8.8.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 185/87

1.1

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

1.2

The Commission needs to initiate a dialogue with the Member States to raise awareness of adequate social policies.

1.3

Although the EESC welcomes the initiative, it would point out that account must be taken of the specific characteristics of the three individual strands, their different stages of progress, as well as to the differences between Member States.

1.4

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

1.5

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

1.6

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

2.1

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

2.2

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

2.3

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

3.1

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

3.1.1

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

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

3.2

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

3.3

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

3.4

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

3.5

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

3.6

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

3.7

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

3.8

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

3.9

Although the EESC welcomes the initiative, it would point out that in bringing together the strands, that are at significantly different stages of progress, account must continue to be taken of the specific characteristics of the three individual strands, the different stages of progress, as well as to the differences between Member States.

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

3.10

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

4.1

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

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

4.2

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

4.3

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

4.4

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

4.5

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

4.6

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

4.7

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

5.1

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

5.2

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

5.2.1

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

5.2.2

For our part, the EESC considers it particularly important to focus on:

5.3

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

5.3.1

Priority issues could include:

5.4

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

5.4.1

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

5.4.2

Priority issues in the new national action plans could include: