15.2.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/1

1.1

The EESC believes that despite the very fragile and still indeterminate situation prevailing in the Mediterranean, the conditions are in place for multilevel dialogue to begin between the Commission, the Member States, the countries involved in Euro-Mediterranean cooperation, local and regional authorities and civil society to establish a Mediterranean macro-regional strategy (divided into two parts) that will meet the needs of the region by strengthening its international competitiveness (1).

1.2

The EESC concedes that the Mediterranean region is geographically very large and has varying economic, social, political and cultural features, and countries with different systems and infrastructures (EU countries, non-EU countries with EU candidate status, and non-EU countries taking part in Euro-Mediterranean cooperation). For this reason it is proposed that two subregional policies (for the eastern and western Mediterranean) should be set up, which would be complementary, coordinating their work with each other and with that of the macro-regional Adriatic-Ionian strategy.

1.3

The EESC takes note of the decisions taken by the Council and the concurring view of the European Parliament that a macro-regional strategy should not require more money, more regulation or new management bodies (the three ‘noes’), but it believes that funding is needed for technical assistance to collect data and promote the necessary structural projects.

1.4

The EESC believes that funding sources in the form of the considerable resources that have already been committed by the EU for measures and programmes through the structural funds and the financing instruments of the EIB represent adequate means that must be used transparently as well as flexibly. It also advocates the setting up of a Euro-Mediterranean investment bank through the EIB, as well as an open policy on funding from various financial bodies (KfW, EBRD, World Bank, African Development Bank and Islamic Development Bank).

1.5

The EESC believes that subregional cooperation must be consolidated without delay by boosting the trade, tourism and industrial links of the southern Mediterranean countries.

1.6

The EESC believes that the necessary political decisions must be taken by the Council in order to remove outstanding issues so that the Union for the Mediterranean can be a body responsible for strategic planning and implementing the new macro-regional policy.

1.7

The EESC believes that prompt approval by the Council of the Adriatic-Ionian Strategy (see Council Conclusions of 24 June 2011) will open the way for establishing a macro-regional strategy for the Mediterranean.

1.8

The EESC believes that Cyprus and Malta will play a particularly important role in any new strategy framed by the EU, as will all the islands of the Mediterranean, which face a very difficult situation owing to their poor connections and communications with the continental EU Member States.

1.9

The EESC draws attention to the considerable importance for the wider Mediterranean region of stimulating agricultural production.

1.10

The EESC believes it is necessary to generally improve maritime and air links between the countries of the Mediterranean and, more broadly, with the rest of the EU.

1.11

The EESC considers that the present opinion will serve to open a dialogue on the new Mediterranean macro-regional strategy and submit the main issues of the strategy for consultation. The Committee explicitly undertakes to continue working on this very important issue by producing further opinions that explore in more detail and depth all of the questions addressed in this opinion.

2.1

On assuming the presidency of the EU Council in the second half of 2012, Cyprus prioritised the drawing up of an opinion on A macro-regional strategy for the Mediterranean that would focus on how such a strategy could benefit the island countries.

2.2

The decision to task the EESC with drawing up this opinion can be attributed to the role that the Committee has played in producing advisory opinions that express and represent the views of civil society organisations in the Member States, thus strengthening participatory democracy in the EU.

2.3

The topic was selected following the successful framing of macro-regional approaches for the Baltic Sea region (2) – as well as the macro-regional strategies for the Danube, the Adriatic and Ionian region, and the Atlantic – since the Mediterranean is a region with particular characteristics and consequent needs.

2.4

The objective of this strategy will be to create policies helping countries in the Mediterranean region to strengthen their economic and social relations, and to cooperate in resolving common problems, allowing the region to become internationally competitive, prosperous, safe and environmentally sustainable. Such a macro-regional strategy will also coordinate all the policies, objectives and measures of EU bodies with those of the Member States, the regions, local economic and social councils, and all stakeholders in the Mediterranean, in particular small and isolated island Member States in the region.

2.5

The strategy is also expected to resolve the problems caused by the current economic crisis, by accelerating rates of growth, creating job opportunities and reducing unemployment.

2.6

To this end, the opinion adopts the definition used by the Commission (3), whereby a macro-regional strategy is considered to be a strategy for a region that comprises territories in different countries and regions that have shared features, such as a single maritime or other type of space, or which face the same challenges, such as development problems, climate change, limited economic and cultural exchanges, etc. Macro-regional strategies are approaches that draw on existing instruments, programmes and funding and deploy them to achieve the specific goals set for the macro-region, while aiming to include public and private sources in their planning so as to match broader policies with available funding (EU, national, regional). They also facilitate convergence between the resources of the regions and those of the various Member States, based on the implementation of coordinated ‘governance’, and the creation of ‘mutual benefit’ for all parties.

2.7

In view of the shifting and very unsettled political and social conditions prevailing in the countries of the southern Mediterranean following the recent uprisings, the EU has established a new approach to the region which it calls the ‘partnership for democracy and shared prosperity’. This partnership will reward those countries that make progress in implementing the necessary reforms based on specific and measurable goals (4).

3.1

It is worth noting that given the plethora of programmes and initiatives already devised both for the wider Mediterranean region (the Euro-Mediterranean relationship, also known as the Barcelona Process) and for more specific regions of the Mediterranean, such as the Ionian and Adriatic (territorial cooperation in the Mediterranean through the Adriatic-Ionian macro-region), this new macro-regional strategy should encompass all the countries of the Mediterranean, namely EU Member States (Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Greece, Cyprus, Slovenia and Malta) and third countries (Croatia, Montenegro, Albania, Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, the Palestinian Authority, Jordan, Israel, Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco).

3.2

Before outlining the framework of objectives and policies, the challenges which the region faces must be defined.

3.2.1

The Mediterranean, and in particular the eastern Mediterranean, is very important historically, and comprises EU Member States as well as countries outside the EU that are at different stages of development. Because the Mediterranean has been populated and a centre of business and intensive circulation of goods, people and shipping since ancient times, it is characterised by substantial flows of people and trade yet economic relations between the countries of the region remain very limited; for instance, there are no direct flights or sea connections between the countries of the eastern Mediterranean. Those who see ‘Euro-Mediterranean cooperation’ as regrettably limited to cooperation between the countries of the southern Mediterranean and the EU, or to bilateral relations between those countries and certain EU Member States, understand the reality of the situation.

3.2.2

It should be noted that the prevailing economic imbalances, different levels of development and wealth, as well as the frequent tensions, particularly at the present time, in the region mean that movement of people has taken on the dimensions of permanent economic migration (legal and illegal) (5). This is having negative effects in both countries of origin and destination countries, with movements of people seeking political asylum a particularly serious aspect of the problem.

3.2.3

The Mediterranean region remains a breeding-ground of political instability and armed conflict, with undesirable loss of life, destruction of property, and consequences for business and trade, as well as the environment. Furthermore, since the start of the Arab uprisings there has been a pressing need to formulate a strategy to reinforce economic and social ties between countries in the region, with an EU initiative that will be built through democratic dialogue with both governments and civil society (6), demonstrating that the EU effectively stands alongside the peoples of the southern Mediterranean (7).

3.2.4

The region is rich in valuable raw materials, above all energy reserves in the wider Middle East and North Africa region. An important development is the recent discovery of new natural gas reserves, which are expected to yield new, and more stable, sources of energy for the EU. However, it is necessary to ensure a secure environment and to improve sea, air and other communication routes between the countries of the Mediterranean and the rest of the world, with particular emphasis on merchant shipping, which is an important economic activity in the region.

3.2.5

It has been observed that years of resource use, farming, recent and frequent droughts, overfishing, as well as dense marine traffic, have resulted in pollution, with negative effects on marine life and coastlines, which are affecting tourism. Agricultural activity is yielding steadily fewer and inferior agricultural products (8), while marine assets have been gradually eroded and a decrease in fishing yields can be observed.

3.2.6

A common feature of all the Mediterranean countries is the important role of the tourism industry in providing employment and generating growth; promoting tourism cooperation between countries in the region must therefore be a key plank of the strategy, with the aim of addressing serious problems, especially seasonality.

3.2.7

Finally, use of internet technology and communications is limited, especially on the southern side of the Mediterranean, and there is a dearth of research activity and innovation, which are essential elements in a modern economy. Connectivity between the Mediterranean countries is very limited.

3.3

It should be noted that economic, political and social relations between the countries of North Africa are particularly underdeveloped, so that what is referred to as Euro-Mediterranean cooperation is effectively limited to certain countries. At the same time, the programmes that the EU has implemented in the region have had limited success, owing to a shortage of capable local partners, to corruption (9) and to inadequate understanding of local mores, traditions and social perceptions. The Barcelona Process, launched in 1995, has had poor results, while neither the MEDA programme nor the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) have so far had the anticipated effect in terms of properly promoting EU cooperation with the countries of the Mediterranean basin.

4.1

In light of the challenges described above, it is proposed that the main objectives of a macro-regional strategy in the Mediterranean should be:

4.1.1

to achieve sustainable development while strengthening the competitiveness of the economies and countries in the region, so as to respond to the current international economic crisis, creating job opportunities and reducing unemployment;

4.1.2

to strengthen relations between the Mediterranean countries and make them a bridge between the EU, the Middle East and Africa, with the aim of establishing peace, prosperity and regional cohesion;

4.1.3

to frame an ambitious energy policy serving the interests both of countries in the region and of the EU, given the need for the Union to ensure a diversity of energy suppliers and reduce its reliance on Russia;

4.1.4

to boost the free movement of goods, services, capital and people between the non-EU Mediterranean countries;

4.1.5

to improve connectivity so as to ensure fast and unhindered access to goods, people and services, with the focus on safe transport of energy goods;

4.1.6

to strengthen the role of small EU island Member States in the Mediterranean – i.e. Cyprus and Malta – by setting up specific initiatives to improve relations with the Mediterranean partners, especially by expanding internet links between these countries and the rest of the world;

4.1.7

to promote job-creation programmes for population groups that require special attention (women (10), young people, people with special needs, etc.)

4.2

The aim of the macro-regional strategy in the Mediterranean (divided into subregional strategies for the eastern and western Mediterranean) must be to make the region really pioneering in terms of business, tourism, culture, ideas, innovation, research and educational activities, transforming it into an area of peace so that there can be sustainable social development and prosperity.

5.1

The above analysis can be used to identify the main elements of a strategy, based on the following six pillars, which are consistent with the Europe 2020 strategy (11).

5.1.1

The first pillar concerns economic cooperation and development coupled with the objectives of sustainability, including far-reaching action on the economy, e.g.:

5.1.2

The second pillar relates to environmental protection and combating climate change, in particular:

5.1.3

The third pillar is about transport and ensuring sea and air connectivity and safe transport of goods and people. This would include:

5.1.4

The fourth pillar is cooperation in the sphere of energy  (12), concerning hydrocarbons and renewable energy sources, as well as safe transport of energy from producer countries to the EU and elsewhere. The long-term objective of creating an EU-Southern Mediterranean Energy Community is a bold, but necessary, plan. This objective will call for the framing of a multilevel energy policy for the Mediterranean with a view to:

5.1.5

The fifth pillar concerns innovation and competitiveness. The strategy must capitalise on the opportunities provided by existing EU initiatives in the sphere of research and innovation, so as to improve competitiveness and further the prosperity of people and countries in the wider Mediterranean region, by:

5.1.6

The sixth pillar is about immigration and mobility (13), which means promoting legal, managed migration, respect for international asylum law, a reduction in illegal immigration, measures against criminal human trafficking networks, and protection of human rights during border controls.

6.1

The macro-regional strategy in the Mediterranean (divided into two subregional strategies) will be implemented within the framework of the Europe 2020 strategy, existing EU programmes and funding measures (14), and using EU initiatives such as the INTERACT programme to provide technical assistance and training (15). But it will be necessary to create a new management mechanism and improve administrative functioning. The macro-regional strategy should offer new approaches which will benefit the countries concerned, with the prospect of practical measures or policies that can be implemented effectively.

6.2

The Mediterranean strategy (subdivided into the eastern and western Mediterranean strategies) will draw on all existing measures and will be linked to the relevant external relations aspects of the approach to the Mediterranean. It will focus on achieving more effective coordination of European Commission action and policies with those of the Member States, regions, local authorities and other players in order to achieve good results.

6.3

Recognising the crucial role played by the Mediterranean, the EU decided at the Paris Summit for the Mediterranean in 2008 to reinforce cooperation directly by setting up a permanent mechanism to be called the Union for the Mediterranean (16). The original mechanism, launched in Barcelona with high hopes, was tasked with specific projects in relation to marine pollution, maritime safety, energy and development of economic links between all the countries belonging to the Euro-Mediterranean partnership. Unfortunately, the Union for the Mediterranean has so far shown very disappointing results.

6.4

Macro-regions do not have strictly defined borders, and the issues that they choose to focus on must reflect the agreed challenges and commonalities that can be addressed and must be linked to other macro-regional strategies established by the EU, implementing a defined mix of policies and measures selected by the participating countries.

7.1

Within the above framework, the macro-regional strategy approach for the Mediterranean should comprise the following specific measures:

7.1.1

Development of an appropriate coordination-management mechanism for implementing the macro-regional strategy that can coordinate the large number of EU bodies and local authorities involved. The following approach is therefore proposed:

7.1.2

Implementation of EU ‘good neighbour’ policy. The approach to macro-regional strategies hitherto has been limited to implementing EU internal policies. However, to be effective, such a strategy in the Mediterranean where many non-EU countries are involved requires implementation of elements of external policy, obviously with the emphasis on EU ‘good neighbour’ policy.

7.1.3

Framing policies on:

7.1.3.1

workforce training and education;

7.1.3.2

improving internet and IT communications and ongoing improvement of online services in e-government;

7.1.3.3

joint planning of research and innovation to support sustainable development and professional training;

7.1.3.4

ensuring free transit by sea and movement of goods, people and energy by implementing a policy of safe and cheap transport connections and creating new shipping routes; improving merchant shipping;

7.1.3.5

effective sea and air connectivity for all parts of the Mediterranean and the rest of the world;

7.1.3.6

expanding trade and political relations by creating free trade areas based on existing Euro-Mediterranean agreements and removing import duties, and coordinated measures such as regulatory convergence;

7.1.3.7

measures in the sphere of competition, public procurement, protection of investments and health and plant health issues.

7.1.4

Cross-border and interregional cooperation projects can be funded from existing sources, i.e. the EU Structural Funds (17), from contributions by the Member States, contributions by other donor countries (e.g. Norway and Switzerland), from the European Investment Bank (EIB) (18), provided through FEMIP (the Facility for Euro-Mediterranean Investment and Partnership) (19), use of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), and budget allocations for the Union for the Mediterranean, where local authorities, private stakeholders and NGOs are able to take part.

7.1.5

The new macro-regional strategy must be operationally linked with other EU policies, such as the Europe 2020 strategy, cohesion policy, the new Common Agricultural Policy and Common Fisheries Policy, the Connecting Europe Facility and the trans-European transport, telecommunications and energy networks, the Horizon 2020 programme, the Digital Agenda, the COSME programme and, in particular, the Integrated Maritime Policy, as well as policy on the CEAS (20).

8.1

It is an undeniable fact that no comprehensive, permanent strategy has been established to date at EU level in the particular interests of the EU's island Member States (Cyprus and Malta), which face problems in areas such as transport and energy. Poor accessibility is preventing completion of the internal market.

8.2

A new macro-regional strategy for the Mediterranean will accurately identify connectivity approaches for Cyprus and Malta, and so establish the proper preconditions for deployment of EU funding.

8.3

Cyprus (in the eastern Mediterranean) and Malta (in the western Mediterranean) could play a specific role in implementing and managing the new macro-regional strategy as the headquarters of any management bodies set up in or transferred to the region.

9.1

In cooperation with the economic and social councils of the Member States in the Mediterranean and the equivalent bodies (where they exist) in the countries of North Africa, as well as civil society organisations, the EESC has decided to organise a meeting of Euro-Mediterranean economic and social councils, which is expected to be called soon.

9.2

The EESC has the experience and knowledge to be a member of any forums for the Mediterranean that are set up.

9.3

The EESC intends to continue drawing up specific opinions that explore the macro-regional strategy in the Mediterranean in more detail.

—

http://www.interact-eu.net/about_us/about_interact/22/2911

—

http://www.interact-eu.net/ipvalencia/ipvalencia/117/619 (INTERACT point for the Mediterranean in Valencia).

15.2.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/9

1.1

Energy insularity, in its broadest meaning, places the affected countries and regions in Europe at an economic, as well as social and environmental disadvantage since they are often heavily dependent on fossil fuels. It leads to significant price discrepancies, which contribute to creating disparities in terms of solidarity and uniform development across European regions.

1.2

The EESC endorses the objective of eliminating energy insularity, set by the European Council in February 2011. To this end, it supports, in particular, initiatives to improve energy interconnections, around priority corridors, between EU countries. Interconnections between energy islands and third-country networks may be a priority when this is the best way to secure and diversify their energy supply.

1.3

Not all Member States affected by energy insularity are in the same situation when it comes to energy production or importation options. In addition to developing interconnections, a necessity for all energy islands, but also for other Member States, local energy solutions must be adapted to each situation.

1.4

More specifically with respect to the Baltic States and Central and Eastern European countries, the EESC calls for the abolition of disparities in the interpretation of principles of energy markets and energy supply between Russia and the EU, and for this to be recorded in international agreements, one of which could be a new partnership and cooperation agreement, with particular emphasis on energy (Cf. European Parliament resolution of 12 September 2012 on the Annual Report from the Council to the European Parliament on the Common Foreign and Security Policy (12562/2011 - 2012/2050(INI)).

1.5

The EESC calls for the Energy Community of South-East Europe to incorporate an external consultation and integration aspect, together with a ‘civil society’ dimension.

1.6

Some of Europe's island States or regions clearly find themselves in special situations. The Republic of Cyprus's geostrategic position could make it a veritable energy hub for renewable energy as well as gas flows. Generally speaking, indigenous energy production needs to be developed on islands. From this point of view, they could serve as privileged test beds for demonstrating and validating new energy technologies. Evaluation criteria that take their specificities and needs into account could be applied when granting them EU funds for development and demonstration activities. This joint effort could contribute to correcting the disadvantages they suffer in terms of energy because they are not sufficiently connected to the rest of Europe.

1.7

The EESC recommends simultaneously encouraging the improvement of interconnections, the development of indigenous renewable energies and the deployment of energy efficiency and energy demand optimisation measures. The evaluation criteria applied to EU programmes in these areas should take into account the goals of reducing energy insularity, particularly when selecting energy infrastructure projects of common interest.

1.8

In any event, if the EU – in cooperation with the Member States, the industries, civil society and the regions concerned - does not act swiftly to launch initiatives to gradually eliminate energy insularity, it will become considerably more difficult to fully achieve the Europe 2020 goals and to reap the full benefit of the joint efforts already launched to promote the EU's growth and competitiveness.

1.9

The EESC believes that, in this context, energy poverty can no longer be viewed as a purely national or local problem, to be tackled entirely through social polices. Since some of the major causes of this type of poverty extend beyond the national scope, the EESC would like EU energy policy to address the large imbalances which contribute to it. As a result, concrete policy measures should henceforth be evaluated in the light of the impact they are expected to have on the factors that could accentuate or reduce energy poverty.

1.10

The EESC considers that energy islands represent a cost for all. This cost must be evaluated and the solutions for reducing it must be incorporated in a comprehensive approach. The European energy policy has to be completed and granted appropriate means of action, commensurate with both the Member States' level of interdependence and the difficulties they encounter. In order to assess the full impact of this situation, the EESC calls on the Commission to carry out an exhaustive study on the ‘cost of non-Europe in the energy sector’ caused by the existence by these ‘energy islands’.

1.11

The EESC advocates a transparent, comprehensive and precise evaluation of the costs – including external costs – of fossil fuels and renewable energy sources, including the indirect costs associated with strengthening the network, the back-up capacity and the support needed for green technologies. This evaluation is essential to reaching optimal investment and policy decisions, especially with a view to a powerful boost to the development of renewable energy production in some energy islands in order to export such energy to EU or non-EU countries.

2.1

The Cyprus presidency's request is another example of the need to Europeanise energy policy and to establish a European Energy Community (EEC), as advocated by the EESC (1). This presupposes stronger regional cohesion and a uniform vision of development in Europe's regions. The goal of improving connections for the EU's ‘energy islands’ is therefore consistent with the practical guidelines for improving cooperation in the area of energy advocated in the opinion on Involving civil society in the establishment of a future European Energy Community  (2) in January 2012.

2.2

In the context of the Cyprus presidency and EU-level discussions (see in particular, point 5 of the conclusions of the European Council (4 February 2011) EUCO 2/1/11 rev. 1, the term ‘energy insularity’ or ‘energy island’), for the purposes of this opinion, refers to island or mainland regions with little or no indigenous energy sources and insufficient links to energy transmission networks and which, as a result, are often dependent on a single external energy source or supplier. The differences between the Member States' energy balances reveal major fault lines between them. As a result, the concept of energy islands is both technical and (geo)political (dependence on a single supplier).

2.3

The factors to be kept in mind include the lack of interconnections, dependence on a single energy source and/or supplier, the distance from production sites/energy transmission corridors, investment costs relative to the size of the market, the difficulties involved in altering strong tendencies in national energy policies, and specific geographic/climatic conditions.

2.4

According to the Eurostat definition, the European Union has several hundred physical islands of various dimensions and statuses. In addition to four Member States - Cyprus, the Republic of Ireland, Malta and the United Kingdom - over 286 islands in Europe are inhabited by over 10 million people in the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, and the outermost regions (ORs) of three Member States (the Canary Islands for Spain, Madeira and Azores for Portugal and Réunion, Mayotte, French Guiana, Martinique and Guadeloupe for France. Islands belonging to Member States, including the ORs, are not covered individually in this opinion.

2.5

There is another type of energy insularity, mainly connected with 20th Century history. The Iberian Peninsula is still a quasi-energy island due to the Franco and Salazar regimes' autarkic approach to most policies involving transport (especially rail) and electricity networks, with few external links, especially with the rest of Europe via France. This situation has persisted over the last twenty years due to many instances of local opposition to the various projects for improving grids across the Pyrenees. This problem is being resolved and a new direct current link will soon improve connections with the South-West Mediterranean. However, in addition to improving French-Spanish electricity interconnections (which will raise the exchange capacity from 1 400 to 2 800 MW in 2014), it will undoubtedly also be necessary to plan other energy corridors between the Iberian Peninsula and the rest of the continent. The goal of achieving an exchange capacity of 4 000 MW by 2020, mainly through a new electricity interconnection on the Atlantic side must be supported. This project must be added to the list of projects of common European interest, to be drawn up in the context of the regulation on guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure.

2.6

The Baltic States (Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia) are also energy islands vis-à-vis the EU since their networks are still entirely dependent on their former ‘exclusive’ partner, Russia (to a lesser extent, Belarus). This is one priority that argues in favour of European energy integration. It is indeed a paradox that while the three Baltic States are an integral part of the political union, they do not reap the benefits of intra-European integration and solidarity in the energy sector. How can we accept that they continue to depend on a third country, moreover a WTO member now, which does not respect European standards regarding access to networks, has not signed the Energy Charter, and does not facilitate the improvement of interconnections between central and eastern European countries (CEEC)? The EESC therefore calls for a reduction in disparities between the Russian and European energy markets and for an ambitious and comprehensive new partnership and cooperation agreement that includes a chapter on energy cooperation (Cf. European Parliament resolution of 12 September 2012 on the Annual Report from the Council to the European Parliament on the Common Foreign and Security Policy (12562/2011 - 2012/2050(INI)).

2.7

South-East Europe (the Balkan Region) is a transit region and the progress of some States towards EU accession (Croatia, but also Serbia, Montenegro, FYROM, etc.) calls for further developments, mainly with respect to their EU neighbours (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Slovenia, Austria, and soon Croatia). The establishment of an energy community in this region is a sign of growing awareness and needs to be encouraged and nurtured, especially through effective and transparent consultation with the region's civil society organisations on the energy strategy.

2.8

On the whole, all EU Member States find themselves in a situation of very close interdependence. Some of them, although they are not strictly speaking ‘energy islands’, are very dependent on their neighbours, especially in Central and Eastern Europe, and Hungary in particular. As a consequence, the EESC believes that we need to develop a common energy policy that takes account of this situation. These circumstances demand a general EU debate on improving solidarity between EU States. Moreover, this aspect is alluded to in Article 194 TFEU.

3.1

Energy insularity covers a range of varying circumstances, but which have virtually identical consequences irrespective of the situation. These types of ‘insularity’ almost always result in:

3.2

Demand for energy is high and rising in energy islands, just as in other parts of the EU. Given this situation, the consequences of a potentially less reliable and, in any case, significantly more expensive supply is severely undermining the economic competitiveness of energy islands. This may threaten certain industrial sectors, and therefore jobs, because some activities are becoming insufficiently profitable.

3.3

Similarly, high energy bills put significant pressure on household budgets. Energy poverty has long been considered a purely national, or even local, problem. It is indeed these levels that are responsible for direct support measures to help these groups. That said, some of the key causes of energy poverty transcend the national framework and, by addressing major imbalances, EU energy policy should also help to reduce this problem.

3.4

CO2 emissions are kept high by a dependence on fossil fuels, especially oil, which is often very significant. In the light of environmental standards (the industrial emissions directive) and general health concerns, substantial investments will have to be made to reduce these emissions. These costs must also be factored into the energy bills of energy islands.

3.5

The consequences of energy insularity should be better assessed in terms of the growth, competitiveness, and sustainable development of the affected regions as well as in terms of solidarity, cohesion and ‘lost revenues’ for the rest of the EU due to the absence of a complete and functional energy market throughout the EU. The EESC considers that energy islands represent a cost for all. This cost must be evaluated and the solutions for reducing it must be incorporated in a comprehensive approach. The European energy policy has to be completed and granted appropriate means of action, commensurate with both the Member States' level of interdependence and the difficulties they encounter.

3.6

Beyond demonstrating the benefits of greater European integration, the purpose is in fact to promote industrial development, and hence employment. The competitiveness of European industry depends on several factors over which the public authorities have no, or little control. The challenge is therefore to prevent energy policy – an area where the EU can and should take action – from becoming a brake on growth and employment. The EESC calls on the Member States and the Commission, as of now, to push ahead with the application of already identified measures that can reduce energy costs and increase security of supply, e.g. better coordination of national decisions relating to energy and joint infrastructure and network planning, the creation of European fossil fuel purchasing groups and, if need be, mandates for EU negotiations with external partners.

4.1

There appear to be two preferred solutions at this stage: firstly, more interconnections between energy islands and the internal energy market (market infrastructure and organisation) in order to increase practical solidarity and to align the technical organisation of the European network with the EU's political and legislative objectives and, secondly, to promote alternative energy sources, i.e. local renewable energy production. This involves highlighting potential - if it exists - and suggesting measures for its full and viable exploitation. Finally, using smart grids to encourage energy efficiency and demand management can help to optimise energy demand.

4.2

The European Commission has already launched a major reform of the EU's energy infrastructure support policy, especially through interconnections (cf. the Connecting Europe Facility), which the EESC supported in its opinion (3). This being the case, it might be worth taking this even further through the joint planning of infrastructure, as the EESC advocated in its opinion on the European Energy Community (4). In 2002, the European Council had already set Member States the target of achieving a capacity of electricity interconnections equivalent to 10 % of their installed production capacity. We are still far from achieving this target on certain European electricity borders, which are still congested.

4.3

Massive growth in renewable energy in the North Sea, and in solar and wind power in Southern Europe means that new ‘smarter’ infrastructure will be needed to maximise their integration with the European mainland grid. These improvements to smart grids could make it possible to reduce consumption by 9 % by 2020 and cut CO2 emissions by 9 to 15 %. It might be easier to deploy smart grids and measures for managing demand in smaller markets, which could deliver better results faster. Combined with enhanced energy efficiency measures, it could contribute significantly to the optimisation of energy demand. The substantial investments required have to be seen in a context of complete control of action in this area, lower energy costs in a context of higher prices and less need to invest in conventional (reduced volume of operating margins) or renewable energy production capacity.

4.4

In total, ENTSO-E estimates that over the next ten years, 52 300 km of new high-voltage power lines will need to be constructed in Europe, amounting to an overall investment of EUR 104 billion, involving about one hundred priority projects, 80 % of which will be due to the development of renewable energy sources. The concept of ‘scale’ in energy islands that have potential in this area makes the integration of renewable energy sources an even more sensitive issue if they have small networks. The production capacity of renewable energy industrial installations (as opposed to decentralised production) can represent a relatively high percentage of production or consumption, the effects of which, especially its intermittent nature, are more difficult to manage.

4.5

It is therefore vital to improve interconnections in order to increase security of supply but also to allow more balanced energy production and consumption across an extended network in a context of strong renewable energy development. This also applies to conventional capacity, which takes over when renewable energy production stops or slows down significantly.

4.6

Developing renewable energy sources requires an appropriate, flexible back-up capacity capable of functioning at a low baseload. Liquefied natural gas (LNG) might be a solution to dependence on single gas suppliers and the high prices they charge, which would also offer a more flexible and cheaper alternative to oil, alongside the development of renewable energy sources. Nevertheless, developing LNG involves substantial investment in port and storage infrastructure.

4.7

The EESC is convinced that the future of the European energy systems depends in particular on better interconnections and the development of renewable energy sources, especially for energy islands, in order to improve security of supply. The use of fossil fuels will continue to predominate but higher renewable energy production will make it vital to improve national and European networks dramatically (cf. EESC opinion Energy Roadmap 2050 and the ‘no-regrets’ option (5).

4.8

However, this need cannot be substantiated efficiently without a transparent, global and precise evaluation of the costs. The most objective knowledge possible is required concerning the costs – including external costs – of fossil fuels as well as the additional costs created by renewable sources in order to be able to reach optimal investment and policy decisions. Studies on these indirect costs are highly contradictory, which makes this need all the more urgent.

4.9

With regard to renewable energy, it is important to consider not only the amount of investment in new production capacities, but also the cost entailed by improving the network and possible subsidies. On this last point, it may be necessary to provide more support for regions that are more dependent in terms of energy and where renewable energy sources are still less developed. That said, the pace at which green energy production increases must be compatible with the pace at which the network is improved. It is also important to establish the back-up capacity per additional renewable energy production unit. The back-up can nevertheless be imported but this requires efficient interconnections and regional and European cooperation. Support arrangements for renewable energy should take this aspect into consideration in order to optimise the pace of development and the cost of support to be borne by the taxpayer.

4.10

Once all these costs have been precisely evaluated, they should be compared with the energy bill for imported fossil fuels integrating all costs, including political and environmental costs. This is essential in order to assess the positive and negative repercussions on the region's competitiveness. It is also in this perspective that renewable energy production can be developed in some energy islands, with a view to exporting it to other EU countries or to third countries.

4.11

The EESC believes that the improvement of this infrastructure should include, as a matter of priority, the States and regions affected by energy insularity since their higher dependence needs to be considered when priority corridors are being decided. For instance, the Baltic Energy Market Interconnection Plan (BEMIP) could pave the way to improving energy policy coordination and the energy mix in the region. This would help to connect the region's energy networks, especially Lithuania's, Latvia's and Estonia's.

4.12

There has been recent progress in cooperation between Lithuania and Latvia. There is a flagship initiative in this area: Lithuania is to build a liquefied gas terminal in Klaipeda, which will feed the Incukalns storage facility in Latvia. Lithuania believes that this storage facility could serve as a ‘regional gas reserve’. In this context, the EESC reiterates its suggestion to pool fossil fuel energy sources, and in particular to form gas purchasing groups (6). Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia are developing and implementing electricity interconnection projects (LitPol Link NordBalt and Estlink 2) with other EU countries, in particular Poland. At the same time, the three Baltic countries are working towards fully-fledged integration into the European energy system combining electrical power systems with the continental European electricity networks for synchronous mode (currently undergoing a feasibility study). The Baltic States are also jointly developing the Visaginas nuclear power plant project, which could help to ensure the energy security of these countries and could be an important element in the integration of the European electricity system.

4.12.1

The new development in Cyprus's energy situation (the discovery of substantial gas reserves in its territorial waters) could make it a key regional player. A significant increase in its means of renewable energy production and strong involvement in the abovementioned projects could turn it into an energy hub, geared to improving regional integration, and a neighbourhood policy player in the energy sector. In this respect, the recent selection of the operators that will be responsible for the future exploitation of Cyprus's gas fields will simultaneously guarantee better EU integration and promote an active neighbourhood policy.

4.13

Furthermore, dependence on a single supplier can be reduced by implementing the 3rd energy package. The question of regional market organisation is also vital. Lithuania and Estonia are participating in Nord Pool Spot, the electricity market of the Baltic and Nordic States, and Latvia is planning to join next year. Beyond this example, the EESC urges the Baltic States to seek shared responses to their needs and to develop regional dialogue on energy.

4.14

Interconnections have to be increased with the EU's third-country neighbours, which could either produce and export energy to the EU or ensure its transmission to the EU from other producing countries. This applies mainly to the energy projects in the Mediterranean region (the Mediterranean Solar Plan, Medgrid, the ‘energy’ dimension of the Union for the Mediterranean, Desertec etc.) by calling for the relevant countries (Cyprus and Malta) or regions (Crete, Sardinia, Corsica, Sicily, the Balearic Islands, etc.) to be involved in these projects.

4.15

The Energy Community [of South-East Europe] must incorporate an external consultation and integration aspect, together with a ‘civil society’ dimension. This is an area where the EESC's joint consultative committees (FYROM, Montenegro and Croatia) and the ESCs and similar institutions of these countries have a role to play.

4.16

Furthermore, the demonstration and development of renewable energy sources could be further promoted, especially in connection with the Energy Roadmap 2050 and the recent Communication on integrating renewable energy into the internal market (COM(2012) 271 final).

4.17

Joint solutions and proposals are needed within the EU and with its neighbours, involving:

4.18

Inter-State and interoperable solutions are the only viable ones. Energy policies, be they in the area of supply, network construction, research and development, etc. cannot be undertaken by a few EU States which can have an ‘autonomous’ energy policy because this would have significant repercussions for the other States. Stronger coordination of the energy mix is needed, e.g. between States and regions affected by energy insularity and which have very constrained energy policies. By doing this, these States and regions could even lead the way to greater EU-level cooperation, beyond concerns of ‘energy sovereignty’.

4.19

These solutions – infrastructure, renewable energy production, strengthened energy policy coordination between States and regions – must nevertheless be accompanied by greater civil society involvement due to their implications for the energy mix, market organisation, prices, competitiveness, environmental considerations or even social acceptance. On this point, the EESC recalls the suggestion it made during the course of its work on the European Energy Community (7) to set up a civil society forum on energy issues.

15.2.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/16

1.1

The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) believes that in Europe, personal social, health and educational services form an important cornerstone of the European social model. These services, which are interdependent and mutually reinforcing in their effectiveness, form a ‘golden triangle’ essential to the smooth functioning and quality of society.

1.2

In the EESC's view, these services firstly play a key role in both integrating people into society and preserving social cohesion, thus ensuring effective democratic participation and social justice. Secondly, they are of key importance in the drive to achieve the Europe 2020 goals in respect of sustainability, smart job creation and reinforced economic and social cohesion across the EU.

1.3

The EESC believes that more awareness is needed of the fact that as the population ages and demand for care grows due to the falling number of family caregivers (due, inter alia, to the growing participation of women in the labour market), better planning and programming has become essential, in terms of requirements and training for healthcare workers on the one hand, and in terms of budgetary funding priorities on the other.

1.4

The EESC is aware of the competence of the Member States in this field and the discretion of national, regional and local authorities in the provision of these services. However, the EESC draws attention to the fact that the EU Member States also have a major shared responsibility in this field, pointing out that the Lisbon Treaty has brought in an important innovation here, with the protocol on services of general interest (SGIs) appended to the Treaty; it would take the view that harmonisation between the Member States needs to be pursued, in order to overcome existing inequalities and guarantee the fundamental freedom to establish (while complying at least with the social standards set out in regulations and agreements in the host country) and provide services.

1.5

In view of the sector's importance in terms of its contribution to EU gross domestic product, the significant employment prospects it offers in terms of job and new-business creation, as well as its capacity to deliver innovative, quality responses to the structural changes and needs in European society, and to the Lisbon Treaty objectives in this field, the EESC calls on the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament to:

1.6

At EU level, the EESC thinks that a proportion of the various Structural Funds should be earmarked in a coordinated way for developing social infrastructure and health services where shortcomings exist, and for local employment initiatives in the sector. In particular, there should be a funding line for rural areas. The same applies to the Horizon 2020 and Culture programmes and lifelong learning measures that relate to new technologies applied to health and social care. Moreover, research into optimising the results of services should be encouraged, as well as the documenting and exchange of success stories.

1.7

The EESC considers it important to establish a constructive and well-structured social dialogue between all levels (local, national and European) in all sectors of the personal services industries. This social dialogue should play a crucial role in:

The European Commission and the Member States should provide concrete and active support to set up and develop this social dialogue and to organise its work. At first, this support could take the form of studies on these sectors and European-level conferences for the sector's social partners.

2.1

The purpose of this opinion is to identify changes in ongoing trends and future developments in the areas of personal social and health services, related educational and training services, and, in particular, prospects for creating quality jobs in the sector.

2.2

Social and health services concern the basic needs of the individual. The industry, in this sector, operates in various fields ranging from institutions that provide medical and psychosocial treatment to those that provide health and social care services, housing support, in addition to nursing homes, mental health care, and care for children, older people and the differently able.

2.3

Furthermore, the sector is marked by significant migration flows from outside the EU, as well as a strong tendency to use black market labour, with all the harmful consequences that this entails for the individual and for society in general.

2.4

The EESC intends to use this opinion to help identify the added value that the personal services sector can offer the Europe 2020 strategy, in order to identify needs in terms of qualified human resources and new occupational profiles, with a view to innovative social prospects, more and better jobs and improved public wellbeing, as a result of the enhanced integration that ensues from a more cohesive society.

2.5

In Europe, personal social, health and educational services form an important cornerstone of the European social model. These services, which are interdependent and mutually reinforcing in their effectiveness, form a ‘golden triangle’ essential to the smooth functioning and quality of society.

2.6

The EESC endorses this concept of the ‘golden triangle’ of integrated services, aimed at quality education, efficient healthcare and full social integration, and at attaining the highest level of effectiveness possible in all three types of service in terms of the following criteria: availability, universal access, centrality of the person, universality, continuity, high level of quality with a clear focus on results, respect of fundamental rights, participation and partnership, integrated governance, investment in human capital and in social infrastructure, high-level performance and professional jobs with decent working conditions, with career prospects, solidarity and social cohesion.

2.7

The EESC believes that precisely because of these characteristics, the golden triangle of professional personal services should be given priority attention in the drive to achieve the Europe 2020 goals in respect of sustainability, economic development and job creation and economic and social cohesion across the EU.

2.8

The opinion is based on various information sources ranging from general studies to concrete business cases. It should be noted that demographic trends and active ageing, and the consequences of an ageing population on healthcare and welfare systems are issues that have been covered in previous EESC opinions (1). In addition, the EESC itself is engaged in framing roadmap initiatives on problems associated with the ageing of European society, in the context of the next RTDT framework programme and on the participation of older people in society (2).

2.9

Furthermore, personal educational services are mentioned in this opinion only insofar as they are relevant to the delivery of quality and up-to-date social and healthcare services. Numerous detailed EESC opinions on this subject may be consulted for more detailed information on education and lifelong training services (3).

3.1

Over 21.5 million people in the European Union are employed in the healthcare and social sectors and related educational services, as can be seen from Eurostat statistics for the EU-27 in 2009 (4). However, these are more concentrated in the old rather than the new Member States, and are predominantly women, who account for 78 % of workers in this sector, and extremely young, since over 43 % are aged below 40. Over four million new jobs were created by the sector in personal and home social and health services between 2000 and 2010. This has been in sharp contrast to the steady fall in overall employment across the EU due to the economic crisis, with substantial employment growth in this sector over the period 2008-2010, amounting to some 770 000 new jobs (5).

3.2

In the EU, healthcare represents about 10 % of GDP and employs one in ten workers, with a higher-than-average percentage of service-sector workers having tertiary-level education (6). Employment in the sector is rising as the population ages (7), more and more women enter the labour market, and demand for healthcare grows, and this is creating a growing need for harmonised definitions and training standards at EU level to ensure geographical mobility and evolving job profiles for effective and sustainable high-quality services across Europe.

3.3

Occupation profiles identified include, amongst others, care assistants, nurses, youth workers, social workers and doctors in all branches of medicine: according to recent studies (8), despite low wage levels and the lack of recognition for their work, care workers have a high work morale and sense of responsibility. Some studies also reveal serious staff shortages and growing problems to recruit and retain suitable and qualified operational managerial staff.

3.4

A European strategy within Europe 2020 is needed (9), to ensure higher levels of technical and structural innovation, reduce costs and promote quality jobs, while improving access to healthcare, especially in disadvantaged areas and in specific medical fields facing national staff shortages, by setting up networks of high-quality European medical centres with highly-motivated qualified staff to be made available to all EU citizens.

3.5

As regards pay levels in this sector, these are generally below the national average for comparable jobs, and female workers – who are the vast majority and are often immigrants – are generally underpaid (10), overlooked, and have precarious contracts even if well-qualified, according to recent studies in the following sub-sectors (11): health care, childcare, care for older people and other dependant care.

3.6

Furthermore, the sector has other specific characteristics that distinguish it from others (12):

3.7

Furthermore, as has been pointed out concerning personal services, account needs to be taken ‘of the specific characteristics of small operators providing SGEI, social services and non-profit services, whose particular features and contribution to the general interest must be better taken on board’ (13), in the context of social dialogue with the social partners and civil society at large.

3.8

The situation is particularly worrying in rural areas and other disadvantaged areas, where the lack of social, medical and educational infrastructure often leads to an exodus of skilled labour, with repercussions on the creation and location of businesses and the development of those areas: more balanced regional development thus needs to be ensured and greater territorial cohesion promoted, especially in terms of personal social, healthcare and educational services for children and infants (14).

3.9

To promote better migrant worker integration, it is necessary to provide for financial and organisational support measures comprising language courses, enhancing the image of their work, reception and housing and vocational training in care practices, taking into account subsequent reintegration in their countries of origin, to avoid a brain-drain in the health field (15).

3.10

Investment costs in the sector are therefore quite high and often controversial in terms of sustainability since the financial crisis has revealed the need to improve the cost-efficiency ratio of health and social services and Member States are under pressure to find the right balance between providing healthcare services for everyone and respecting budgetary constraints. However, looking at the results obtained, it is clear that investment in this service sector is highly productive and profitable: the workforce enjoys better health and is better integrated, more skilled, more motivated and more stable.

3.11

The Lisbon Treaty has also brought in an important innovation here, with the protocol on services of general interest (SGIs) appended to the Treaty, ‘as it covers all SGIs and for the first time in a treaty introduces the concept of “non-economic services of general interest’ in contrast to “services of general economic interest”’ (16). Unquestionably, personal services have both an ‘economic’ and a ‘non-economic’ aspect. The general economic interest aspect is connected to their importance for the smooth functioning of all industries, both manufacturing and services, while the non-economic aspect refers to their importance for the integration of all individuals and the cohesion of society.

3.12

In the EESC's view, ‘the protocol is not just an interpretative declaration on the Union's treaties and common values regarding SGIs; rather, it is a set of operating instructions aimed at the Union and its Member States. It consistently places the user, the satisfaction of his needs, his preferences and rights at the heart of the proposals and enshrines the common principles of a high level of quality, safety and accessibility, equal treatment and promotion of universal access’ (17).

3.13

It is therefore necessary, above all, to provide this sector with a strong European dimension through a harmonised EU framework backed up by an EU strategy of structural measures; at the same time, the Committee would emphasise again ‘the essential role and the wide discretion of national, regional and local authorities in providing, commissioning and organising services of general economic interest as closely as possible to the needs of the users’ (18).

4.1

The Committee considers it vital to launch a European strategy in order to anticipate and manage the current changes in European society and its socio-economic model which require strategic priorities to be set for Europe's personal social, health and educational services industries, with regard to:

4.2

Human resources constitute the first fundamental pillar of the personal services industry, as demonstrated by the funds allocated under the Europe 2020 strategy towards the objective of keeping Europeans active, socially integrated and healthy for longer, which will have a positive impact on productivity and competitiveness. This sector is among the first listed in the Lead Markets Initiative for Europe and is an integral part of the flagship initiative An agenda for new skills and jobs.

4.2.1

Given the significance of the services in question, the EU's strategic action on human resources should be geared towards:

These EU-level actions should be accompanied by continuous monitoring based on rigorous, scientific assessment.

4.3

The introduction of appropriate technologies in the sector to support both service recipients and providers constitutes the second pillar of this strategy: innovation – both structural, and methodological and technical – in personal health and social services can contribute to meeting the challenge of sustainability in the context of ongoing demographic changes and achieving inclusive growth.

4.3.1

Communication and information technologies must be used to facilitate autonomy and a greater assumption of responsibility, and a personal health culture, as well as coordination between health and social services to develop increasingly integrated services that place people at the heart of a coordinated continuum of quality services.

4.3.2

e-Health, e-literacy in information technology and telemedicine constitute a fundamental pillar of the drive for innovation in healthcare and rehabilitation in that they enable patients to carry their medical history with them wherever they go and thus to benefit from the most customised medical care possible (19).

4.3.3

In order to be efficient, personal services systems need an advanced technological platform for sharing the most successful practices among LTC users and providers, sharing guidelines to steer decision-making and quality assessment at the local level, and fine-tuning the use of care planning processes to improve social, health and paramedical service cost-sharing systems for services (20).

4.3.4

It is vital to maximise the IT skills applied to personal social, health and educational services, by means of national and EU R&D, in order to optimise new occupation profiles, tailored to the different needs of children, the disabled, older people and physical and mental illnesses.

4.4

Third pillar: the creation of a European area of integrated services should be carefully considered, with the aim of overcoming the existing inequalities and properly ensuring the fundamental freedom of establishment (while complying at least with the social standards set out in regulations and agreements in the host country) and to provide services (particularly in this sector, being of vital importance to ensuring the free movement of services) by means of mutual recognition, administrative cooperation and, where necessary, harmonisation, in order to ensure the provision of a set of responsible people-centred services throughout the EU. To achieve this objective, the Member States and the EU will have to exercise their responsibilities jointly.

4.4.1

The challenge of transforming Europe's economy into an innovative and modern economy based on the full implementation of the fourth freedom (the free movement of services), as well as the development of a ‘fifth freedom’, i.e. full and free movement of knowledge, would allow Europe to fully tap its creative potential. In this context, the performance of innovation in the health and social services would have to be monitored on the basis of an EU assessment system set up for that purpose.

4.4.2

A solidarity-based European services area is needed which guarantees access to high-quality basic services in the area of personal social, health and educational services across the whole EU, including by implementing a ‘voluntary European Quality Framework in different Member States and in a variety of sectors’ (21), involving users in the definition and evaluation of quality.

4.4.3

A system of integrated services requires – in addition to harmonised quality principles – mutual recognition of qualifications, monitoring of service quality, and the launch of social dialogue at the various levels, close to the citizen, which involves all stakeholders, to step up cooperation.

4.5

Support policies, structures and infrastructure constitute the fourth pillar on which the European strategy for the personal services industry should be built.

4.5.1

A key element of this pillar is the targeted activation – alongside the actions provided for under Europe 2020 – of EU structural programmes and measures, with particular regard to the European Social Fund, the European Regional Development Fund and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, as well as the EU Culture and Horizon programmes 2014/2020.

4.5.2

Also required at EU level are measures to develop an EU framework which facilitates and encourages good performance in respect of professional qualifications and service quality, the documentation and exchange of success stories, and standardised systems for monitoring quality, customer satisfaction and value for money in the sector, with regard to the professionalisation and the working conditions and career prospects of service providers, the public, private and social-economy enterprises operating in this sector, and, finally, the service recipients and their families, as well as the social economy.

4.5.2.1

The voluntary sector constitutes a significant element here, which should be supported and encouraged especially as regards its high-quality human, social and emotional contribution: EU measures supporting the exchange of best practice in volunteering in the personal services sector merit particular attention.

4.5.3

Account needs to be taken of the importance of committing investment and, in particular, of the need to diversify financial cover (tax, various contributory forms of social security (protection), insurance, inter-generational solidarity, public-private partnerships) taking into consideration that the cost of long-term healthcare and support is not sustainable for most of the population.

4.5.4

At EU level, a proportion of the Structural Funds should be earmarked for developing social infrastructure, health and care services, where shortcomings exist, and for local employment initiatives in the sector. In particular, there should be a funding line here for rural areas and other disadvantaged areas, tapping into the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the Leader initiative.

4.5.5

Also at EU level, support measures for family policies and for ensuring more flexible arrangements in the workplace for those providing care in their family need to be reviewed.

5.1

The EESC is convinced that ‘in areas such as health care, childcare or care for the elderly, assistance to disabled persons or social housing, these services provide an essential safety net for citizens and help promote social cohesion’ (22).

5.2

The Committee emphasises that social, health and educational services are a matter of general interest – both economic and non-economic – and play an important role in the quality and functioning of European society, contributing to social protection, inclusion and in a significant way to the performance and competitiveness of the economy. At the same time, demand for these services is growing, while the capacity to fund them becomes more limited as a result of the economic crisis and, in the longer term, demographic trends.

5.3

The Committee strongly reaffirms the objectives in the Lisbon Treaty as regards education, social protection and health, which reflect the collective social conscience and the desire to give people as high a standard of living as is compatible with the economic potential of all Member States.

5.4

The EESC thus believes that in the current climate, further developments in these sectors require:

15.2.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/23

1.1

The EESC strongly believes that genuine partnership which involves all partners and stakeholders of organised civil society (1) in the preparation, execution and ex-post evaluation of the programmes and projects in EU cohesion policy contributes directly to their enhanced quality and efficient delivery. The partnership principle is an excellent example of how good governance can be applied in other EU policies thereby efficiently implementing the EU 2020 strategy.

1.2

Having asked for a code of good conduct, the EESC strongly supports the Commission initiative and agrees very much with its proposed recommendations. The EESC appreciates the support for the code given by the European Parliament (EP) and the Committee of the Regions (CoR); the EESC recalls, however, that partnership should be at equal terms for all public and private partners.

1.3

However, the EESC is deeply disappointed that the Council for the moment has deleted the proposed Code of Conduct from the Commission's proposal. The EESC calls for a joint action with the CoR to defend the Code of Conduct.

1.4

The EESC is deeply worried about the increasing concern felt among organised civil society with regard to the implementation of the partnership principle. Reports from some Member States (MS) show an on-going trend towards a dilution of this partnership principle and a decrease of participation by organised civil society. The deletion of the Code of Conduct from the Commission proposals is also a major concern. In this time of crisis, there is a need for an even stronger commitment of social partners and other civil society organisations.

1.5

Even if still just a Commission staff working document (SWD), this text comes at an appropriate point in time as in several Member States and regions structural fund programming for 2014-20 has already started. It should actively be disseminated by the Commission in order to be used by the relevant partners. The EESC calls on its members to actively engage their organisations to participate in projects and programmes of EU cohesion policy, backed by the Code of Conduct.

1.6

The EESC would like to strongly emphasise that operational programmes should be geared towards ‘partnership-friendly’ actions and measures. Equal treatment and pluralism in partnership, targeted partnerships for targeted programmes and enhanced capacity building should be major guidelines.

1.7

The EESC believes that Monitoring Committees should be supplemented by other partnership instruments. In this context the EESC recalls that the wording proposed by the European Parliament's amendments to Article 5 of the CPR: ‘cooperate with the partners’ be substituted by ‘involve the partners’.

1.8

The EESC proposes a ‘partnership check’ managed by the partners themselves. Such a European monitoring system should be based on a simple checklist and peer reviews put in place by the Commission together with European stakeholder organisations. The EESC is very keen to take part actively in this process.

1.9

The proper implementation of the partnership principle as laid out in the Code of Conduct should be a condition before the Commission signs the Partnership Contracts with the different Member States. Within this context, resources to the operational programmes might be topped up as an incentive to fulfil this condition.

2.1

The implementation of the partnership principle has been piecemeal and slow since it was launched in 1988. Organised civil society was included in the process, particularly the social partners. The principle was more easily taken on board in countries where partnership is an endogenous part of policy-making. The principle was reinforced when the Commission had more of direct responsibility in the cohesion policy and when Community initiatives like EQUAL and LEADER were introduced.

2.2

However, in many cases partnership was just formal. In the 2006-2013 programming period, partnership was not actively promoted even if at the same time stakeholder participation became a cornerstone to implement the Lisbon strategy. EU cohesion policy faced new challenges when 10 countries joined the EU in 2004, followed by Bulgaria and Romania in 2007.

2.3

Deficiencies were spotted by the Commission and set-backs were criticised by civil society partners. As a response to the changed relationship between Member States (MS) and the Commission in managing EU cohesion policy, dissemination of good practice came into focus.

2.4

In 2009, the Commission asked the EESC for an exploratory opinion on how to promote partnership in the structural funds on the basis of good practice. The EESC opinion at the time was supplemented with a publication ‘It takes two to tango’ presenting selected cases of good practice in MS. The EESC proposal for a code of good practice has been since taken up by the Commission.

2.5

The current situation illustrates that partnership with organised civil society is evolving in most Member States. Poland can in some cases serve as model for its evolving good practice. Implementing partnership is certainly a challenge for the latest new-comers such as Bulgaria and Romania and soon Croatia. This is also the case in some MS that joined in 2004, as well as in those that have been members for several years like Portugal and Greece.

2.6

There is actually a growing concern among organised civil society with regard to the implementation of the partnership principle. Expectations are not fulfilled. Reports from some MS show an on-going trend towards a dilution of this partnership principle, the decrease of the organised civil society participation and the deletion, by the Council, of the Code of Conduct. In some countries, programming for the 2014-20 period has started without the private stakeholders being invited in a genuine way. This political reluctance must be reduced to enable the proper implementation of the ECCP.

3.1

Under the Commission's proposals for the CSF Funds in the period 2014-2020, MS will have a clear obligation to organise a partnership. This will be supported by a European Code of Conduct on Partnership (ECCP) which will lay down objectives and criteria for the implementation of partnership and facilitate the sharing of information, experience, results and good practices among Member States. The ECCP is to be adopted by the Commission as a delegated act within three months of adopting the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR).

3.2

The Commission SWD is a first step to make the partnership principle effective. Under six headings it enumerates 18 detailed guidelines. These six headings are, respectively:

3.3

It should be noted that the proposed ECCP has been translated in all EU languages, which will facilitate its dissemination and use.

4.1

The EESC, at the specific request of the European Commission, worked on the partnership principle in 2010 (ECO/258 – rapporteur OLSSON (2)), and has extensively commented on the EC's proposals for partnership in its Opinion on the CPR (ECO/314 – rapporteur VARDAKASTANIS).

4.2

The EESC proposed that a Code of Good Practice should be based on a number of guidelines, nearly all of which have been taken account of in the Commission SWD:

4.3

The EESC strongly believes that partnership which involves all partners as defined in Article 5(1) of the CPR in the preparation, execution and ex-post evaluation of projects undertaken in the framework of EU cohesion policy contributes directly to its success. It welcomes the progress in Article 5 of the European Commission's proposals which make partnership a mandatory feature; it recalls that participation should be real at all stages of the implementation of the funds, including these partners with the right to vote in the monitoring committees.

4.4

The EESC calls for joint action with the CoR to defend the ECCP and it calls upon the EC and EP to overturn its deletion by the Council. The EESC has stated so strongly at the informal ministerial meeting in Nicosia on 6 November 2012.

5.1

The Council has rejected the Commission's proposal for a code of conduct, which undoubtedly will weaken in practice the implementation of the partnership principle.

5.2

The European Parliament has proposed a comprehensive amendment on the code of conduct in Article 5 of the CPR based on nine specifications. The EESC supports this approach. The amendment is reproduced below (3). However, the EESC is worried that the EP distinguishes between private and public partners and this might pave way for an unequal treatment of partners.

5.3

The CoR supports the ECCP and calls on concerned territorial bodies to organise partnerships. It emphasises inter alia that consideration should be given to specific conditions in the MS, the importance of subsidiarity and proportionality, the procedure of selecting partners supporting pluralism in order to also include marginalised groups. The CoR raises the question of rights and responsibilities of the partners thereby also distinguishing between private and public partners.

6.1

European organised civil society believes that the absence of partnership was one of the main reasons for the reduced impact of structural funds in 2007-2013 in several MS.

6.2

It should be more clearly stated that organised civil society represents the general interest, alongside public authorities.

6.3

Organised civil society is often excluded from real and genuine partnership due to barriers created by rules in co-funding, administrative burdens, inadequate goals of the national Operational Programmes and lack of participation in monitoring of the funds.

6.4

Organised civil society recognises the efforts undertaken by the EC to simplify procedures but considers these are still insufficient for timely and easy absorption of funds by the private sector at large. Too much complexity and administrative burdens remain, bureaucracy needs to be reduced. The following aspects have to be taken into account:

6.5

Organised civil society underlines the importance of capacity building for partners and calls for the inclusion of a definition of capacity building. The definition of capacity building should be understood as the enhancement of the participation of partners in the preparation, implementation and monitoring of the SFs at all stages.

