge of competences for active policies, have organized their own active employment policy programmes, sometimes in collaboration and support with the municipalities. The central government continues to have competences on unemployment benefits, the direction of the order and development of individual and collective industrial relations, working conditions, health and safety and work, etc. During , important legislative measures were adopted in order to improve the social inclusion and social protection systems that brought about relevant changes, especially for categories at risk of or in a situation of exclusion such as women, unemployed, disabled and elderly. Two important agreements marked this period: the renewal of the Toledo Pact at the end of 2003 and the Declaration for Social Dialogue of July 2004, which includes measures aimed at promoting competitiveness, stable employment and social dialogue. Moreover, several measures were adopted in this period to prevent the risk of exclusion for women. The Royal decree law 2/2003 foresees a series of economic measures to improve the stability of female employment and at the same time make it easier to reconcile work and family life. Organic Law 3/2007 on equality between women and men, has introduced real equality of treatment and the elimination of any discrimination for reasons of gender, whether direct or indirect, in any sphere of life or public or private activity. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

340 Some relevant pieces of legislation were introduced in the employment field. Agreement on Improvement of growth and employment (2006) reformed the labour market, aimed at reducing the rate of temporary employment and boosting the creation of stable and quality employment. In 2007 a new law on Enterprises of insertion has been approved, aimed at the social and labour integration of persons in social exclusion, based on the active social inclusion approach. The National Agreement for Vocational Training (2006) contain important measures to boost lifelong training for workers and improve their level of professional skills and prospects of promotion, particularly workers in the most disadvantaged groups. Measures to tackle unemployment risks have been also adopted, in order to make work attractive in a variety of ways: active training for job policies; allowing workers aged over 52 to draw unemployment benefits while working; offering unemployment benefit as a lump sum for recipients who want to set up self employed. Some changes occurred also in the legislative framework for disabled people. Besides the reduction of retirement age for disabled people, regulations introduced in 2004 define the concept of labour enclave as a way of integrating people with disabilities into the ordinary labour market. As for children at risk of or in a situation of exclusion, the 2006 law on Education (LOE) and acknowledges that social exclusion can lead to poor school performance and aims to ensure an appropriate educational response to all students based on the principle of inclusion. Some changes occurred also the immigrants situation. The Royal Decree 2393/2004 foresaw an important regularisation process for immigrants and measures aimed at the insertion on the labour market of immigrants in a situation of or at risk of social exclusion joint financed by the ESF. The main priorities of the Spanish government in this field of social inclusion included in the NAPIncl. Could be classified under 4 main objectives: 1. Employment and access to resources aimed at ensuring access to employment for people at risk of exclusion and encouraging equal access to all resources, rights, goods and services. 2. Prevention of risks of exclusion aimed at ensuring help for solidarity and favouring access to technologies for vulnerable categories 3. Actions in favour of specific categories among which disadvantaged people aimed at improving the situation of categories in a situation of or at risk of social exclusion (elderly, unemployed, women, disadvantaged children and families, Rom, disabled, homeless) 4. Mobilization of all actors aimed at promoting the participation of affected categories to the programming of social inclusion policies. Some of these objectives were maintained also in the period. However, some other new objectives were pursued as well: guaranteeing minimum financial reasons; achieving an educational system based on equality and guaranteeing assistance for people in a situation of dependency. Main impacts of social OMC in the evolution of national policies The Spanish policy for social inclusion and social protection has improved its strategic character over the years. Its main aim is to combine and mutually reinforce economic convergence with employment, sustained growth and social welfare, taking into account the reduction of territorial disparities and the overall objective of preventing social exclusion. The strategy identifies several key challenges related to social protection and social inclusion issues, in the light of the two major objectives included in the National Reform Programme. The strategy for social inclusion and social protection objectives have been translated into specific targets and actions designed for its achievement. All objectives are mutually IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

341 reinforcing, linked to the Lisbon objectives and focus on combining economic growth with social welfare, while reducing inequalities and preventing social exclusion. One objective refers to enhancing access to the labour market, focusing specifically on women and other vulnerable groups, such as people with disabilities, victims of gender related violence or people facing social exclusion. An important target group are immigrant female workers, most of them working in the informal labour market for very low wages. Thus, strategy for social inclusion in Spain shows substantial progress in incorporating all the priorities and measures of the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) on Social Inclusion and social protection. Governance of the strategy has been improved over the years. The strategy for social inclusion and social protection, tralnsalated in NAP/NSR, has been defined with the participation of all relevant stakeholders, both public and private. The Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs coordinated the process of drawing up the national action plan. It is important to highlight the increasing importance of NGOs and social partners in drawing up, implementing and monitoring the plan. The explicit mention of a number of coordination measures among the national, regional and local administrations, which takes into account the decentralised structure of Spain, should also be noted. Reference documents Ministero de Trabajo y Assuntos Sociales, National Report on Strategies for Social Protection and Social Inclusion of the Kingdom of Spain, Ministero de Trabajo y Assuntos Sociales, Update of the Spanish Pensions Reform: New Law on Social Security Measures, December Ministero de Trabajo y Assuntos Sociales, National Action Plan for Social Inclusion of the Kingdom of Spain , , Ministero de Trabajo y Assuntos Sociales, National Report on Strategies for Social Protection and Social Inclusion of the Kingdom of Spain, European Commission, Joint Report on Social Inclusion 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006, European Commission, Joint Report on Social Inclusion and Social Protection 2005: Spain. European Commission, Joint Report on Social Inclusion and Social Protection 2006: annex country profiles. Ministero de Trabajo y Assuntos Sociales, Implementation report on the National Action Plan of the Kingdom of Spain. European Commission, Missoc Info 01/2000, Evolution of Social Protection: Spain, European Commission, Missoc Info 02/2000, Financing of Social Security: Spain, European Commission, Missoc Info 02/2002, Evolution of Social Protection in the EU and EEA member states: Spain, European Commission, Missoc Info 01/2003, Social protection of people with disabilities: Spain, European Commission, Missoc Info 02/2003, 01/2005, 01/2006, 01/2007, Evolution of the Social Protection of the EU and EEA member states: Spain, 2003, 2005, 2006, Joint report on Social Inclusion country profile, IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

342 Sweden Characteristics and evolution in national policy of social inclusion in the period Institutional framework The Ministry of Health and Social Affairs was responsible for designing and elaborating the National Action Plan, in accordance with the structure agreed by the Social Protection Committee. All the relevant ministries took part in the drafting of the action plan. In the course of the preparation of the action plan consultations and exchanges of information took place between public authorities, representatives of local authorities and Network Against Social Exclusion, which is made up of a very large number of voluntary organisations. Objectives and priorities in National Policy of Social Inclusion The Swedish social model is characterised by a general welfare policy and an active labour market policy. Sweden has also created a public pension system which is both adequate and financially stable, as long as people compensate for the significant projected decrease of replacement rated by leaving the labour market later. In the fight against poverty and social exclusion, at least in local level, cooperation has been developed with range of NGOs. One of the main policies in recent years has been to increase the number of people that proceeds to university studies. However, the labour market situation for young people with an academic degree has worsened in recent years and the unemployment rate among this group is on the increase. During the period the Government also encouraged the production of new housing units for rent and ensured that young people in particular had easy access. National plans to tackle the abuse of alcohol and drugs had been implemented. Increased resources had been allocated to support people in vulnerable situations, such as drub abusers, mentally disabled persons, homeless people, people under threat of honourrelated violence and newly released prisoners. There was also continued emphasis on mainstreaming (gender, immigrants, children and young people), with the situation of disabled people as a new mainstreaming field 52. Eight topics were identified on social inclusion and produced following the first NAP 2001: 1. Developing an inclusive labour market and promoting employment for all 2. Guaranteeing an adequate income and resources to live 3. Tackling educational disadvantage 4. Preserving family solidarity and protecting the rights of children 5. Ensuring good accommodation for all 6. Guaranteeing equal access to quality services (health, transport, social, care, cultural, recreational, legal) 7. Improving the delivery of services 8. Regenerating areas of multiple deprivation All the above identified challenges were considered important starting-points for the measures and strategy also in the NAPIncl The key of objectives and specific targets can be summarised as follows: 52 Joint report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

343 Full employment and universal social insurance - Some core measures were developing employability, overcoming obstacle to employment, new rules for the unemployment insurance fund and reconciliation of work and family life. Gender equality improvement opportunities for women in order to hvve the same obligations, rights and opportunities in all aspects of life. Protection of children at risk Focusing then the priorities of Sweden s Strategy Report for Social Protection and Social Inclusion the themes were almost synonymous with the previous NAP themes. The priority objectives up to 2008 were as following: Promoting work and education and training for everyone. Increasing integration. Ensuring good housing and tackling homelessness. Strengthening groups in particularly vulnerable situations. Main impacts of social OMC in the evolution of national policies To pursue social cohesion the Swedish welfare system continues to be built on the principle of general income maintenance, to ensure a decent standard of living during periods of illness, unemployment, parenthood or old age. The Swedish strategy identifies a range of social conditions where improvements are needed and a quite extensive list of policy measures for the coming years. The priorities chosen are in line with the challenges Sweden is facing, with a broad list of measures chosen from the spring budget bill 2006 and earlier bills. The relationship with the Lisbon strategy is visible and complementary. Disadvantaged groups on the labour market mentioned in the NRP for Sweden last year are also given priority in the report for social protection and social inclusion. It is mentioned that the relationship between the revised Lisbon strategy and how the open method of co-ordination is applied in the social area must be mutual. The Swedish government, as usual, invited a large number of stakeholders to participate in the work on the strategic report. Reference documents Halleröd B.: The fight against poverty and social exclusion. Non-governmental expert report no. 1c-2003, Sweden. Halleröd B.: The fight against poverty and social inclusion: the local level. Nongovernmental expert report no. 2a-2004, Sweden. Halleröd B.: Trends, Recent Developments, Active Inclusion and Minimum Resources. First Semester Report In Social Inclusion. Peer review and Assesment in Social Inclusion. European Commission. DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities. Statistics Sweden. Key indicators of Sweden Sweden s action plan against poverty and social exclusion Sweden s Strategy Report for Social Protection and Social Inclusion Joint report on social inclusion Joint report on social inclusion Joint report on Social Inclusion country profile, IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

344 United Kingdom Characteristics and evolution in national policy of social inclusion in the period Institutional framework Main actor for the development of the NAP/incl (as well as the NAP/empl) is the Department of Work and Pensions who works jointly with the Local Government Association, Trades Unions and the non-governmental sector. Other actors who are involved in this process: The Department of Business and Industry and Employers Organisations; Regional Government Offices in England sign off Local Area Agreements between local government and their local partners in the police authorities, local health services, education and regional development as well as with local community and third sector groups. The Scottish Government in Scotland and the Wales National Assembly Government in Wales take these responsibilities in their respective territories. In Northern Ireland responsibility was shared between the devolved Northern Ireland Administration, at times under the direction and control of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, at others under that of devolved government led by the First Minister under the power-sharing agreement. This national (or devolved) central leadership does not disguise the fact that social inclusion and exclusion are expressed and experienced at the local level so that the role of local government is also important. Their role in working with local partners in developing first Local Public Service Agreements (2003, later Local Area Agreements) to tough targets with financial rewards involves addressing social cohesion in its specific local forms. Objectives and priorities in National Policy of Social Inclusion The multi-dimensional nature of social exclusion is recognised at all levels of government and in partnership with others. Within a centralised national regulatory framework and the overall responsibility and leadership of the UK Governmental Department of Health, social care services are provided by local government in order to: provide advice; draft guidelines; ensure respect of national standards. Moreover, the work of other government departments is also relevant. The following actors are all involved in social inclusion issues, with a Social Inclusion Unit as part of the Cabinet Office: the Home Office; the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (later the Department of Community and Local Government); the Department of Education and Skills. The ODPM and the Home Office especially took the lead in developing programmes to support the regeneration of deprived localities and tackling differences within communities. The Department of Work and Pensions takes the lead in relation to developing the NAP/incl involving also non-governmental organisations. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

345 Social inclusion became a major preoccupation of social 53 and fiscal policy 54 since The importance of multiple factors involved in social exclusion are well acknowledged and addressed in central government objectives as well as requirements for local government and their statutory and other partners, including not for profit partners. In the UK in the first rounds of NAPs/incl. tackling poverty by eradicating child poverties, tackling barriers to work and provision for those who are unable to work were main objectives of social inclusion policy. The strategy was mainly based on three pillars : maintaining a strong economy; providing flexible labour markets to ensure work is available and; developing first class services with universal access to mainstream services. Iissues covered are: Active labour policies; support to working poor including lone parents 55 ; interventions to eradicating child poverty over indebtedness and financial exclusion; Work life balance to support family life and child welfare; Digital inclusion. Gender is mainstreamed into the work of government at all levels. The objectives in the social inclusion field established by the National Report on Strategies for Social protection and Social Inclusion are: increasing attention to eliminating child poverty; increasing access to employment for all; increasing access to quality services and tackling discrimination. Main impacts of social OMC in the evolution of national policies The UK adopts a multifaceted approach to combating poverty and social exclusion. Work is seen as the primary route out of poverty and to strengthen social cohesion, and many of the UK s initiatives are rooted in activation measures, facilitating access to the labour market, and providing financial incentives to work. UK identifies, for the strategy of social inclusion, its key challenges as: maintaining a positive economic situation; ensuring access to employment; tackling child poverty; ensuring access to services; and tackling discrimination. Priorities for action stem directly from these challenges, chief amongst which is the commitment to eradicate child poverty. To this end the UK plans intervene in favour of disadvantaged children and young people in order to break the transfer of poverty from one generation to the next. There is a strong correlation between the approaches set out in the UK's Lisbon National Reform Programme and the National Report on Strategies for Social Protection and Social Inclusion and a clear commitment to involving stakeholders in the development of policies that will affect them. 53 UK National Action Plan, , p HM Government 2005, UK National Strategy Report on Adequate and Sustainable Pensions, p Welsh European Funding Office 2002, East Wales Objective 3 Operational Programme Document, Chapter Four. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

346 The substantial and qualitative involvement of stakeholders in the design, implementation, and monitoring of social inclusion policy and the framing of the NRS has had positive effects on the policy process. Reference documents Joint report on Social Inclusion country profile, NAP/incl NAP/incl UK National Strategy Report on the Future of Pension Systems UK National Strategy Report on Adequate and Sustainable Pensions UK National Report on Strategies for Social Protection and Social Inclusion, IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

347 Annex V IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

348 IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

349 ANNEX 5 : MAIN RESOLUTIONS AND INITIATIVES TAKEN BY THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT IN THE AREA OF SOCIAL INCLUSION Resolutions and Initiatives of the European Parliament in the latest legislature Fight to poverty/social inclusion/active inclusion/social protection 1. European Parliament resolution of 9 October 2008 on promoting social inclusion and combating poverty, including child poverty, in the EU (2008/2034(INI)) 2. Declaration of 22 April 2008 on ending street homelessness P6_TA(2008) Proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion (2010) (COM(2007)0797 C6 0469/ /0278(COD) Parliament's position thereon, adopted on 17 June 2008 P6_TA(2008) European Parliament resolution of 13 October 2005 on women and poverty in the EU OJ C 233, European Parliament resolution on active inclusion of people excluded from the labour market (8/4/2006 report INI/2008/2335) text adopted 6/5/ European Parliament resolution of 15 November 2007 on Social Reality Stocktaking Texts adopted, P6_TA(2007) European Parliament resolution of 23 May 2007 on promoting decent work for all (OJ C 102 E, ) 8. European Parliament resolution of 14 March 2007 on social services of general interest in the European Union (2006/2134(INI)) 9. European Parliament resolution on demographic challenges and solidarity between the generations 23 March 2006 (OJ C 292 E) 10. European Parliament legislative resolution on the Council common position for adopting a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Community Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity - PROGRESS (6282/3/2006 C6-0272/ /0158(COD)) 11. European Parliament Resolution on social protection and social inclusion (2005/2097(INI) 12. European Parliament resolution on social inclusion in the new Member States (2004/2210(INI) (P6_TA(2005)0244) 13. REPORT: on the social situation in the European Union (2004/2190(INI)) resolution rejected 20. European Parliament resolution of 06 May 2009 on the Renewed social agenda, (2008/2330(INI). 21. Regulation (EC) No 1081/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the European Social Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1784/ European Parliament resolution of 20 November 2008 on the Future of social security systems and pensions: their financing and the trend towards individualisation (INI/2007/2290) 24. European Parliament resolution on Common principles on flexicurity - INI/2007/2209, adopted 29/11/ European Parliament resolution on the mid-term review of the Lisbon Strategy. Mid-term review of the Lisbon strategy, P6_TA(2005) Employment and Social Inclusion: European Microfinance Facility (Progress Microfinance Facility) - COD/2009/0096 Fundamental rights, antidiscrimination 14. European Parliament resolution of 11 March 2009 on the social situation of the Roma and their improved access to the labour market in the EU (2008/2137(INI)) 15. European Parliament resolution of 31 January 2008 on a European strategy on the Roma P6_TA(2008) European Parliament resolution of 10 July 2008 on the census of the Roma on the basis of ethnicity in Italy P6_TA-PROV(2008) European Parliament resolution of 1 June 2006 on the situation of Roma women in the European Union(2) (OJ C 298 E, ) 18. Parliament's resolution of 28 April 2005 on the situation of the Roma in the European Union OJ C 45 E, The situation of fundamental rights in the European Union INI/2007/2145, 14/01/ Common Agenda for integration and framework for the integration of third-country nationals in the Union INI/2006/2056, text adopted 06/07/ Protection of minorities and anti-discrimination policies in an enlarged Europe INI/2005/2008, text adopted 08/06/ European Parliament Resolution on the situation of the Roma in the European Union - RSP/2005/2535, text adopted 28/04/2005 Rights of children 19. European Parliament resolution of 16 January 2008 : Towards an EU strategy on the rights of the child (2007/2093(INI)) Texts adopted, P6_TA(2008) European Parliament resolution on Non-legislative resolution of the European Parliament on Educating the children of migrants, INI/2008/2328, text adopted 02/04/2009 IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

350 The main elements emerging from an analysis on some of the most relevant resolutions adopted since 2004 allow for some considerations concerning the positions expresses by the European Parliament concerning the so called European Social model. In order to ease the consultation in the further analysis all the resolutions are referred to by considering the progressive number adopted in previous table. I AS LONG AS THE CONTENT OF THE POLICYMAKING PUT FORWARD BY THE EP IN THE LAST FEW YEARS IS CONCERNED A strong social Europe The first substantial element to be considered is that the EU Policy making in the last few years is strongly committed to reaffirm the importance of a strong social Europe, incorporating sustainable, effective and efficient social and employment policies (20) 1. The EP insists also that well-designed social and environmental policies are themselves key elements in strengthening Europe's economic performance (29); Europe today is a multi-ethnic, multi-faith society: social inclusion and social protection are a basic value of the European Union and a fundamental right for all individuals, regardless of ethnic origin, age, gender, disability, sexual preference and religion. Member States are requested to ensure that their laws reflect that diversity (6). This general scope is composed of specific goals. The most recurrent can be summarised as follows: Fighting against poverty and social exclusion represents a major challenge for the Union and its Member States: Parliament recalls that the core of European social models is the principle of solidarity between generations and social groups and that it is primarily financed by work-related earnings, such as contributions by employees and employers and labour taxation (22); The most disadvantaged and the persons at risk of exclusion are regarded as relevant targets for the EP policymaking and are recalled by several resolutions. Here are two examples: efforts against poverty and social exclusion must be sustained and extended to improve the situation of those people most at risk of poverty and exclusion, such as those in casual employment, the unemployed, single parent households (usually headed by women), older people living alone, women, families with several dependants, disadvantaged children, as well as ethnic minorities, sick or disabled people, the homeless, victims of trafficking and victims of drug and alcohol dependency; it is crucial to recognise their difficulties (11); Special attention to particularly vulnerable group (single parents and single older women) (6); Among the most disadvantaged specific attention is paid to the homeless: the EP demands that more attention be paid to the homeless, especially by providing care, imparting basic skills, and promoting social integration, which will necessitate public policies, especially in the areas of housing, health and education, to ensure that such people have access to those facilities (11); Strengthening the social dimension of globalisation. The principle of the social dimension of globalisation is recalled several times: The EP has called for the strengthening of the social dimension of globalisation and for the promotion of decent work for all, in accordance with the ILO's strategy in this area (7); 1 The number refers to the resolution considered as reported in the above box IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

351 the Decent Work Agenda for example encompasses a number of universal strategies, which are not tied to a specific developmental model but are directly related to a fairer and more balanced distribution of produced wealth, and is an instrument tailoring development to values and principles of action and governance which combine economic competitiveness with social justice (7); The EP is aware that neither economic freedoms nor competition rules prevail over fundamental social rights; The EP stresses that extreme poverty and the ensuing social exclusion cannot be understood in economic terms on the basis of figures alone, but must also be understood in terms of human rights and citizenship (20); The EP considers that the EU could do more to influence the international agenda concerning the decent work agenda and actively promote compliance with ILO conventions, human rights and fundamental freedoms, and that this could contribute to achieving world peace and also to the protection of the EU's interests and values (20); The EP recognises that the principle of the free movement of capital and goods cannot, in itself, eradicate poverty and, in particular, persistent poverty and that extreme poverty deprives those affected of opportunities and prevents them from fully taking part in the community life by making them indifferent to their surroundings (20); The EP stresses the importance of ethical recruitment from third countries, particularly with regard to health-care professionals and calls on those Member States that have not already done so to develop a code of practice for international recruitment (20); the EU should aim for a globalisation process that is more socially inclusive and economically and environmentally sustainable; the way in which corporations conduct business not only has a large economic impact but also has a significant social impact, within the EU as well as in third countries, in particular in developing countries; therefore urges the Commission actively to promote the concept of corporate social responsibility, either by means of the promotion of soft law or, where appropriate, by means of legislative proposals (20); In particular concerning social corporate responsibility: The EP strongly recommends that the Member States promote the application of the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) by all companies, wherever they perform their activities, with the aim of creating a safe, flexible and high-quality working environment (7); The EP calls the Commission and the Member States to encourage the adoption of codes of conduct as voluntary initiatives at the enterprise or sectoral level referring to and complementing national legislative and international standards, as well as the codes of conduct for multinational enterprises of the OECD and the ILO (7); Concerning the subjects considered as the most relevant in the EU Social Model the followings deserve special consideration as cited very frequently in EU resolutions: More and better jobs Decent work is a centrepiece of the fight against poverty and social exclusion employment must be viewed as the most effective safeguard against poverty and, consequently, that the financial attractiveness of work should be maintained through incentives for the employment of women and the setting of qualitative objectives for the jobs that are offered (11) (6); education for young people is an effective strategy to avoid social exclusion and poverty and to develop their employability (7); IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

352 The core of active inclusion strategy is a labour market with decent working conditions and job diversity for all workers (5); in these difficult times job creation and promotion should be put at the top of the social agenda (20); active social inclusion policies must make a decisive impact on the eradication of poverty and social exclusion, both for those in paid employment (the 'working poor') and for those not in paid employment (20); there is a need for active policies on the employment of women, young people and the elderly so as to make proper use of manpower (22); Labour market flexibility and employment security Greater flexibility in the workplace is now more important than ever (20): a more balanced approach between flexibility, security and decent wages aiming at integrating young and elderly people, women, long-term unemployed people and disadvantaged groups into the labour market are envisaged (20); labour market flexibility and employment security are not mutually exclusive objectives, but with appropriate practices should reinforce each other (7); The EP suggests that the Member States take into consideration Parliament's resolution of 29 November 2007 on Common Principles of Flexicurity when implementing national flexicurity strategies: it calls for the promotion of a stronger link between the implementation of flexicurity and the enhancement of social dialogue, respecting national customs and practices (20); Employment policies should aim at socially inclusive labour markets, considering in particular the specific needs of the most disadvantaged groups (1): a coordinated effort is needed at EU and Member State level to entice those employees back into legal employment with work-related and social security rights (14); flexicurity can be a policy strategy for the reform of the labour market and, as such, must be comprehensive by including all the existing facets of employment and social policy at both national and EU level (24); Priority should be given to the creation of a flexible labour market by raising educational levels and expanding apprenticeship opportunities, training and retraining programmes; implementing effective policies against discrimination and breaking down barriers to the integration into the labour force of women, migrants, older or younger workers and other discriminated disadvantaged groups; removing obstacles to occupational and geographic mobility; and active labour market policies that support the transition from an old job to a new job (24); Parliament stressed that all models of flexicurity should be based on common values that underpin the European Social Model. It believed that flexibility and security requirements reinforce one another and that flexicurity allows firms and workers to adapt appropriately to the new international situation, with strong competition from the emerging economies, while maintaining a high level of social protection. It also called for every Community employment policy to continue to keep the traditional model of the open-ended employment contract, which forms the basis of the social security systems in Member States (24); believes that a more flexible functioning of labour markets should be targeted on increasing the opportunity to bring more people into jobs, with a special focus on the specific needs of SMEs (29); Active aging The EP points to the necessity of promoting the development and implementation of comprehensive ageing strategies aimed at empowering workers to stay active longer and encouraging employers to hire and retain older workers (11); IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

353 The Parliament called on Member States and social partners to reduce their policies of putting workers into early retirement and to introduce arrangements that support the flexible retirement of older workers through part-time employment, job-sharing and similar schemes that promote active ageing and may increase the integration of older workers into the labour market (24); In order to limit the exclusion of persons over the age of 50 and to help them remain on the job market, Member States should guard against the risks of exclusion from the world of work by developing access to lifelong learning (11); Attention to more flexible forms of employment and self-employment The EP calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that new forms of work are also protected by existing law, and to consider new legal instruments which can be applied flexibly to new forms of work, so that an equal level of protection can be guaranteed for all workers (7); Social security and benefit systems are often slow to respond to more flexible forms of employment and self-employment and fail to offer appropriate support and that this can prove a barrier to people taking up employment: this should be taken in to account when modernising systems (11); Education, skills development and lifelong learning Tackling disadvantages in education and training and improving the qualifications of the labour force regardless of age, for men and women and ethnic and national minorities, are key tools for combating unemployment: addressing those inequalities is of particular importance for achieving the Lisbon targets regarding employment, quality of work and social inclusion (11); Member States should introduce relevant reforms in their education systems to guarantee access to high-quality education for all: Member States should coordinate greater efforts on skill development in order to garner and share the benefits of new technologies and innovation (7); high-quality education is a vital prerequisite for successful future employment and integration (5) facilitating a successful transition to the labour market and improve access to employment through schemes of professional orientation, while ensuring consistency with a life-cycle and intergenerational approach (7); given the benefits that a qualified workforce brings to employers, it goes without saying that employers should be more involved in the process of lifelong learning (11); It is necessary to adjust vocational training programmes to the needs of local labour markets and give incentives to employers who provide unskilled people (including Roma people) with work and offer them training (14); The EP calls for a more effective prevention and combating of early school leaving under the motto that 'school pays off'; calls for effectively organised education systems and school curricula adapted to tomorrow's job market which take account of society's needs and technological developments (20); more effective lifelong learning and training actions are needed aiming at better equipped citizens, especially the less qualified, to (re-)enter the job market smoothly and without discrimination and to contribute to social innovation (20); A greater effort on skill development for workers and managers is vital to get and share the benefits of new technologies. Rapidly changing skill requirements call for a comprehensive effort to increase the educational level in all countries and especially in developing countries (7); Europe needs a well- educated workforce as well as companies that are quick to seize opportunities that arise in a fast-moving world to increase productivity and enhance innovation (24); IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

354 It emphasised the importance of access to training as well as the continued protection of acquired rights by covering periods of education and training, improved care opportunities, maintaining essential social rights such as pension rights, training rights and right to unemployment benefits during changes in occupational situation between employment contracts and from dependent to autonomous employment (24); The Parliament calls for the creation of comprehensive lifelong learning systems, also applicable to workers with non-standard contracts (24); It calls for the mid-term review to put education and training, improving human capital and lifelong learning at the heart of the Lisbon Strategy and considers that the Spring European Council should set ambitious targets (29); Integration must be based on the principles of equal opportunities in education, ensuring equal access to quality education. Parliament recommends that the Member States avoid creating ghetto-type schools or special classes for migrant children (23); Ensure education for the children of legal migrants, including the teaching of the official languages of the host country and the promotion of their native languages and cultures; MS should promote an inclusive educational policy under which children are allocated to classes on the basis of educational level and individual needs (23); the Parliament calls for efforts to be made, including at European level, to improve the education of children of migrants, above all because there will be more and more of these children in schools in the EU in the future. Parliament reiterates that migrant children and adults must have and be willing to take the opportunity to learn the languages of the host country if they are to integrate fully in it (23); To tackle inequalities and discrimination Gender equality Women are less paid and receive less training than their male colleagues and are at higher risk to live in poverty as they get older. The EP calls on the Commission and the Member States to integrate the gender dimension into all policies and programmes promoting decent work and asks Member States to guarantee equal opportunities for men and women for decent work (7); Businesses should take initiatives to promote greater participation and representation of women on bodies involved in social dialogue, a strategic goal of the concept of decent work (7); Female entrepreneurs should be encouraged to set up and develop businesses inside and outside the European Union as part of the policy of development cooperation (7); Member States should support a policy of growth and female employment by facilitating women's access to quality jobs and promoting equal-wage conditions and increase the participation of women in employment by eliminating obstacles that prevent women from entering it, and particularly by encouraging older women to remain longer in the labour market (11); The EP calls on the Member States to review their pension systems, taking account of the significantly lower life expectancy of men and the major pay differentials between men and women, which are reflected in the size of the pensions of widowed pensioners, often pushing them below the poverty line (11); full gender equality should be ensured in all state pension schemes (6); IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

355 New demographic challenges could be tackled by addressing the situation of women who live in poverty, who have unequal and inadequate access to nutrition, housing, education and pay, and who face difficulties in reconciling work, family and private life (20); Parliament asks the Commission to undertake further research into the impact of individualisation of social rights on the equality of treatment of women and men. They note that equality between men and women must feature among the objectives of the reforms of social security and pension systems (22); Given that women have more interruptions in their working careers (taking care of children or sick or elderly family members), Parliament stresses the need to compensate women and to provide them with real choices as regards having children as in relation to caring responsibilities, without fearing possible financial disadvantages or suffering detriment to their career progression. Parliament calls on the Commission and the Member States to take measures prohibiting direct discrimination in occupational pension schemes, including the practice of basing the level of payments and contributions on actuarial factors based on gender (22); The Parliament calls for measures to promote equal access to quality employment for women and men that comply with the European Pact for Gender Equality and the Communication on the Demographic Future of Europe. Member States must also close the existing gender pay gap (24); The implementation of a set of common principles for flexicurity needs to be gendermainstreamed and take into account a variety of factors, such as : the overrepresentation of women in non-standard employment (non-standard, fixed-term, part-time contracts) and the need to implement gender-mainstreamed labour policies; frequent switching between work and care activities among women and the need for proper protection and social benefits during transitional periods (care, family responsibilities, education, training and re-training); and the specific situation of single parents, the vast majority of whom are women(24); Parliament calls on Member States and the EU to combat through efficient measures direct and indirect discrimination against women in all spheres (including marriage, partnership and other family relations) (25); It calls for special attention to be given to the situation of women belonging to ethnic minorities and to immigrant women. Several measures are therefore envisaged to better defend the rights of women, including those who are victims of domestic violence, who do not receive all of the care that they should be entitled to in relation to sexual and reproductive health, as well as in terms of employment, salary and positions of responsibility at work (25); The Parliament called for the development of a methodology for examining the interaction of ethnicity and gender and identifying forms of multiple discrimination and their effect on women and girls, so that this methodology may serve as the basis on which legal instruments, policies and programmes are designed and implemented (27); Recalls that, in some Member States, the largest group of excluded workers is women, for many of whom the decision whether to take paid work depends on the availability and attractiveness of employment; therefore invites the Spring European Council to address the need for gender mainstreaming in the context of the Lisbon objectives, including measures to promote family-friendly patterns of employment and working time, secure employment and equal treatment, to improve access to training and to close the gender gap in pay and extend childcare and support for care of the elderly (29); Parliament drew attention to the multiple discrimination of migrant women or those belonging to national minorities (especially to the Roma/Sinti minority), and said a coherent policy approach was required (27); IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

356 To prevent all forms of discrimination National policies should promote equality of opportunity and treatment for workers, whatever their age or gender (7); Businesses should adopt responsible, non-discriminatory recruitment and professional development policies in order to boost the employment of women and the disadvantaged on the labour market (7); The marginalisation of certain minorities based on religion or race is an obstacle to achieving decent work for all in the European Union: those Member States that have not yet completed the transposition of Council Directive 2000/43/EC should implement the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (7); the EP calls on the Commission to take legal action against Member States that do not apply or have failed to transpose by the prescribed deadline the anti-discrimination directives based on Article 13 of the EC Treaty (11); Tackling disadvantages in education and training, and improving the qualifications of the labour force regardless of age, for men and women and ethnic and national minorities, are key tools for combating unemployment (11); Addressing those inequalities is of particular importance for achieving the Lisbon targets regarding employment, quality of work and social inclusion (11); Parliament calls on those Member States who have adopted legislation on same-sex partnerships to recognise provisions with similar effects adopted by other Member States. It also calls on those Member States who have not yet done so, and in application of the principle of equality, to take legislative action to overcome the discrimination experienced by some couples on the grounds of their sexual orientation (25); Parliament calls for discrimination on any grounds, including nationality and residence status to be outlawed in the field of education (23); Parliament considers the rights of workers and asks that their rights be defended resolutely, in terms of a decent income, recruitment policy, professional development, etc. and that all form of discrimination be rejected (25); It calls on the Commission and the Member States to support social inclusion of people who are furthest from the employment market and to tackle the reality of poor workers (25); Parliament felt that minority issues in the Union have not been high enough on the agenda of the Union and now need to be given greater attention. It pointed out the inconsistency of policy toward minorities - while protection of minorities is a part of the Copenhagen criteria, there is no standard for minority rights in Community policy nor is there a Community understanding of who can be considered a member of a minority. A definition should be based on the Council of Europe Recommendation 1201(1993) (27); Parliament warned against the possible discriminatory side-effects of measures against crime and terrorism, as there is evidence that ethnic minorities are five to six times more likely to be the target of police action, identity checks, etc. [...] (The MS) should also condemn incitement to racial hatred and homophobic violence, by both the state and private individuals (27); Minorities discriminated against on multiple grounds, including race, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, religion, disability and age: Parliament warned against the possible discriminatory side-effects of measures against crime and terrorism, as there is evidence that ethnic minorities are five to six times more likely to be the target of police action, identity checks, etc. EU institutions, the Member States, all European democratic political parties, and civil society should condemn all acts of anti-semitism and anti-muslim and anti-christian behaviour, the revival of holocaust IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

357 denial theories, the denial and trivialisation of acts of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. They should also condemn incitement to racial hatred and homophobic violence, by both the state and private individuals (27); Specific measures should be adopted to eliminate racial hatred and incitement to discrimination and violence against the Roma in the mass media (14); The EP stresses the need for targeted education policies which address Roma families and encourage active participation (14); it calls for the elimination of lowlevel and segregated education which has irreversible negative effects on marginalised groups, particularly on Roma (20); To improve Roma women s economic independence easy self-employment and startup measures for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), should be promoted as well as access to micro-credits (14); Roma are under-represented in high-prestige occupations: the EP calls for the effective implementation of Directive 2000/78/EC, which prohibits discrimination in employment and occupation on the grounds of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation (14); Member States and candidate countries are asked to take appropriate action to eliminate any racial hatred and incitement to discrimination and violence against Roma in the media and in any form of communication technology (28); Immigration A successful human rights based immigration policy should promote a coherent and efficient strategy for the integration of migrant people on the basis of equal opportunities rooted in guaranteeing their fundamental rights and ensuring a balance between rights and obligations (20); The EP welcomes the Commission proposal to impose sanctions on employers who employ illegally staying third-country nationals; emphasises the importance of combating the exploitation of illegally staying third country nationals whilst respecting the rights of those in vulnerable positions (20); The EP stresses the need to strengthen anti-discrimination laws throughout the EU; calls on the Commission to stimulate the exchange of best practises between the Member States with regard to promoting further the successful integration of migrants (20); Promote the insertion of asylum-seekers (5); EP recognises that immigrants can lead to a better balance of social security systems if they are legally employed and therefore contributing to its financing (22); Parliament deplores the many types of discrimination of which migrants are victims, whether they are legally or illegally in the country. MEPs call for greater coordination of national policies for integrating third-country nationals (25); Overall, the Parliament is concerned that the lack of effective integration policies is causing the exclusion of hundreds of thousands of non-nationals and stateless persons from working life, society and politics, which also undermines the EU's aim of increasing labour mobility in order to enhance competitiveness and economic prosperity. It acknowledges the risk that exclusion may put those persons in a vulnerable position, opening the way to radicalisation, trafficking and other forms of exploitation (25); Member States were asked to encourage the political participation of immigrants and discourage their political and social isolation (26); IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

358 Finally, in order especially to prevent the potential maltreatment of immigrant women, Member States were asked to provide them with easily accessible information as regards the legislation of the host country on gender equality and the rights and protection that derive from that legislation, including the available legal and administrative remedies (26); Obstacles to the integration of third-country nationals need to be eliminated. Parliament called for greater coordination of national integration policies and EU initiatives in this field. Common basic principles for a coherent European framework for integration should include the fact that integration is a continuous two-way process involving both legally resident third-country nationals and the host society (27); Parliament felt that recent immigrants may experience specific kinds of discrimination, which will differ in some respects from the discrimination faced by settled ethnic-minority EU citizens of the second, third and fourth generations of immigrants. It also felt important to distinguish between minorities of recent immigrant origin and those traditional national and ethnic minorities who are indigenous to the territory in which they live (27); Believes that legal migration has an important role in enhancing the knowledgebased economy in Europe as well as in advancing economic development (29); Attention to children and young people Youth unemployment as a priority Young people face particular difficulties as regards economic and social integration on leaving education and entering the world of work, and are more susceptible to falling victim to social exclusion; the EP calls on the Member States to ensure that youth unemployment is addressed specifically, as a priority in its own right, through specific policy measures and training, inter alia, to encourage the taking of initiative and the development of entrepreneurial spirit (11); Rights of children The EP calls on the Commission to step up its efforts to introduce a "Children's Charter" that seeks to achieve progress in upholding the rights of the child as part of the EU's internal and external policies as well as a Green Paper on child poverty, setting out clear targets and appropriate measures to eliminate child poverty as steps towards the social inclusion of poor children (11); social services dealing with children and childcare are an important precondition for the prevention and reduction of child poverty, social exclusion and discrimination, and the facilitation of the reconciliation of work and family life (11); The Parliament calls for a more holistic approach to active inclusion: it should also include a special focus on the eradication of child poverty including street children, human trafficking, family reunification. combat prostitution, child drug addiction and child trafficking (1); to ensure easy and equal access to education for all children (11); actions against child labour to alleviate child exploitation and poverty and achieve decent work for adults everywhere (7); to reduce child poverty and to end street homelessness of children, youth and adults alike (5); They ask that particular attention be paid to the situation of refugee children. Special attention to be given to unaccompanied minors and minors separated from their parents who arrive on EU territory and special assistance should be provided to them (25); Parliament condemns all forms of violence against children, and stresses in particular the need to combat the forms of violence most frequently encountered in the Member States: paedophilia, sexual abuse, domestic violence, corporal punishment in schools and other forms of abuse in institutions (25); IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

359 It calls on Member States to implement effective measures to forbid the various forms of exploitation of children, put an end to the practice of unofficial marriage of minors and eliminate child labour in all its forms (25); Member States and candidate countries are asked to ensure that all Roma children have access to mainstream education. Parliament called on Member States in which Roma children are segregated into schools for the mentally disabled or placed in separate classrooms from their peers to move forward with desegregation programmes within a predetermined period of time, thus ensuring free access to quality education for Roma children and preventing the rise of anti-romani sentiment amongst schoolchildren (28); Attention to the elderly The EP stresses the need to improve housing conditions, especially accessibility, for those less-favoured groups which are particularly affected by poverty, such as older people who cannot look after themselves: it considers that efforts against poverty and social exclusion must be sustained and extended to improve the situation of those people most at risk of poverty and exclusion, such as older people living alone (11); MS and the Commission are called upon to provide adequate resources to facilitate access to life-long learning programmes as a means of limiting the exclusion of elderly people among others from employment and to foster their continuous participation in social, cultural and civic life (6); It calls Member States to take measures to prevent discrimination against older workers (7); The implementation of adequate, accessible and affordable social services and social protection for all Member States should reform social protection systems with a view to ensuring their ability to provide high-quality services and their adequacy and sustainability in the future ensuring access to high-quality services for all (11); The EP calls on the Member States to improve equal access to high-quality services, particularly, in the fields of health and long-term care, social security, social services, including the provision of counselling in social rights, child-related services, transport and mobility services, reintegration services focused on the labour-market integration, and vocational training services (11); There should be a move towards the provision of high quality and affordable personal care for elderly people and people with disabilities (6) and more efficient social protection measures with a view to ensuring the right of all to social protection (11); Particular attention should be paid to persons requiring long-term or expensive care, and to those facing particular difficulties in accessing care; emphasises that, if health is to be promoted and protected, health systems must be based not only on the insurance principle but also on the solidarity principle: social services necessary with regard to the care of dependent persons, i.e. those unable to perform basic everyday actions by themselves should be increased (11); Services of general interest EU should support the infrastructures of the Member States' social models, including social services of general interest, by reaffirming the importance of their universal access, quality and sustainability: the Commission should submit a legislative proposal seeking to guarantee the legal security of social services of general interest (20); IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

360 MEPs call on the Commission to examine without delay all possible means of clarifying the legal context in which social services general interest operate and providing them with a legal framework to serve as a point of reference (5); Minimum income as a desirable measure/minimum wage the EP encourages Member States to provide for guaranteed minimum income schemes for social inclusion, in accordance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality: adequate minimum income could eradicate poverty with a long-term perspective (20); not all people are able to work, nor are there currently jobs for all: Recommendation 92/441/EEC endorsed by the European Council meeting on 11 and 12 December 2008 should be implemented, on providing "sufficient resources and social assistance to live in a manner compatible with human dignity", through the extension of minimum income schemes to all Member States and increasing levels to ensure access and adequacy (20) (5); social assistance in most Member States is already below a level which makes poverty a risk and insists that the central objective of income support schemes must be to lift people out of poverty and enable them to live in dignity (1); an EU target for minimum income schemes and contributory replacement income schemes should provide income support of at least 60% of national median equalised income (5); decent living minimum wage should be established at Member State level in cooperation with the social partners (6); Conciliation between private/family and working life all the necessary measures should be taken to ensure the conciliation between private/family and working life with a view to increase women s participation into the labour market and to examine and eliminate the causes that could undermine the effectiveness of such measures (7); preventive strategies and measures should be designed to protect maternity and improve health and safety at work for pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (7); The EP calls on the Commission and the Member States to improve measures to allow all workers to achieve a better balance between work and family life, bearing in mind that long hours, stress and insecurity of employment threaten the fabric of family life, which is an important foundation of our society (7); Member States should facilitate personal choices in terms of the reconciliation of work and family life and access to quality and affordable care services for children and other dependants (11) considering the vital need to support mothers, by means of family allowances during infancy and the creation of a suitable framework for their return to the labour market, paying particular attention to single mothers in view of their vulnerability (20); the Commission should put forward a proposal on a better reconciliation between private, family and professional life optimising the use and knowledge of ICT and new forms of work organisation (20); Parliament also invites the Commission and the Member States to draw up policies to ensure that people (who tend generally to be women) who look after family dependants, many of whom have to leave the labour market, are not penalised in relation to their pension entitlements (22); Parliament stresses, above all, the need to enable flexible retirement on a voluntary basis, change the organisation of working practices and make intelligent use of new IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

361 technologies. It is also necessary that support services and services related to the care of children and family dependants are improved, in the light of reducing the number of people working part-time on a voluntary basis (22); Parliament stresses the need to compensate women and to provide them with real choices as regards having children as in relation to caring responsibilities, without fearing possible financial disadvantages or suffering detriment to their career progression (22); Support to the social economy and to microcredit the social economy, as another form of entrepreneurship, plays an essential role in contributing to a sustainable European economy, by combining profitability with solidarity: social economy enterprises need a secure legal framework (20); the development of microcredit can play an important role in supporting (long-term) unemployed people to move into self employment; microcredit has already helped in many such situations with reintegration into working life and that this is in line with the Lisbon Strategy; the EP calls on the Commission to improve the generation of and access to information on the possibilities and availability of micro-credit and to target actively those groups in society that could benefit most from and that have most need of micro-credit supply (20); Considers that the vital contribution of SMEs to the achievement of the Lisbon Strategy goals must be more explicitly recognised; notes that the SME sector not only represents the largest proportion of employment across the EU but has also in recent years created more new jobs than any other sector; therefore demands enhanced measures to create a more SME-friendly environment, avoiding unnecessary bureaucratic burdens, and ensuring better access to financial resources for investment (29); Given the currently reduced level of lending and the dramatic fall in outstanding loans, ongoing Community and national efforts need to be strengthened to increase the supply of microcredits to a sufficient scale and within a reasonable time-frame so as to address the high demand of those who need it most in this period of crisis. Using Community resources is appropriate and responds to the Resolution of the European Parliament of 24 March Further, a single facility will concentrate leverage from international financial institutions. A pan-eu facility will avoid a dispersed approach thus increasing micro-finance supply in all Member States (30); Pensions Parliament calls on the Member States to consider redesigning traditional pension systems and adjusting the social security system in line with the reforms of the pension system, given that the assumed standard course of life is changing rapidly, and the so-called "patchwork biographies" will become more and more common resulting in increasing unpredictability for many (e.g. immigrants, low-skilled workers, single parents, etc.) (22); It points out that a transformation of the pension systems is also necessary to achieve a flexible labour market. Parliament also believes that the greater use of alternatives to state-funded pensions, such as supplementary schemes, could be a viable alternative. It cites, in particular, private pensions and individual supplementary pensions based on savings. However, the existence of this type of pension increases the need for the appropriate regulation of private pension funds, the portability of such pensions and the promotion and continued modernisation (including more flexibility) of these alternatives (22); EP stresses the need for a sustainable pension system and points out that a threepillar structure is a balanced option, on condition that it is widely accessible. It suggests therefore that the statutory pensions (first pillar) be flanked by collectively IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

362 funded occupational pension systems (second pillar) and by individual additional third-pillar products. In this regard, it calls on the Commission to undertake the preparation of an appropriate and feasible framework of regulation and supervision of pan-european pension products stressing that these pensions would benefit from portability (22); In parallel, Parliament calls for the review of Directive 2003/41/EC on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision urgently in order to provide a solid solvency regime appropriate to such institutions for occupational retirement provision. It emphasises the need for strengthened participation and contribution levels of employees in existing pension schemes in order to ensure adequate retirement income for individuals, as well as the need for continued adequate contributions from employers, particularly in defined contribution pension schemes (22); Healthcare and long-term care: EP insists on the importance of preserving the values and principles underpinning all health care systems in the European Union, which comprise universal coverage, solidarity in financing, equity of access and the provision of high quality health care. In its view, by improving the organisation and provision of services, there is the potential for improving both the quality and financial efficiency of health services (22); Given the projected higher costs of health care, Parliament considers that Member States should reflect on their funding in particular for long-term care (knowing that some people will require costly care or very long-term healthcare) (22); Noting that privatisation of social security regimes, the profit motive and competition between financial intermediaries usually make the administration of healthcare systems most costly, Parliament recommends those Member States already with a single payer model to preserve it (22); For the Parliament, it is also unacceptable, given the principle of freedom to provide services and the right of the insured under health insurance schemes to choose a doctor freely, that Member States refuse to reimburse their citizens for any treatment received abroad (22); Parliament calls on the Commission to take into account the aspect of equal rights of all European Union citizens to high quality healthcare systems, in order to avoid any form of discrimination between them with respect to healthcare. Lastly, Parliament recommends that Member States contribute to efficiency and equity in their respective healthcare systems by lowering the number of risk pools or by creating a single, national pool that can facilitate strategic direction and co-ordination throughout the health system (22); To tackle domestic violence and the abuse of children and elderly people To prevent and tackle domestic violence and the abuse of children and elderly people and Gender-based violence (6) MEPs call on the Member States to disallow the invoking of custom, tradition or any other religious consideration to justify any form of discrimination, oppression or violence against women. A European legal framework to ensure the physical integrity of young girls from Female Genital Mutilation should be adopted (25); Attention to the financial sustainability of social protection systems together with to social justice The European Parliament adopted the own-initiative report on the future of social security systems and pensions: their financing and the trend towards individualisation. IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

363 given the need to cover social risks and secure the sustainability of the social security and pensions systems and maintain the core of the European social models, Parliament calls on the Member States to make more progress in balancing social expenditure and social activation and, furthermore, to attract more people towards quality and secure employment with mandatory social insurance (22); Parliament calls on the Commission to follow closely social security and pension reforms in the Member States, comparing their impact to date on the employment situation of women and focusing on the best practices that have emerged, particularly in reducing gender discrimination regarding pay and in reconciling professional and family responsibilities (22); Parliament considers there is a need to preserve the balance between the economic viability of social security systems and pensions, on the one hand, and the coverage of social risks, on the other. It recalls, in this regard, its position that, to promote an economically viable social protection system, Community labour law should reinforce employment contracts of indefinite duration as the dominant form of employment under which adequate social and health protection is provided and respect for fundamental rights is ensured (22); Parliament considers it necessary to preserve adequate levels of funding for social security and pensions systems. it stresses the importance of reducing reliance on labour taxation in order to increase the competitiveness of Member States economies and provide more work incentives. It also suggests that shifting to new ways of taxation and/or other alternatives could be considered to improve the financial sustainability of social spending, which would reduce the tax burden on people with lower incomes (22); it considers that Member States ensure sustainable public finances to meet the increased pressure of an ageing population. It stresses that Member States should design their financial policies in a sustainable manner by fairly sharing the tax burden among employees, consumers, businesses and income from capital, and across generations. It calls on the Member States to include in their annual budgets a fund for future pensions payments and stresses the need to consider a phased transition from joint contribution-based to fund-based insurance-type pension schemes (22); Parliament considers that the Member States should avoid taking a purely financial approach when adopting reform policies aimed at redesigning the legal framework which underpins their respective national healthcare systems. It is convinced that the starting point for any reform should be a careful analysis of the existing (financing) system to identify weaknesses and problem areas (22); Member States should consider the whole range of health financing functions and policies, rather than focusing on contribution mechanisms alone. Parliament is convinced that raising the level of employment-based contributions, or raising the private contribution of patients to the cost of healthcare services would limit in an unacceptable way the access of citizens with low incomes to the full range of healthcare services. In fact, the access of citizens with low incomes to high quality healthcare services must be a priority of the Union and a precondition for the successful achievement of the Lisbon objective of full employment (22); The EP considers that the current demographic trends - an ageing workforce and the decline of the working-age population - constitute a challenge in the medium and longer term for the financial sustainability of social protection systems; Considers that, in order for pension schemes to be financially sustainable, there is a need for economic growth and sufficient productivity, as well as high levels of employment and the active promotion of lifelong learning, quality of work and a safe and healthy working environment; Recommends that pension systems should not only consist of a wide range of forms of social and supplementary insurance (whether statutory or IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

364 private) but should also guarantee, to the greatest possible extent, social justice in pension systems (11); It stresses the importance of a continuous evaluation of pension systems' effectiveness with regard to their financial sustainability, as well as the achievement of social objectives (11); stresses that there is potential to strengthen the financial sustainability of the minimum wage and pensions systems and the quality and efficiency of health care services by improving their organisation and access and increasing partnership between the public and private sector, respecting the principle of subsidiarity, and supporting increased efforts to establish progressive taxation systems in order to reduce inequality (20); Attention to remote and rural areas The EP calls on the Member States to develop integrated strategies seeking to promote, in economic, social, cultural and environmental terms, the development of geographically remote and underdeveloped urban, island and rural areas, with a view to confronting the problems of exclusion and poverty and not allowing them to endure from one generation to the next (11) Active inclusion necessitates the reduction of inequalities between regions and areas within the Community, through accelerated rehabilitation of the areas affected by the economic crisis and development of rural regions (5); The EP calls on Member States, when implementing Community policies, to generalise and broaden access to lifelong learning opportunities, even in geographically remote and rural areas and to implement specific measures adapted to local realities so as to guarantee the employability of all within a changing work environment (7); Considers rural development agricultural expenditure, especially in favour of training of young farmers, which is of particular importance in the new Member States, to be a crucial part of the Lisbon strategy (29); II THE OMC SUPPORTS THE INTERACTION BETWEEN POLICIES AND THE CALL TOWARDS INTEGRATED OBJECTIVES The European Parliament has also been involved in strengthening the interaction between the Lisbon objectives and the economic growth, with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion, and with the EU's Sustainable Development Strategy. Some resolutions refer directly to this: 20. European Parliament resolution on the Renewed social agenda - 6 May 2009 (2008/2330(INI)) 21. European Parliament resolution on the input to the Spring European Council 2009 in relation to the Lisbon Strategy - 4 March 2009 ( B6-0107/2009) 22. Resolution of 20 February 2008 on the input for the 2008 Spring Council as regards the Lisbon Strategy (P6_TA(2008)0057) A preliminary analysis of the already selected resolutions put in evidence the following elements: An integrated approach The general approach supported by EP is the integration and interaction between objectives, policies, initiatives, institutions, organisations etc towards the EU's Sustainable Development Strategy IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

365 Objectives The EP considers that there should be a better link at the EU level between economic, environmental and social policies, with a reaffirmation of the original Lisbon Strategy goals and the need to ensure that economic and employment policies actively contribute to the eradication of poverty and social exclusion; (20). The EP notes that decent work is achieved through growth, investment and enterprise development, together with social responsiveness (7). It calls member states to the integration of people at a disadvantage in order to prevent and combat social exclusion, promoting education, encouraging job creation, professional training and career development, the reconciliation of professional and family life and the right to equal access to health care and decent accommodation while ensuring the sustainability of social protection systems (11); Policies and Initiatives The EP calls on the Commission to develop a consistent approach regarding links between social, employment and environmental policies, based on freedom and responsibility(7) The EP recognises that the structural funds remain largely the main funding instrument to fulfil social objectives, asks the Commission and the Member States to promote synergies with other programmes and support coherence across the multiannual framework programmes, such as Daphne, Progress, the Public Health Programme, and the 'Europe for citizens" programme (20). The European Social Fund may have an important role to play in the integration and reintegration of older workers into the labour market, and, more generally, in the social inclusion of vulnerable and/or socially-excluded groups (11) the EP suggests strengthening the potential of structural funds, through simplification, flexibility and improvement of procedures, and the social integration dimension, with the aim to help Member States optimise the output of social and employment policies; therefore asks the Member States to use the ESF and all the other structural funds in order to improve not only employability but also the social infrastructure (20) the perspective of decent work should be included in all the activities of the European Union and encourage the same in its Member States (7) The EP encourages the Commission to follow an integrated multi-dimensional approach in its activities based on four pillars: productive and freely chosen employment, labour law standards including the fundamental labour principles, social protection and social dialogue, mainstreaming the gender dimension in all the pillars The EP invites the Commission to combine the renewed social agenda with other initiatives such as the European pact for gender equality, the European Youth Pact and the European Alliance for families, in order for disadvantaged social groups to have better access to social benefits (20) Institutions and organisations the EP calls on the Commission not only to support but also to participate, where possible, in the dialogue launched between the international financial institutions, the ILO, the UN and the WTO concerning the complementarity and consistency of their policies which are related to economic growth, investment, trade and decent work; it encourages the EU to consider the development of a network through reliable and responsible institutions, in charge of controlling parallel evolution of trade and decent work both at European and international level (7) MEPs call on the Member States to establish networks at regional and local levels to advise and refer people on where they can receive help in accessing the labour IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

