27.7.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/167

—

reiterates the need to focus the action under the programme mainly on young people, who have been hit especially hard by the crisis: with more than 20 % of young people out of work, they should be made a priority. Similarly, great attention should be paid to the long-term unemployment, a group which currently represents an average of 3.8 % of the working age population in the EU Members States;

—

reaffirms its belief that the project, in the part relating to social innovation, needs to dedicate a significantly higher portion of the funds than that specified by the Commission to actual experimentation, especially for projects linked to political priorities an in particular, the social inclusion of young people;

—

restates the importance of support for geographical mobility of workers at European level and considers that EURES will be an increasingly useful instrument only if it successfully connects demand with supply of labour and if its results can be effectively assessed. The Committee underscores the contribution that regional and local authorities can make in this sector;

—

nonetheless has doubts about the decision to remove the references to gender equality and tackling discrimination from the social innovation programme.

Rapporteur

Enrico ROSSI (IT/PES), President of Tuscany Region

Reference document

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a European Union Programme for Social Change and Innovation

COM(2011) 609 final

1.

welcomes the Commission's decision to present, for the period 2014-2020, the new Progress, Microfinance and EURES regulations, bringing them together in the Programme for Social Change and Innovation;

2.

stresses the importance of fleshing out the concept of social innovation, which it considers a key instrument for responding to the risks of social exclusion and combating it where it already exists, especially during a period of crisis that is in danger of jeopardising Europe's cohesion and its social model;

3.

nonetheless has doubts about the decision to remove the references to gender equality and tackling discrimination from the social innovation programme;

4.

reiterates the need to focus the action under the programme mainly on young people, who have been hit especially hard by the crisis: with more than 20 % of young people out of work, they should be made a priority. Similarly, great attention should be paid to the long-term unemployment, a group which currently represents an average of 3.8 % of the working age population in the EU Members States;

5.

stresses also the need for a clearer definition of ‘social economy’, and refers in this regard in particular to the European Parliament report on Social Economy  (1);

6.

reiterates the importance of consistency in the use of funds allocated to this programme and those of the European Social Fund. The Committee stresses the need for a commitment from the Commission and from regional authorities themselves to ensure such consistency, through the measures identified by the Commission. This could be reflected when the guidelines on public contracts and the project analysis procedures are being drafted;

7.

reaffirms its belief that the project, in the part relating to social innovation, needs to dedicate a significantly higher portion of the funds than that specified by the Commission to actual experimentation, especially for projects linked to political priorities an in particular, the social inclusion of young people;

8.

confirms the importance of microcredits in the current political and economic climate. These should help citizens (especially young people and women) to start their own businesses, develop their entrepreneurship or build up operational capacity;

9.

reiterates that, in this sector, too, the main focus should be on weak and vulnerable sections of the population or on social enterprises; recalls the efficiency hitherto demonstrated by microfinance experiments, both as regards the success of the investments and as regards the low rate of non-repayment of loans;

10.

restates the importance of support for geographical mobility of workers at European level and considers that EURES will be an increasingly useful instrument only if it successfully connects demand with supply of labour and if its results can be effectively assessed. The Committee underscores the contribution that regional and local authorities can make in this sector;

11.

recalls that, notwithstanding the commitment of the institutions, significant practical obstacles remain to the geographical mobility of workers within the EU, particularly those who live in the regions furthest away from the continent or the outermost regions;

12.

calls for improvement of evaluation procedures so that the impact of the programme as a whole can be understood, and asks the Commission to commit to rapidly following up the envisaged final evaluations of equivalent ongoing programmes by making adjustments to the new programmes where appropriate;

13.

emphasises that social innovation makes it possible to respond to the risks of social exclusion and combat it where it already exists, especially during a crisis that is in danger of jeopardising Europe's cohesion and its social model.; points out that we are in real danger of a ‘generational crisis’ with incalculable consequences for our societal model and for the democratic system itself; therefore calls on Europe to shoulder its responsibility, and promote social experimentation and disseminate good practices that result from it so as to develop effective models for intervention that can be applied throughout the Union;

14.

recalls the Committee's opinion on the microfinance instrument  (2) of 7 October 2009 and the importance that the microfinance facility could play in combating exclusion. The Committee's comments on the definition of the categories targeted by this instrument, and the statement that it is not an instrument for financing consumption but rather the setting-up or consolidation of innovative or social small businesses which have traditionally had trouble obtaining finance from traditional sources, should help clarify its purpose. Emphasises that European action remains secondary, i.e. supporting national, regional or local actors who supply microcredit; also emphasises that the importance of the instrument lies in creating a virtuous, self-sustaining mechanism for beneficiary enterprises that regenerates available funds thanks to the high reimbursement rate. Calls, therefore, for sound European regulation setting out the common factors at European level to harmonise or standardise practices relating to microcredit. The Committee also draws the Commission's attention to the positive examples of non-profit organisations already doing an excellent job of providing microcredit. To maintain this it is important that the EU does not develop its own parallel system, but rather support existing efforts;

15.

with regard to EURES, calls on the Commission to ensure that this instrument should become more effective by bringing supply into line with demand, and by availing itself of national and regional employment services; calls on EURES to do more to address the needs of young people looking for their first job by supporting the movement of people with no work experience, whilst taking into account that there is also a demand for young qualified workers in many smaller cities and rural areas; also stresses the need to adopt an ambitious approach to tackling the obstacles to the free movement of workers, including distance from the continent; the instrument should address these and not confine itself merely to job-matching activities;

16.

is concerned about the removal, compared to the current Progress programme, of the reference to gender equality and non-discrimination, in light of two major risks: the shift of focus from the need to remove social barriers that hinder equality to the mere, traditional recognition of rights and the risk of fragmentation of innovative schemes in the social sphere;

17.

confirms that the programme's budget remains below needs, especially in the field of social experimentation, even though the Commission proposes that 17 % of the budget be used for this purpose;

18.

with regard to the microfinance aspect, considers it necessary to repeat what was said in the Committee's 2009 opinion, not least considering that the programme has only been being implemented – with co-financing from the EIB and the EIF – for a little more than a year. Points out that particular additional attention should be given to specific actions to support microcredit operators to enable them to meet the minimum conditions of balance and sustainability, recalling that the effectiveness of microfinance measures is closely related to the size of the operators and the quality of microfinance services they provide. Hence the need to encourage and support national and/or regional microfinance networks that work as second-level support structures for individual local operators;

19.

reiterates the need for consistency in European action when there are a number of programmes in the filed of innovation an microfinance; calls for greater consistency between the PSCI programme and the ESF to be guaranteed, taking account of the diversity of the managing entities – the Commission for this programme and the national and regional authorities for the Social Fund. In this regard, puts forward three proposals: a commitment by regions to use the Social Fund or other funds to apply established good practices; the possibility of the Committee of the Regions putting forward guidelines on the matter of consistency at the time of publication of calls for tender; where appropriate to the territorial dimension of the projects, the regional and local authorities concerned should issue an opinion on the individual projects put forward so as to ensure synergy and coordination with their use of the ESF;

20.

finally, there is the problem, for the three axes of the programme, of carrying out more accurate evaluations of effectiveness, especially as regards microfinance and EURES, in order to know how much has been done or how many people have actually found work thanks to the programme. Considers that the Commission should commit to quicker presentation of the results of evaluations of ongoing programmes, which are to be published only after the new ones enter into force, and, if appropriate, to propose changes or enhancements to the latter.