6.6

The EESC highlights the need to create a broad partnership that should represent a large spectrum of different interests. Clear ways to fix responsibilities and functions of these different partners should be established.

7.1

To effectively put in place the partnership principle is a continuous process. The Commission proposal is a first step in formalising and codifying the partnership principle at EU level. The EESC is pleased to note that both the EP and the CoR support an effective partnership principle. The partnership principle is in fact an excellent example of how good governance can be applied in other EU policies thereby efficiently implementing the EU 2020 strategy.

7.2

The EESC is deeply worried that the Council wants to restrict the partnership principle by reverting to the current more restrictive rules for the programming period 2006-13; it calls upon the Commission and the EP to help reverse this development.

8.1

As structural fund programming for 2014-2020 has already started in several MS, it is important for both public administrations and organised civil society to make use of the Commission's SWD. The EESC appreciates that the code of conduct has been translated into all the EU languages. The Commission should actively disseminate its proposals in the MS in cooperation both with public administration and organised civil society.

8.2

The EESC believes that monitoring has not been developed enough in the Commission's proposals. A European monitoring system based on a simple checklist and peer reviews should be set in place together with the European stakeholders' organisations. The EESC is quite keen to take part in this process.

8.3

The checklist should be based on minimum specifications particularly on selection, participation in the different stages and capacity building of the partners. Also how conflicts of interest are solved should be evaluated. The specifications could be supported by a SWOT-analysis (focussing on the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) to pave the way for improvements.

8.4

As part of this system the private stakeholders/partners should make a ‘partnership check’ based on the above proposed checklist. The EESC proposes a simple assessment scheme with three levels insufficient/sufficient/excellent. Such a check would reinforce the participation of partners in evaluation as suggested in the SWD.

8.5

The EESC recalls that the proposed wording in the CPR in Article 5 by the EP ‘cooperate with the partners’ must be substituted by ‘involve the partners’.

8.6

The EESC reiterates its earlier proposal that regions wanting to share their experience and disseminate good practice set up a network of ‘regions of excellence in partnership’.

8.7

The good practices presented in the EESC brochure ‘It takes two to tango’ were widely appreciated; these examples could be very useful to test in other countries (even if partnership has to be adapted to national circumstances). The EESC proposes to update this brochure with a revised edition, which would include lessons learned from bad practices.

8.8

The EESC underlines the importance to involve partners from the earliest stage in a dialogue within a framework of a work programme (information/consultation/participation plan) and a precise roadmap as suggested by the EESC and supported by the Commission. The process must also be defined in the partnership contract. The proper implementation of the partnership principle as laid out in the ECCP should be a condition before the Commission signs the partnership contracts with the different MS. The EESC suggests that resources of the operational programmes be used to benefit capacity building within the partners as an incentive to fulfil this condition.

8.9

The selection of partners should be within the framework of ‘pluralism in partnership’. Alongside economic and social partners and relevant civil society bodies, other players are to be included such as innovative, emerging and marginalised sectors of society, which must have access to and a role to play in the partnership. For these sectors, the model of coordination platforms is very useful. Also smallest, micro enterprises (with their high job potential) and the social economy (as follow up on the Social Business Initiative) must be involved as economic partners in the partnership.

8.10

The proposed thematic concentration in the programmes, as well as other targeting of programmes – geographically, groups, sectors etc. – will facilitate a focused and more effective partnership.

8.11

The work in the Monitoring Committees is often very formal and does not fulfil the demand for a genuine partnership. It should be supplemented by consultative bodies, working groups and other partnership instruments to reinforce the partnership process.

8.12

Capacity building is necessary for partners in all MS to contribute substantially to the process. Technical assistance but also Member State own funds should be used for this.

3a.

The European Code of Conduct shall outline inter alia the following specifications:

15.2.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/28

1.1

The EESC urges the Council to revive the negotiations on concluding the Optional Protocol of the UN CRPD in order to ensure full enjoyment of the UN CRPD by Europeans with disabilities.

1.2

The EESC invites the presidents of the European Council, the European Commission and the European Parliament to organise a second State of the Union on Disability in December 2013, co-chaired with the European Disability Forum, to review implementation of the UN CRPD.

1.3

The EESC highlights the fact that the UN CRPD includes obligations that require legislative and policy changes at EU and Member State levels, and that the financial situation cannot be used as an excuse for delaying action on the rights of persons with disabilities.

1.4

The EESC calls on the Commission to conduct a thorough and participatory review of the implementation of the Disability strategy as an integral part of the future overall EU strategy, which would include the review of existing legislation, policy and programmes and the development of new proposals.

1.5

The EESC thus invites the European Commission, through its secretariat-general, to develop an impact assessment tool on the UN CRPD.

1.6

The EESC welcomes the establishment by the Council of an independent framework to promote, protect and monitor the implementation of the UN CRPD, and calls for the adoption of a dedicated budget which will enable framework participants to perform their tasks with full independence from the focal point.

1.7

The EESC is looking forward to being consulted by the European Commission on an ambitious legislative proposal for a European Accessibility Act with the broadest possible scope, which includes requirements for public and private service providers and manufacturers to provide full accessibility for persons with disabilities, as well as with a clear and extensive definition of accessibility.

1.8

The EESC welcomes the inclusion in the Digital Agenda of legislation on the accessibility of public websites and websites delivering basic services to the public and is looking forward to the presentation of robust legislation in 2012.

1.9

The EESC invites the Council and the European Parliament to reinforce or maintain provisions in favour of persons with disabilities in the Structural Fund regulations, the Connecting Europe Facility (1) and TEN-T regulations and in Horizon 2020 (2), the Rights and Citizenship programme, and the programmes in the area of development cooperation and humanitarian assistance by including measures that ensure the participation of persons with disabilities, through funding and capacity building.

1.10

The EESC calls on the European External Action Service, the European Commission and the Council to ensure mainstreaming of the UN CRPD in foreign relations and international cooperation, as well as in international trade agreements including by ensuring coordination of the EU and Member State positions on the rights of persons with disabilities within the various UN bodies.

1.11

The EESC urges the European institutions to take appropriate actions to implement the UN CRPD internally by reviewing their practices in terms of employment, working conditions, recruitment, training, accessibility of premises, work environment and communication tools, and the requirements of EU funded agencies.

1.12

The EESC takes note of Mr Barroso's commitment in December 2011 to discuss the implementation of the UN CRPD at a meeting of the College of Commissioners and the directors-general, and calls for this issue to feature on the agenda annually.

1.13

The EESC welcomes the organisation of a work forum gathering government focal points, coordination mechanisms, and independent mechanisms from the EU and the Member States in charge of the implementation of the UN CRPD, as well as civil society, and expresses its interest in participating in the forthcoming meetings.

1.14

The EESC looks forward to contributing with an opinion to the report by the EU to the UN Committee on the rights of persons with disabilities in 2013.

1.15

The EESC believes that it should take appropriate action to implement the UN CRPD internally and comply with its obligations by encouraging the employment of persons with disabilities in the EESC, ensuring a non-discriminatory recruitment process, improving the accessibility of buildings, websites, ICT tools and documents; providing reasonable accommodation for employees, members and experts, organising training for its staff, including through the production of a leaflet on the UN CRPD, and mainstreaming disability in its activities.

1.16

The EESC underlines the need for a systematic monitoring and implementation of the UN CRPD by the EU institutions and therefore commits to create a steering committee on the implementation and monitoring of the UN CRPD calling on the EU institutions to report on their work and gathering reactions from persons with disabilities through their representative organisations as well as civil society in order to develop an independent view on progress in the implementation of the UN CRPD.

1.17

The EESC proposes to organise a meeting involving national economic and social councils, civil society organisations and national human rights institutions on the implementation of the UN CRPD.

1.18

The EESC calls on the social partners to mainstream the implementation of the UN CRPD in collective bargaining on the basis of agreed guidelines.

2.1

Persons with disabilities include those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.

2.2

There are around 80 million persons with disabilities in Europe and, according to Eurostat figures, they are two to three times more likely to be unemployed than non-disabled people; only 20 % of people with severe disabilities have a job, compared to 68 % of those without disabilities. Persons with disabilities are more than 50 % less likely to reach third-level education than non-disabled persons. Only 38 % of persons with disabilities aged 16-34 across Europe have an earned income, compared to 64 % of non-disabled people.

2.3

The EESC recalls its opinions on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – European Disability Strategy 2010-2020: A Renewed Commitment to a Barrier-Free Europe  (3) and Young persons with disabilities: employment, inclusion and participation in society  (4).

2.4

The EESC acknowledges that the UN CRPD and its Optional Protocol were adopted on 13 December 2006 at the United Nations Headquarters in New York, opened for signature on 30 March 2007 and entered into force on 3 May 2008.

2.5

The EESC highlights that the UN CRPD has enjoyed broad international support and has already received 154 signatories and 126 ratifications. The Optional Protocol has received 90 signatories and 76 ratifications so far. All 27 EU Member States have signed the UN CRPD and 24 have already ratified it.

2.6

The EESC emphasises that the UN CRPD is an integral human rights instrument which covers civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. It reaffirms that all persons with disabilities must enjoy full human rights and fundamental freedoms.

2.7

The EESC underlines that the UN CRPD covers all persons with disabilities and explicitly recognises that multiple discrimination based on disability and other factors such as ethnicity, gender or economic status is a significant problem which can only be addresses through a multi-disciplinary approach taking into account the different roots of this complex form of discrimination.

2.8

The EESC stresses that the UN CRPD includes provisions on equality and non-discrimination, accessibility, liberty of movement and nationality, access to justice, freedom from violence, independent living and life in the community, right to family life, personal mobility, education, employment, health, social protection, international cooperation, civil protection, amongst others, as well as the participation of persons with disabilities through their representative organisations in decision-making processes, and mainstreaming of women and children with disabilities.

2.9

The EESC stresses that the UN CRPD introduces a paradigm shift, viewing persons with disabilities not as ‘objects’ of charity and medical treatment, but rather focusing on persons with disabilities as ‘subjects’ with rights, capable of claiming them and of making decisions in their lives based on free and informed consent. Restoring voice, enhancing choice and expanding life chances are key themes of the UN CRPD.

2.10

The EESC welcomes the fact that the Convention clarifies and qualifies how all categories of human rights apply to persons with disabilities regardless of the intensity of support they need, and identifies areas in which changes are needed for the effective exercise and protection of rights of persons with disabilities.

2.11

The EESC acknowledges that the UN CRPD is the first international human rights treaty to be open for ratification by regional integration organisations such as the EU, and points to the decision of the Council of 26 November 2009 under which the European Community concluded the UN CRPD (5) and which designates the Commission as the focal point for matters relating to the implementation of the UN CRPD.

2.12

The EESC highlights that the decision includes a list of areas falling within the Union's exclusive or shared competence; this list is of an evolving nature and is likely to expand overtime. Areas of exclusive competence include the compatibility of State aid with the common market and the Common Custom Tariff. Areas of shared competence include actions to combat discrimination on the ground of disability, free movement of goods, persons, services and capital, agriculture, transport by rail, road, sea and air, taxation, the internal market, equal pay for work of equal value of male and female workers, trans-European network policy and statistics.

2.13

The EESC notes the Code of Conduct between the Council, the Member States and the Commission (6) setting out arrangements between the Council, the Member States and the Commission on various aspects of the CRPD's implementation and on representation in the bodies established by the CRPD, procedures for the preparation of the EU's report to the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the procedure for establishing a monitoring framework for one or more independent mechanisms involving civil society.

3.1

The EESC welcomes the fact that the European Union became, for the first time in its history, a party to an international human rights convention by concluding the UN CRPD on 23 December 2010, and acknowledges the leadership role played by the EU and its Member States, as well as the European disability movement through the European Disability Forum, in the drafting of the CRPD and considers that a special responsibility falls on the EU to intensify efforts on implementation and monitoring and provide a model for others in the world.

3.2

The EESC urges the Council to revive the negotiations on concluding the Optional Protocol of the UN CRPD, which would allow individuals or groups to submit complaints to the UN CRPD Committee once all legal remedies within the EU had been exhausted, as proposed by the European Commission in 2008, thereby preventing gaps and eliminating existing gaps in protection for persons with disabilities whenever violations of rights occurred in areas of EU competence.

3.3

The EESC calls on the Commission to consider ratification of other human rights treaties, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, including their optional protocols. It calls on the EU to participate in the talks currently underway in the UN open-ended working group which is considering the drafting of a new thematic UN human rights treaty on the rights of older persons, and to ensure that its work is fully consistent with the UN CRPD.

3.4

The EESC acknowledges that, as a Party to the UN CRPD, the European Union must comply with all of the obligations laid down in the UN CRPD to the extent of its competences including the obligation to report periodically to the UN CRPD Committee.

3.5

The EESC emphasises that Articles 10 and 19 of the TFEU and Articles 21 and 26 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union provide a clear reference to the protection of the rights of persons with disabilities (7).

3.6

The EESC calls on the European institutions to enact legislation, policies and programmes that fully implement the UN CRPD on matters falling within the Union's exclusive and shared competence and to review existing legislation and policies in order to ensure the full protection of all persons with disabilities in the European Union.

3.7

The EESC invites the presidents of the European Council, the European Commission and the European Parliament to organise, in cooperation with the European Disability Forum, a second State of the Union on Disability in December 2013, focusing on the implementation of the UN CRPD (8).

3.8

The EESC welcomes the organisation by the European Parliament, together with the European Disability Forum, of a European Parliament of persons with disabilities in December 2012, in view of its contribution to the EU report to the UN CRPD Committee.

3.9

The EESC urges the European institutions to take appropriate actions to implement the UN CRPD internally. This includes:

4.1

The EESC welcomed the European Disability Strategy 2010-2020 in its resolution of 21 September 2011, as a key political tool for implementing the UN CRPD in the European Union, while calling on the European Commission to ensure that existing and future secondary legislation respects the UN CRPD and provides for the participation and involvement of persons with disabilities (9).

4.2

The EESC calls for a thorough and participatory review of the implementation of the Disability strategy, including by setting new goals and objectives.

4.3

The EESC calls on the Council and the European Parliament to mainstream the implementation of the UN CRPD within the EU's multiannual financial framework by ensuring that not a single eurocent will be spent on inaccessible projects or infrastructures.

4.4

The EESC invites the Council and the European Parliament:

4.5

The EESC invites the European Commission to create a mechanism that will reward excellence in CRPD compliance in projects funded by the EU with regard to the development of accessible solutions and inclusion of persons with disabilities.