366 market as well as specific social services(5). The EP calls on the Commission and the Member States to establish an EU-wide forum in which social movements, trade unions and NGOs representing the Roma and their interests can consult one another on a permanent basis.(14) Of specific interest is the involvement of the European Parliament in supporting EU's Sustainable Development Strategy and the Social OMC. The European Parliament resolution on the Renewed social agenda - 6 May 2009 (2008/2330(INI)) in particular, deserves specific attention. While referring to the Open Method of Coordination it states that the European Parliament 2 : 80. Considers that there should be a better linkage at the EU-level between economic and social policies, with a reaffirmation of the original Lisbon Agenda goals and the need to ensure that economic and employment policies actively contribute to the eradication of poverty and social exclusion; notes that the Lisbon Treaty establishes that very relevant aspects of social policy should be taken into account when defining and implementing EU policies; 81. Emphasises the need for the adoption of a legally binding charter of fundamental social rights; 82. Considers that there should be a better linkage at the EU-level between economic, environmental and social policies, notes that the Lisbon Treaty establishes that very relevant aspects of social policy should be taken into account when defining and implementing EU policies; 83. Considers that the post-2010 Lisbon Strategy should cover a strengthened OMC and invites the Commission to further encourage Member States to define national quantified targets, namely as regards poverty reduction and social inclusion, particularly supported by new measurable and quantitative indicators; 84. Calls on the Council and the Commission to open up opportunities for a real involvement of the European Parliament in the post-2010 Lisbon Strategy; In the other resolutions analysed emerges that the EP calls on the Commission to encourage Member States to use the Open Method of Coordination in the field of social protection in order to add value to the different social systems; it considers that there is a need to seek greater harmonisation of pension schemes; it welcomes the Council's decision regarding the application of the open method of coordination in the field of health and longterm care; calls on the European Council to adopt at its summit in Spring 2006 an integrated framework in the fields of social protection and integration and to agree on a uniform list of common objectives in the field of social integration, pensions, health and long-term care; regards the creation of an integrated framework and the streamlining of coordination in the fields of social protection and integration as an opportunity, in the context of the Lisbon process, to boost the social dimension of social protection as a dimension with its own independent socio-economic significance as opposed to the coordination of social and employment policy (7). In particular it calls for a more explicit commitment in the next cycle of the Open Method of Coordination in the fields of Social Protection and Social Inclusion, to a dynamic and effective Community strategy that would set meaningful targets and lead to the creation of effective instruments and to monitoring focused on fighting poverty, social exclusion and inequality(1) III CONCERNING THE DESIRABLE METHODS TO BE APPLIED TO REACH THE EXPECTED GOALS The last overarching objective refers to good governance, transparency and the involvement of stakeholders in the design, implementation and monitoring of policy. The analysis of the selected resolutions evidences the main issues at this level: 2 European Parliament resolution of 6 May 2009 on the Renewed social agenda (2008/2330(INI)) IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

367 Indicators and assessments to show to the EP the progress made From the one hand the EP points to the necessity of improving comparable data and on the other hand asks the Commission to submit periodically to the European Parliament and Council an impact assessment report of all the different EU policies (in particular on the promotion of decent work for both EU and its partner country workers (7)), considering that only an effective application of methodologies and indicators can show the progress made in implementing the decent work agenda. The EP welcomes the Commission's intention to produce a follow-up report to its communication on decent work by 2008 and the Commission's effort to improve analysis and to develop appropriate indicators related to the implementation of the Decent Work Agenda (7) The EP reasserts the need for an improvement in harmonised data collection and the development of common indicators that take account of age and sex differences, as indicators of this kind play a major role in the monitoring and evaluation of policies on poverty and social exclusion and considers that a real mainstreaming of social inclusion in policy making should be implemented through the establishment of systematic ex-ante and ex-post policy assessments, both at national and EU level (11) (20); The Commission is called upon to provide a detailed report on the MS welfare provision and establishes a common method of calculating the minimum subsistence amount and the cost of living (a basket of goods and services) in order to ensure comparable measurements of the poverty line in the Union (1) The Commission is called upon to assess specifically the impact of the objectives and instruments of each of its sectoral policies on the Roma, along with developing a coherent political strategy and achieving a high level of coordination. Parliament asks the Member States to adopt clear employment policies for the Roma population, with support measures to facilitate their phased integration into the labour market (14) Parliament calls for Implementing measures and a proper feedback mechanism. Data should be collected on direct and indirect discrimination (i.e. the percentage of people belonging to national minorities among those living at risk of poverty and among the employed and unemployed, their level of education, etc.) so as to ensure proper feedback on the effectiveness of Member State anti-discrimination and minority-protection policies (27); The set of targets The EP notes that Member States should support new measurable, binding and quantitative social targets and indicators for the post-2010 Lisbon Strategy (20) The roadmaps should specify time lines and realistic qualitative and quantitative targets based on specific indicators and on detailed dialogue between the interested parties. (5) Development of exchanges of best practices at Community level The EP suggests a stronger cooperation regarding the development of exchanges of best practices at Community level (7); EP calls for the creation of a database to evaluate the impact of exchanges of best experiences and of the use of resources (14) Attention to social dialogue at all levels The EP points out that the social-inclusion process should truly involve key actors at local or regional level, such as local authorities in charge of social inclusion policies, social partners, NGOs and people experiencing poverty and social exclusion (11) IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

368 Believes that the culture of cooperation, which has been replacing the conflict-based culture in the labour market, should continue to be encouraged through the promotion of the social dialogue (20) Given that the results of the negotiations of the European social partners are not well-known or disclosed, calls for the promotion of awareness of the results of social dialogue to improve its impact and promote its development (20) Believes that civil society organisations, and people experiencing poverty and social exclusion, must be more directly involved in the debates on the economic and social model, on an equal basis (20) improving policy coordination, involvement of all relevant stakeholders (such as disadvantaged people) and unified Measures (1). Calls for a wide debate between European stakeholders, national public authorities, employers, employees and civil society organisations, about the social agenda for the post-2010 period (20) Favours an effective dialogue between Parliament and civil society organisations; suggests that such a dialogue is also needed within Member States at a central, regional and local level (20) Considers that civil society organisations should be involved from the beginning of decision-making processes, and that information should be publicly accessible, feedback should be reciprocal, and scope for change should be made clear to participants(20) Stresses the importance and value of the consultation process as an effective tool by which to empower citizens by enabling them to feed directly into the policy process at EU level(20) Suggests that there is an urgent need for the European institutions, the social partners at national level, and civil society organisations to adopt a 'social pact' encompassing social actions with realistic, binding targets and indicators(20): better information and consultation with workers representatives as part of a wider on-going social dialogue and initiatives on promoting trade union freedom and collective bargaining, on improving labour administration, labour inspectorates and bodies for managing social protection, and on developing integrated prevention strategies in the field of health and safety at work in the framework of enlargement and pre-accession programmes should be supported (7); The EP stresses that the social partners are crucial to the successful implementation of the Decent Work Agenda, and should therefore be actively involved, at least by way of a hearing process, in the implementation of decent work initiatives(7) It welcomes the initiative announced in the Commission communication on decent work to support efforts to improve the involvement of the social partners and other society stakeholders in global governance on the basis of the OECD's consultative model (7) It invites the Commission and the Member States to work with NGOs, Roma communities and leaders in order to develop a jointly acceptable plan for the social inclusion of Roma; EP requests that, in all EU and Member State actions which particularly affect Roma, the stakeholders of the Roma community participate as decision-makers (14) The involvement of the European Parliament: The EP reiterates its conviction that its role in applying the open method of coordination in its capacity as the body directly representing the citizens of Europe must be clarified and enhanced in order to give the process democratic legitimacy (11) IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

369 EU cooperation in the field of social inclusion - Annexes Calls on the Council and Commission to open negotiations with Parliament on an inter-institutional agreement setting out the rules for selecting the areas of policy to which the open method of coordination is to be applied, and providing for a coherent application of the method with the unrestricted and equal participation of Parliament (11) Stresses that such an inter-institutional agreement must contain rules for the participation of Parliament in the setting of objectives and indicators and in access to documents, participation in meetings, observation and supervision of progress, information on reports and best practices, and a procedure enabling the open method of coordination to evolve into a Community method (11) Calls on the Council and the Commission to open up opportunities for Parliament's real involvement in the post-2010 Lisbon Strategy Supports the Commission in defining, together with Parliament, a reliable road-map with clear legislative and budgetary priorities for the three pillars within the Lisbon Strategy; insists on detailed consultation with Parliament on its content and on the creation of an effective Commission-Parliament mechanism for joint programming (29); IP/A/EMPL/ST/ PE

370