4.6

The EESC recalls the disability provisions included in the Europe 2020 strategy, particularly regarding the third pillar on social inclusion, as well as the digital agenda, and calls for mainstreaming of the implementation of the UN CRPD in all flagship initiatives.

4.7

The EESC is worried about the negative impact that the austerity measures that have been put in place in many EU Member States are having also on persons with disabilities and their families leading to further social exclusion, discrimination, inequality and unemployment, and highlights that the crisis cannot be used to postpone implementation of the UN CRPD.

4.8

The EESC calls on the European Council to adopt a real strategy for growth that provides for measures in favour of disadvantaged groups such as persons with disabilities, including measures to stimulate employment opportunities, fostering services that promote independent living and participation in the community, taking into account also the situation of persons that become disabled in their old age, as well as the development of accessible infrastructure.

4.9

The EESC invites the Member States to take measures to ensure that persons with disabilities have access to the labour market through fiscal incentives to companies, measures favouring entrepreneurship, the possibility to move in and out of employment, and equal access to social protection and workers' rights.

4.10

The EESC is looking forward to being consulted by the European Commission on its proposal for an ambitious European Accessibility Act with the broadest possible scope, and which includes requirements for public and private service providers and manufacturers to provide full accessibility, and a clear and extensive definition of accessibility covering both virtual and built environments, allowing interoperability and compatibility with assistive technologies and linked to European standards.

4.11

The EESC calls on the Council to continue work on the proposal for a directive implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of sex, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation, and to align the proposal with the UN CRPD by including a definition of disability and discrimination by association, prohibiting discrimination in access to financial and insurance services, addressing access to education, and clearly separating the notion of reasonable accommodation to ensure individual access from the notion of accessibility which involves an anticipatory and group-based duty.

4.12

The EESC stresses that the needs of persons with disabilities should be mainstreamed in all programmes, strategies and policies at EU level targeting women, children, discriminated groups such as ethnic or religious minorities, gays and lesbians, and older people.

4.13

The EESC highlights the need to ensure the maximum degree of congruence with the EU's internal laws and policies by mainstreaming the UN CRPD in its foreign relations and development and humanitarian assistance including through the development of ad hoc guidelines.

4.14

In particular, the EESC urges the EU to coordinate its position with that of the Member States in UN discussions that have an impact on the rights of persons with disabilities, by, for instance, ensuring that the position of the EU on the post-Millennium Development Goals framework incorporates the human rights of persons with disabilities, and that persons with disabilities are mentioned in the quadrennial comprehensive policy review.

4.15

The EESC calls on the EU to carry forward its commitment to the UN CRPD into other ongoing multi-lateral fora such as the negotiations currently underway at the World Intellectual Property Organisation on the reform and liberalisation of copyright law.

4.16

The EESC lauds the work done to date with respect to the policy exchange dialogue in the New Transatlantic Agenda between the USA and the EU on disability reform and given the impending US ratification call on enhancing the transatlantic disability policy dialogue further in order to further contribute to driving the global reform process forward.

4.17

The EESC urges the European Commission to ensure that, within each directorate–general, relevant services are given the task of mainstreaming the implementation of the UN CRPD in the preparation of policies and legislation.

4.18

The EESC calls on the secretariat-general of the Commission to develop an impact assessment tool on disability rights for all new legislative proposals and to include a module on UN CRPD rights in the training of new staff and in re-training.

4.19

The EESC emphasises that, according to paragraph (o) of the preamble and Article 4.3 of the UN CRPD, persons with disabilities must be involved in all policy- and decision-making processes, policies and programmes relating to persons with disabilities and calls on the EU institutions and national governments to put in place appropriate processes.

5.1

The EESC notes that Article 33(2) of the UN CRPD obliges State Parties to designate or establish within the State Party, a framework, including one or more independent mechanisms, to ‘promote, protect and monitor’ the implementation of the Convention.

5.2

The EESC calls on the Council to formally designate such a framework through a decision.

5.3

The EESC points out that when designating or establishing such a mechanism, State Parties must take account of the Paris Principle regarding the status and functioning of national institutions for the protection and promotion of human rights.

5.4

The EESC calls, in particular, for the independence of the framework from the focal point and coordination mechanism that has been designated within the EU, and for the definition of a mandate for each framework participant, as well as a budget enabling them to perform their tasks.

5.5

The EESC stresses the need for the establishment of clear rules for structured consultation of the framework participants within their respective roles, particularly with regard to the preparation of legislation.

5.6

The EESC acknowledges that according to Article 33(3) of the UN CRPD, civil society, and in particular persons with disabilities and their representative organisations, must be involved and participate fully in the monitoring process, including in the focal point and coordination mechanism designated by the Council for the implementation of the UN CRPD.

5.7

The EESC believes that the European Disability Forum, as the European umbrella organisation representing the 80 million citizens with disabilities in Europe, should be involved in European-level monitoring of the UN CRPD, and in all EU-level policy- and decision-making processes relating to the lives of persons with disabilities.

5.8

The EESC strongly believes that partnership is a tool for sustainable, economic and social development and must be based on a long term perspective of real participation of civil society by including also continuous capacity building of all partners, as well as providing adequate means for participation (13).

5.9

The EESC urges the EU to include in its future Rights and Citizenship funding programme funding to support the implementation of the UN CRPD, which should also include capacity building and sufficient funding for representative organisations of persons with disabilities.

5.10

The EESC recognises the importance of setting-up a CRPD-compliant EU-level framework so that countries outside the EU, in particular those that belong to regional organisations, may look to the EU framework for an example.

5.11

The EESC stresses that the EU must submit its first periodic report to the UN CRPD Committee by early 2013 and is looking forward to being consulted by the European Commission in its preparation, alongside a broad range of stakeholders, including civil society and in particular the disability movement.

5.12

The EESC welcomes all the actions proposed by the European Commission and Eurostat to improve and increase data collection and detailed statistics and indicators on disability in view of developing more effective policies and better monitoring their implementation. The EESC looks forward to the publication of the data from the ad hoc module on disability included in the Labour Force Survey 2011 and encourages the Commission, Eurostat, the Fundamental Rights Agency and the Member States to systematically include disability questions in all main surveys as well as to develop specific surveys and indicators that will allow to measure the interaction between persons with disabilities and the barriers encountered in daily life, as well as the impact of policy instruments designed to break down such barriers.

5.13

The EESC urges the EU and the Member States to develop awareness campaigns on the rights and obligations enshrined in the CRPD by targeting public authorities at all levels, private companies, media, universities and research centres, schools, social and health services.

5.14

The EESC calls on Member States to ensure implementation of the CRPD at the different levels of decision making by mainstreaming its provisions in legislation, policies and administrative decisions and by developing CRPD-compliant disability action plans.

5.15

The EESC encourages partnerships between trade unions, employers' organisations, social economy organisations, and organisations of persons with disabilities in order to promote access to employment for persons with disabilities in line with the UN CRPD.

6.1

The EESC believes that it should take appropriate action to implement the UN CRPD internally and comply with its obligations. This includes in particular:

6.2

The EESC stresses that disability rights should be a cross-cutting issue addressed in all of its opinions that have an impact on the lives of persons with disabilities.

6.3

The EESC highlights that the rights enshrined in the UN CRPD must be mainstreamed in the work of all its sections, as they touch on all areas of social, cultural, and economic activity.

6.4

The EESC underlines to that effect the need to establish a steering committee on the implementation and monitoring of the UN CRPD which would call on the different EU institutions to report on their work and would seek the views of civil society, and particularly the European Disability Forum, as the representative organisation of persons with disabilities, to feed into the preparation and presentation of the EU report to the UN CRPD Committee. Through the involvement of these different sections, the steering committee would provide an independent view of progress in the implementation of the UN CRPD.

6.5

The EESC recalls the role it plays in terms of strengthening the EU's democratic legitimacy by emphasising participatory democracy, as well as the role of civil society organisations.

6.6

The EESC calls for the creation of a body to stimulate and coordinate dialogue between EU institutions and bodies and civil society on the implementation of the UN CRPD at EU level.

6.7

The EESC recommends that it contribute to the report to be presented by the EU to the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities by means of opinion.

15.2.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/36

1.1

Mental health forms an integral part of quality of life and well-being for all people in the EU. The WHO defines mental health as ‘a state of well-being in which an individual realizes his or her own abilities, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and is able to make a contribution to his or her community’ (1). Economic data such as GDP are an inadequate reflection of this. The current crisis has plunged many millions of people into fear for their very existence, identity crises, and unemployment, and has had an impact on the risk of suicide. Mental well-being, rather than abstract financial issues, is therefore the key to the happiness of a very large number of people. Mental well-being is the prerequisite for individuals being able to realise their intellectual and emotional potential. For society, it is a source of social cohesion and of better social well-being and economic prosperity.

1.2

This initiative is geared towards improving mental health and the public's awareness of it in the broad sense. In addition to chronic and acute mental illnesses and disabilities, it also covers debilitating stresses which are not classified as illnesses and which may also have physical causes or effects. There are many facets to the subject of mental health and these are impacted by medical and socio-political issues as well as aspects of life such as the world of work, young people, old age and poverty.

1.3

Mental disorders can have various causes and consequences – such as trauma, stressful childhood experiences, drug use, stress, unemployment, homelessness, exclusion – and may be combined with genetic predisposition. The solutions and the relevant policies are just as diverse. It is often possible to influence these causes, which should therefore be given appropriate consideration in any inclusive policy and economic system. The social economy, civil society and new approaches predicated on social entrepreneurship can play a key role. Prevention, early recognition and treatment of mental illness must be based on a multidimensional approach (psychotherapy, as well as medical and socio-economic measures). Greater account must be taken of mental disorders and illnesses in the general education of health professionals, educators, teachers and people in executive positions. A publicly supported health promotion plan and a modern corporate culture can support people with disabilities and minimise the occurrence of work-related problems.

1.4

It is vital to strengthen civil, voluntary, family and professional networks and boost the participation of those affected and associations representing them. Prevention and raising awareness are tasks for society as a whole. Community-based outpatient support and assisted living can often help prevent restrictions on freedom and inpatient treatments. European recommendations and good practices are particularly important here and should include an appropriate reduction of inpatient psychiatric treatment and medication in order to help build up socio-environmental support measures and other alternative forms of assistance. The resources this would generate for science and research could also be directed more towards maintaining mental health. Even for financially weaker Member States, restructuring and new priorities are possible.

1.5

Raising broad public awareness of this issue, including in nurseries and schools, in businesses, among doctors and in care establishments, should be promoted across the EU. Campaigns to destigmatise mental illness and the use of non-discriminatory language in the media could reduce the discrimination experienced by people with mental health problems. People's state of health also has major economic consequences. These are secondary when compared with the more serious personal consequences of mental health problems (2). More questions should be asked about the social, political and economic interests and structures which make this problem worse and how inclusion can be promoted actively through the effective development of care systems geared towards the individual and through supporting families as the setting in which people first start to learn about life. Major advances in medicine, professional and voluntary support as well as the business model on preventative health care must be given greater consideration and promoted more strongly.

2.1

The most common mental illnesses in Europe are anxiety disorders, depression and dependency-based illnesses. According to studies from 2010, 38 % of Europeans suffer from mental health problems (3). The figure was already 27 % in 2005 (4). Each year, 58 000 people commit suicide. By 2020 depression will become the second most common illness in industrialised countries (5). According to figures for people insured by a major German health insurance fund, between 2006 and 2009, mental illness accounted for a 38 % increase in lost working hours among workers and a 44 % increase among unemployed people (6). Prescriptions of ‘medication to treat the nervous system’, which includes antidepressants, increased by 33 % (7) in this period. In Great Britain too, 44 % of employers reported an increase in problems related to mental health and 40 % an increase in stress-related absences (8).

2.2

Mental health and well-being has so far not been the focus of a European Year. However, prejudice around mental health problems and psychosocial disabilities, and stigmatisation in society or at work, for example, is still a daily occurrence. The Europe 2020 strategy calls for greater social inclusion of this group and for relevant EU health programmes to be set up with an eye to inclusive and sustainable growth. Furthermore, the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which was concluded by the EU as the first ever international human rights instrument, provides a clear set of rights for persons with psychosocial disabilities. The rights enshrined in this convention need to be respected and implemented by means of all relevant EU policies and activities. Dedicating a European Year to mental health and well-being would therefore be a means of giving these requirements appropriate attention.

2.3

Since the mid-1990s, mental health has been the subject of several specific projects on European health policy and has been given a place of central importance (9). In 2005, the Commission launched a consultation based on the Green Paper on mental health (10).

2.4

The EESC stands by its opinion on the Green Paper (11) and underlines the social and personal importance of mental health as a key component in the concept of health. For the European Union, which is viewed as a community of values, mental health is an important source of social cohesion and universal participation. This is also advocated by the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which seeks to ensure through its human rights provisions that people with disabilities participate and are viewed from a holistic perspective.

2.5

In looking at this subject, the Commission also addresses issues relating to the economy, employment policy and public health. Ensuring a high level of health protection is one of the EU's cross-cutting tasks, as stated in Article 168 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). What is more, a European Year of Mental Health would enable the EU to carry out the task specified in Article 6 TFEU, namely ‘to carry out actions to support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the Member States [… on…] protection and improvement of human health’, at European level.

2.6

The EU strategy for mental health has, among other things, promoted the 2008 European Pact for Mental Health and Well-Being  (12), which also informed the Council's conclusions of June 2011 (13).

2.7

The conferences in this field held as part of the EU strategy were not adequately geared to raising broader public awareness and putting mental health issues on everyone's lips in Europe. This is something a European Year on Mental Health could achieve. Public authorities at all levels would focus on the issue, as well as civil society stakeholders in their multiple roles as experts, disseminators and social enterprises. A European Year of Mental Heath would, first and foremost, have to be consistent with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). People with mental health problems or disabilities must be recognised as equal before the law and be able to enjoy in full their legal freedoms and their freedom to act (see Article 12 CRPD).

2.8

From a technical and ethical point of view, many people with mental health problems do not receive the necessary forms of treatment, rehabilitation and support to enable them to participate in society, although medicine and social services have made great progress in this area. Mental health is often not a health policy priority. Instead of support structures being built up, essential services and treatments are often scaled back or made more expensive, especially when budgets are under pressure and in periods of crisis. Instead, and especially in the economic crisis, investments in fostering participation, education and the social economy would be required. In times of crisis especially, government cannot be allowed to simply withdraw from the welfare sector.

Particularly in the case of acute problems, waiting lists and long distances are counterproductive. Residential care and restrictions on freedom should be kept to an absolute minimum, in favour of community-based outpatient services, meeting points, advice centres and possibilities for medical treatment. It is essential to put in place legal entitlements and appropriate schemes to boost the autonomy of the people affected, so that, rather than having decisions taken for them, they are given the requisite support to determine for themselves, for instance, what assistance or therapy they need, without thereby ultimately having to have their legal capacity curtailed. Classification into disease categories, unilateral referral into the psychiatric system, the administration of psychotropic drugs and the use of force must, systematically, be subject both to critical review and to the application of standards underpinned by the rule of law and human rights. In all types of facilities and living arrangements, the overall concept must include provision for the people concerned to take part in society, engage in meaningful employment and have a properly structured day. The effects of psychotropic drugs on the ability to participate and morbidity should be considered in a more sensitive manner. The accessibility of support must not be curtailed through a fragmentation of support structures and bureaucratic and time-consuming application procedures. Crisis intervention and suicide prevention require easily accessible, specialist services. National emergency numbers and other specific support measures should be introduced across Europe.

2.9

At the same time, account must also be taken of the mutually reinforcing nature of socio-economic circumstances, unemployment and the burdens of illness. Furthermore, there are people with psychiatric illness who need resources and support in order to have a good quality of life. This means that promoting opportunities for participation and strengthening the legal status of those with chronic psychiatric illnesses and mental disabilities should be taken into account when setting the priorities for a European Year of Mental Health.

2.10

Assistance for people with mental disabilities should take into consideration philosophical, religious, pastoral and spiritual needs and beliefs.

2.11

Social factors are important in maintaining good mental health. Decent work plays a key role here in providing a meaningful sense of identity. To some extent, however, everyday living and working conditions are no longer governed by reliable cultural traditions and democratic decisions taken at local level, but by centralised economic choices and structures. Economic and structural policy should therefore take account of peoples' mental health and the goals of decent and inclusive residential areas and working conditions.

2.12

People in the modern world see new opportunities in today's multi-option, media and consumer-based society, but also new stress factors. In this connection, education systems are in many cases unable to meet the urgent need for high-quality ethical, cognitive and social education. Such education could, however, promote the independence and mental well-being that is required. Social ties continue to weaken, leading to a loss of external resources, such as friends, families and colleagues. Frequent changes of job and domicile, unemployment and loosening ties in personal relations do not contribute to the development of social networks in one's immediate neighbourhood. It is thus all the more important to ensure the mandatory involvement of the people affected and the associations representing them in the design of assistance and network structures.

2.13

Where the balance of personal responsibility and social security is disturbed, the risk of mental illness increases. This is relevant, for example, to incentives to enter the labour market, which can have no demonstrable effect because of a lack of jobs and a structurally-based lack of opportunities for business start-ups. Homelessness and mental impairments are also often closely intertwined, so that assistance must address both these issues. Parents in insecure employment and their children are prey to a whole range of stresses and strains caused by uncertainty, poverty, the sheer demands of child-rearing, time pressure and family stress. Assistance must be correspondingly diverse and must include, for example, publicly-funded pedagogical support and family recreational facilities. High levels of public debt and economic difficulties as well as cuts to social security and high unemployment are significantly increasing the risk of depression, anxiety and addictions. The suicide rate in eleven EU Member States increased by more than 10 % in the first half of 2011. Proper investment in social security and social services would alleviate this situation considerably (14).

3.1.1

Discontinuity in employment, frequent restructuring, the need to be available at all times, time pressure, excessive workloads and increasing demands on flexibility and mobility: all of these often have repercussions for mental health (15). Disability statistics from the Netherlands show that, in 2010, mental health problems were the main reason for long-term sick leave (55 days). In Great Britain the HSE (16) estimates that about 9,8 million working days were lost through work-related stress (2009-2010), and on average, each person suffering from work-related stress was written off sick for 22,6 days. In 2010-2011, 10,8 million working days were lost (17). The inability to reconcile a professional life with family, care for relatives and time for cultural, physical and mental recreation poses further risks. Some countries have introduced measures enabling employees to take time off work to care for a relative and a right to ask for leave of absence. Often, businesses also have to deal with problems that have arisen outside the work context. There should be stronger public promotion of model approaches to preventive health care, inclusion, suitable part-time solutions, assistance at the workplace and ongoing training for management and staff. Innovative corporate cultures can also enhance the quality of work and products. Proactive stress risk management, based on research into stress factors and their reduction and elimination, should be part of a consistent prevention strategy, in accordance with the Treaty provisions, Framework Directive 89/391/EEC on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work and the Framework agreement on work-related stress reached by the European social partners in 2004.

Uncertainty over jobs and livelihoods and powerful structural forces in the labour market pose additional risks. There must be clear limits on any competition among employees to outdo one another in terms of productivity and any competition to undercut on working conditions. The losers in the labour market are often given the blame, even if they are not responsible. Employers' demands for employees to show the requisite reasonable flexibility are just as valid as employees' own demands for flexibility so that they can look after their families, care for individuals and deal with personal problems (care on the part of the employer and a ‘person-centred’ approach). People with mental health problems have a higher risk of losing their jobs or being unable to work because of their illness. Here too, social prejudices play a crucial role. This leads to losses for workers, resources in general and wealth creation.

3.1.1.1

The current quota rules for people with disabilities in some countries are, for example, far from sufficient as instruments. What is needed is a bold employment integration policy to help the many people who are currently excluded and to help society.

3.1.2

A more open approach to this subject could be brought about by the establishment of joint publicly backed advice and redress bodies. Bodies should be set up either inside the company or externally to represent the interests of working people with disabilities and mental health issues at the workplace. What is more, the risks should be limited by appropriate protection against dismissal, statutory employment protection, unemployment support schemes, a publicly promoted occupational health management system, return-to-work plans and an active labour market and family policy. In the interests of employers, and SMEs in particular, it is essential to safeguard competitiveness, avoid red tape and ensure the reliability of public support structures. Community service bodies and welfare associations and other civil society stakeholders can play an important role in providing political and practical support for those concerned, for businesses and for employment services (18).

3.2.1

There are hardly any precise statistics on mental health problems in children and young people. This is partly because it is often difficult to differentiate between someone who is ill and someone with behavioural problems for psychological reasons, between people in need of advice, education or treatment. This means that, generally speaking, it is almost impossible to distinguish between these needs: transitions are fluid. For example, according to the German Psychotherapeutenkammer (association of psychotherapists) the annual prevalence is between 9,7 % (mentally ill) and 21,9 % (behavioural problems) (19). Regarding depression, the risk of becoming ill for the first time is increasing, while the age at which the illness initially occurs is going down. Experts are seeing a growing number of anxiety and behavioural disorders and a definite increase in the use of psychotropic drugs among children and young people.

3.2.2

At the same time, child day care centres and schools have reported an increasing number of children and young people who are dropping out (14,4 % across the EU), who have behavioural problems or concentration difficulties or who have been violent. Often there is a combination of problems, accompanied by mental health disorders, an inability to resist consumer products (20) and media entertainment, computer or other addictions as well as general development deficits. What is alarming is the increasing consumption of antidepressants, methylphenidate and other medications among children and young people. There is an urgent need to compile statistics across Europe and to develop alternatives.

3.2.3

The increasing uncertainty experienced by children and young people as well as their parents is a problem that child and adolescent psychiatry is unable to solve, at least by itself. Early childhood assistance and support for the key role played by families are just as important as fostering the requisite skills among nursery staff and paediatricians and in schools. It is therefore not helpful if every behavioural problem is defined as a mental health problem or illness and complex individual and social problems are made into problems of the medical profession alone (21). Individualisation, varying levels of access to school education, unemployment, poverty, social exclusion, personal shame and parents who are unable to cope as well as systems of education based on an increasing sense of competition from the earliest age, limiting opportunities for those unable to keep up with the leaders in the race may be factors that a preventive approach has to take into account. Shared responsibility among all social stakeholders is what is needed here: a dynamic living environment, appropriate approaches to young people's education, well equipped schools and day care centres, a standard provision of non-commercial leisure activities, youth groups, clubs and cultural events and a comprehensive network of professional interdisciplinary care, such as advisory services to help with child-rearing issues and non-formal education. Drug abuse should be tackled consistently through early detection, prevention, counselling and therapies, as well as by controlling supply channels. Investing in this area will avoid immense personal and social damage. Inclusion in education, work and other forms of useful employment must be legally guaranteed for adolescents and young adults. In all these fields, non-profit services and social welfare and civil society organisations have a key political and practical role to play.

3.3.1

Increased and further increasing life expectancy is one of several crucial explanations for the overall rise in the number of mental health problems. Physical multi-morbidity increases in old age, accompanied by a heightened risk of depression. Furthermore, depression is often a side-effect of certain age-related illnesses, such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. A dynamic living environment favourable to participation, accessible and outpatient social services, opportunities to volunteer, appropriate forms of workforce participation and participation in business and ensuring that care institutions have the right focus: these are all key factors in heading off loneliness and in preventative healthcare. Social facilities, care services and doctors should be sufficiently competent in handling psychiatric issues in older people. Best practice models, especially as regards people suffering from dementia, should be examined more thoroughly at European level.

3.3.2

Older people are usually cared for by general practitioners, who do not refer enough cases to neuro-psychiatric specialists. In cases of dementia and depression, however, early diagnosis is important, so there is a uniform need for a cross-cutting approach to care: in most general old people's homes, there is a lack of regular specialist psychiatric care. This is also true of other services for older people, such as advice centres. Advances in medicine and especially gerontology and technical assistance should be used in a suitable way for the benefit of all those concerned.

3.3.3

Overall, the particular features of child, adolescent and geriatric psychiatry should be given greater consideration both in the training programmes for general medicine and general psychiatry and in general psychotherapy.

4.1

An approach based on human rights would be of central importance in a European Year of Mental Health. Medical as well as mental welfare services should support the individuals concerned and make them stronger, boosting their potential for self-help through empowerment. The dignity and legal rights of the individual should play a central role here, providing a focus for those supporting that person through their crisis. Furthermore, professionals from different types of services require capacity building in order to increase their understanding of mental health problems and psychosocial disabilities.

4.2

People going through a mental crisis often do not deal with their illnesses because of the social stigma involved. The media contribute significantly to this. The image conveyed of mental illness often generates fear amongst the general public makes people defensive and causes mistrust in useful forms of treatment. Europe-wide campaigns to destigmatise mental illness are urgently required. They must be organised on a long-term basis and focus on prevention. These campaigns should also involve people employed in all legally relevant sectors (justice, police, public authorities, etc.), in order to improve the technical and professional conditions at their disposal for dealing with people with mental health problems. Stigmatisation should also be avoided whenever possible in the organisation and financing of assistance. In particular, facilities to strengthen life management skills should be generally available to all. The promotion of encounters and exchanges between patients and people without psychiatric experience should be a key element of such a policy.

4.3

In employment too, every effort should be made to avoid the creation of separate worlds, which pigeonhole people with mental health problems without taking account of their wishes and their right to choose. First of all, the individuals concerned should be able to decide for themselves whether they carry out supported work in a specialised institution or in a general working environment. In many cases, job-based support enabling those concerned to return to work increases the chances of restoring their working capacity (‘supported employment’) (23). Generally speaking, a standard wage must be paid, which should be negotiated by the social partners. Providing ‘pocket money’ to cover basic needs is not appropriate for people with mental health problems or disabilities. A relatively successful model for gradual reintegration is the so-called Hamburg model (24).

4.4

The following human rights violations against people with mental health problems have been reported in the EU: excessive restrictions on freedom and forced treatment without the informed consent of the person concerned, and often there are few opportunities to appeal. There is an important role for de-institutionalisation programmes, community-based outpatient care services, unbureaucratic access to support, agreements on treatment which respect human rights and a destigmatisation policy, which should also involve people with mental health problems, who are experts on their own lives.

4.5

The EU mental health strategy should be reviewed. Above all, the EESC sees a need to examine the extent to which the exclusion from society of people with mental illness has become widespread, especially in the labour market. The issue of how full and partial work incapacity can be avoided through prevention or good care should also be examined. There is also the question of how the use of language in medicine, the media and society hampers or prevents inclusion.

4.6

This initiative will increase the chances of raising the public profile of mental health issues. It will influence the thematic priorities of the political agenda and create a good climate for promoting innovative ideas which can benefit everyone.

4.7

In order to promote the European Year of Mental Health, not only the EESC itself, but also relevant civil society stakeholders must be involved first and foremost, including groups and associations and other players with experience of psychiatry and health services, as well as the relevant directorates-general of the Commission, MEPs and the Committee of the Regions. At national level, the relevant ministries should participate as well as the members of national parliaments. Those actually affected must be more involved overall in framing the relevant policies.

4.8

In order to ensure that the initiative has a tangible impact in Member States, the Mental Health Action Framework should be used in parallel, involving the development of commonly endorsed reference frameworks for action on mental health through health systems and social policy as well as in relevant fields such as schools and workplaces. As an instrument for mutual learning, peer reviews should be used in a similar way to the OMC. These measures must take the form of legislation, financial rules and activities under the ESF, as well as rights for people with mental health problems and for businesses. Consideration should be given to whether a permanent observatory can provide continuous monitoring of the issue. EU health reporting should include more detailed European data on mental impairment and especially on the type of aid, the number of inpatient psychiatric units and the consumption of psychotropic drugs. Potential partners from right across society should be enlisted over time as long-term supporters. The impact of the initiative and the European year itself should not have a limited timeframe. Instead, they should give rise to a lasting and sustainable awareness of mental health issues and have a tangible impact on those concerned.

15.2.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/44

1.1

Social farming is an innovative approach that brings together two concepts: multipurpose farming and social services/health care at local level. It makes a contribution in the ambit of agricultural production to the well-being and the social integration of people with particular needs. The EESC has been prompted to draw up an own-initiative opinion on the matter by the substantial expansion in social farming.

1.2

Social farming has spread throughout Europe in a variety of guises that have some similarities but also numerous differences in terms of approach, how they relate to other sectors, and funding.

1.3

Nevertheless, a definition is needed at European level in order to identify the activities that comprise it and to define a framework and criteria – including quality criteria – that these activities must meet in order to benefit from support under the various policies. However, this definition must not be too narrow so as not to set in stone a situation that is constantly evolving.

1.4

Since there is no EU or national regulatory framework for social farming, there is a lack of coordination between the various policies or institutions concerned. The EESC believes that the EU institutions and national and regional authorities and institutions should encourage and support social farming by putting in place an appropriate and conducive regulatory framework and implementing the measures set out below.

1.5

Available statistics on social farming are few and partial. The EESC thinks it would be useful, therefore, to launch a programme of statistical research in order to quantify and analyse in greater depth its presence and the forms it takes in the Member States. The resultant database could be extended to promote research programmes in all the Member States.

1.6

Social farming must be underpinned by interdisciplinary research in different spheres in order to validate empirical results, analyse its impact and benefits from different perspectives (social, economic, health, individual, etc.) and ensure the dissemination of experience on the ground. To this end, it would be expedient to promote and develop the cooperation efforts initiated at European level by the SoFar and COST Action projects in the next Horizon 2020 framework programme (2014-2020).

1.7

The EESC also considers it crucial to put in place and bolster social farming networks in order to share lessons learned, pool experience and raise awareness. Also desirable are a joint representation of social farming interests at the political level and the establishment of an umbrella organisation at European level. This would reinforce both exchanges between those involved and the role of civil society organisations.

1.8

In addition, particular attention should be devoted to the training of those involved – those with particular needs and benefiting from these services as well as service providers – in order to ensure a high level of quality and skills in social farming operations.

1.9

If it is to become entrenched throughout Europe, social farming needs a conducive environment, greater civil society involvement and fruitful collaboration between different policy areas and administrations (health/social affairs, farming, employment) at European, national, regional and local levels. This means that it should be recognised and provided with targeted support by public authorities to give it sustained access to funding for various aspects of this type of farming.

1.10

Equally, it could be useful for the European Commission to erect a permanent system bringing together all the directorates-general concerned. The Member States could make similar arrangements. The Commission should also encourage a comparative study to be carried out of the social protection systems – and how much they cost – in the Member States in order to boost any savings that could be made through social farming projects.

1.11

The EESC is very pleased to note that the Commission's proposals for the 2014-2020 period open up new avenues for social farming. Nevertheless, it would still seem to need better support in the future programming period. To this end, the EU and the Member States should coordinate recourse to the different policies relevant to social farming. The EESC thinks that the Member States and the various authorities (national and EU) tasked with and responsible for the management of EU funds should work more closely together in order to remove barriers to access to structural funds and to facilitate this access for those in the front line.

1.12

The Common Strategic Framework makes it possible to combine funds as a part of a multiple financing strategy. In this connection, the Commission should call on the Member States to refer to social framing in their planning and to take an integrated approach in designing particular programmes that enable the sector to benefit more from the various structural funds. Another possibility would be to conceive thematic sub-programmes devoted to social farming or to support Leader projects in this sphere.

2.1

Almost all of Europe's rural areas have experienced the development of social farming since the end of the last century as a new, economically sustainable practice and experience with it is constantly expanding. While social farming is the umbrella term for these activities, the expressions ‘farming for health’, ‘care farming’, ‘green care’ and ‘green therapies’ are also used. Each of these refers to different practices or operations in the care, social reintegration, training and rehabilitation of the disadvantaged or the training of people with particular needs. These activities enable those in difficulty to re-establish contact with productive activity and the natural environment and contribute to their well-being, improved health and social inclusion; they facilitate learning and boost self-esteem and hence participation in the life of society.

In this sense, social farming is an innovative approach that brings together two concepts: multipurpose farming and social services/health care at local level. On the one hand, it ties in closely with the multipurpose nature of farming and is part and parcel of the concept of rural development, giving farmers the opportunity to diversify their sources of income. On the other hand, it benefits society by delivering social services and improving existing services for those living in rural areas by drawing on agricultural and rural resources in the broadest sense.

2.2

Although social farming practices in Europe share similarities in being closely related to traditional rural economy activities and taking place on the farm (organic farms, labour-intensive farms, high degree of multifunctionality, local outreach, diversification and increased flexibility), there are also many differences between countries given their history, approaches and focus. Although approaches vary, there are essentially three main ones:

2.3

Their focus is also different: in Italy and France, social farming is mostly connected with the social and healthcare sector; in the Netherlands it is closer to the health system; in Flanders it is nearer to agriculture and in Germany, Great Britain, Ireland and Slovenia it lies somewhere between the social/health and health sectors.

2.4

Financing patterns differ from country to country:

In reality, however, funding methods are often more diverse and mixed.

2.5

Social farming can take a number of forms. It may involve privately run farm businesses for which it provides an alternative source of income while still producing for the market; it may also involve social enterprises or cooperatives, associations and foundations – i.e., non-profit organisations. In other instances social farming – while taking place on farms – is carried out by public bodies or agencies in the health sector.

3.1

Social farming includes a broad range of different practices and so is not easy to define. Nevertheless, a definition is needed at European level in order to identify the operations that comprise it and to define a framework and criteria – including quality criteria – that these must meet in order to benefit from support under the various policies. However, this definition must not be too narrow so as not to set in stone a situation that is constantly evolving. It must instead supply a framework that maintains the flexibility needed to encompass social farming's multitude of activities and bottom-up approach.

3.2

Even though social farming comprises a very wide range of activities, they always have two elements in common: a) the activities take place on a farm and b) they are designed for people who – either temporarily or permanently – have specific needs, including educational needs. As a result, social farming contributes to the well-being of individuals and helps them thrive, but it also contributes to the development of rural regions and better interaction between town and country.

3.3

Social farming could thus be provisionally defined as a cluster of activities that use agricultural resources – both animal and plant – to generate social services in rural or semi-rural areas, such as rehabilitation, therapy, sheltered jobs, lifelong learning and other activities contributing to social integration (according to the definition used in COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology) Action 866 – Green Care). In this sense, it is about – among other things – making farms places where people with particular needs can take part in daily farming routines as a way of furthering their development, making progress and improving their well-being.

3.4

There are currently four main areas of social farming:

4.1

Through therapy, work and social inclusion, or education, social farming undoubtedly delivers high-value public services and contributes to sustainable development. Moreover, by virtue of the diversification of activities that it generates and the underlying dynamic, it can have a siseable impact on local development.

4.2

Many instances of social farming have come about through a bottom-up process, creating local networks that enable a global development of geographical areas. This is why social farming is in line with the OECD's ‘New Rural Paradigm’ publication (2006) and explicitly mentioned in the ‘Rural Policy Reviews’ concerning the OECD countries (such as Italy). It was also examined at the OECD Rural Development Conference in Quebec (2009). It is worth pointing out here that some social farming initiatives are funded by 2007-2013 rural development policies (Axes III and IV of the Leader programme) and Social Fund social inclusion measures.

4.3

Awareness of the potential of social farming is growing at every level and farmer organisations, local communities, and health and social institutions are taking a fresh look at it. However, only certain countries (France, Italy and the Netherlands) have put sector regulations in place, either at the national or regional level. Moreover, the absence of any linkage between the various policies and/or institutions involved in social farming is evident everywhere.

Nevertheless, its practitioners are beginning to band together to pool experience and the crucial role of spontaneous networks of social farmers has to be recognised.

4.4

In recent years, the European Commission has launched a number of initiatives – such as COST Action 866 – Green Care and the SoFar project (an initiative funded by the European Commission within the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development) – to support these activities; an initiative launched in December 2009 within the European Network for Rural Development brought together seven Member States to examine the opportunities and obstacles in national and regional rural development plans cofunded by the EAFRD. A position paper on social farming was drafted by Germany (Prof. Thomas VAN ELSEN) in 2008 as part of the SoFar project and updated in 2009.

5.1.1

In view of the public goods that it produces and its contribution to sustainable development, social farming should be encouraged and supported by the EU institutions and by governments. This includes putting in place an appropriate and conducive regulatory framework at the different levels, recognising social farming's added value and improving its governance, as well as establishing a conducive environment and fruitful cooperation between different policy areas and administrations (health/social/farming/employment) at European, national, regional and local level. Targeted support from public authorities and an integrated deployment of structural funds to underpin social farming are also desirable, as are the promotion and support of interdisciplinary research and the bolstering of communication and exchange of experience.

5.1.2

In putting in place a regulatory framework, particular attention should be devoted to the quality of social farming and setting out general criteria, including quality criteria, that operations must meet. Likewise, the necessary measures should be put in place to ensure appropriate monitoring of social farming operations.

5.1.3

In addition, a permanent organisational structure, created by the European Commission and involving all the relevant directorates-general, could be useful in encouraging, monitoring and coordinating the development of social farming in Europe. Similar arrangements could be put in place in the Member States.

5.3.1

The cooperation at European level begun by SoFar and the COST Action 866 – Green Care project in farming should be promoted and developed. The production and exchange of scientific, professional and practical data across Europe is very important.

Social farming needs the support of more detailed research in the areas of therapy and medicine, in social work in farming and in farming and training. This research must closely engage with work on the ground. Positive empirical results obtained in therapies with plants and animals must be validated by rigorous scientific analyses in order to secure acknowledgement from the medical community. Lessons drawn from experience regarding the efficacy of integration of people in the daily and yearly routine of work on the farm must be documented and fed into further developments in social farming.

5.3.2

Interdisciplinary research that analyses the impact and the benefits of social farming from various perspectives (social, economic, health, individual, etc.), ensures the transfer of knowledge gained from experience and involves people on the ground can generate innovative ideas and reinforce their entrenchment in social farming. Scientific support for pilot projects can facilitate the extension of models based on individual businesses or cooperatives across a whole region. Interdisciplinary studies and research should be embarked upon to analyse the impact of social farming in terms of possible savings for health insurance schemes and improvement to the health and well-being of recipients of its services. Some countries, including the Netherlands, have already conducted studies into these aspects.

5.3.3

This research could take place within the Horizon 2020 (2014-2020) framework programme, since this takes on board the social facets of research and innovation. Horizon 2020 support and coordination for social farming is highly desirable, since the programme could facilitate meetings and communication between researchers in various disciplines related to this kind of farming.

5.5.1

Innovative projects in social farming are often developed in isolation, without any awareness of – or swapping of experience with – similar projects. It is vital, however, to put in place and strengthen social farming networks so they can pool experience, help make projects known and promote best practices. A first step in this direction has been taken in the ambit of the European Network for Rural Development. This type of network should be bolstered.

5.5.2

Cooperation should similarly be promoted, as should joint publications and an internet presence.

5.5.3

It would also be good to work towards a joint representation of social farming interests at the political level and to promote the establishment of an umbrella organisation at European level. Such an organisation, which would include civil society, could make it easier for social farming practitioners to compare notes and help them both technically and administratively, while also making sure that farming interests are championed at the political level. Farming organisations have an important role to play here.

5.5.4

All of this could be planned and implemented under the new 2014-2020 rural development policy and be based in particular on the European Network for Rural Development and the Member States' rural development networks, so that the social farming initiative mentioned above would be expanded to include other Member States.

5.6.1

Social farming has benefited from some support under current rural development policy, especially under Axis 3 (diversification) and Axis 4 (Leader) and under the ‘social inclusion’ axis of the ESF. The recognition of social farming as an element of rural economy development should enable it to benefit from all the actions promoted and funded by the European structural funds (EAFRD, ESF and ERDF) and so access new sources of financing.

5.6.2

Even if the Commission proposals for the next programming period offer a number of new prospects – in the sense that the fight against poverty, social inclusion and the diversification of farming activities are mentioned as explicit goals of this policy (and ones which can be ideally combined in social farming) –, it would still appear necessary to give social farming even more support by stressing its role in both the future programming period and the partnership contract. To this end, the EU and the Member States should coordinate recourse to the different policies relevant to social farming. The EESC thinks that the Member States and the various authorities (national and EU) tasked with and responsible for the management of EU funds should work more closely together in order to remove barriers to access to structural funds and to facilitate this access for those in the front line.

5.6.3

In the new programming framework social farming is eligible for funding from several funds – and over several years. It is possible under the Common Strategic Framework to combine the different funds in a multiple financing strategy. Member States should be invited to refer to social farming in their programming and to draft specific programmes that will enable it to benefit more from the various structural funds. It really is crucially important, therefore, to convince national and local authorities to make the most of these possibilities.

Given its multidimensional and multipurpose nature, social farming – and those involved in it – could benefit hugely from a truly integrated approach that facilitates and better coordinates recourse to various funds and the associated procedures and measures.

5.6.4

To achieve this, it could be very useful to put in place a communications policy for the rural development sphere addressed to the Member States that could also include monitoring and reports. Another possibility would be to envisage a thematic sub-programme under Article 8 or to bolster Leader projects dealing with social farming.

5.6.5

Finally, the various directorates-general should step up their collaboration in order to give social farming easier access to all the structural funds by removing the difficulties that have so far prevented farmers from accessing regional policies.

15.2.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/49

1.1

This opinion relates to passenger transport by rail. It has been written and should be read in the light of the objectives set out in the Lisbon Treaty, namely in Article 14 and Protocol No 26, regarding Services of General Interest. It follows on from the recommendations made in the transport white paper, which reiterated the need to meet greenhouse gas reduction targets and secure sustainable, environmentally-sound mobility.

1.2

Looking beyond whether the mobility objectives required of operators are being met, and assessing the relevant rights and obligations of stakeholders, this opinion aims therefore to address the issue of the accessibility for the European public of rail transport services of general interest in the European Union, and the quality of that transport.

1.3

Since the quality of rail transport services is a necessary condition for the development of this mode of transport but is not in itself sufficient, the EESC considers that there is need to improve performance in order to make rail services more attractive, by making a factual observation of the various contributing factors.

1.4

The EESC calls for investment and maintenance loans for infrastructure to be subject to multi-annual planning and for funding provisions to be spread over a number of years. Consideration must also be given to land-use planning, to the need to keep infrastructure available and to the funds that can be deployed in the short and medium term.

1.5

The EESC also calls on Community, national and regional authorities to reformulate financing conditions for the various types of infrastructure, while upholding the principles of subsidiarity, with the aim of bolstering solidarity between the regions. To this end, it recommends redirecting transport funds allocated under regional policy, as this could provide a strong leverage effect in terms of spatial planning.

1.6

The EESC calls for an independent EU-level body to conduct a user satisfaction survey based on a factual assessment (punctuality, frequency, pricing, cleanliness, accessibility, etc.). This evaluation should be conducted using a methodology set by a steering committee that involves all the parties concerned (users, organising authorities, operators, employees, etc.) and that is able to perform a monitoring role.

1.7

The EESC is concerned by the European Commission's plan to revise Regulation 1370/2007/EC (on public passenger transport services by rail and by road), which was the product of a difficult compromise at institutional level. It notes in particular that this regulation gives Member States broad organisational scope, while upholding the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity, and that the balance it strikes should be assessed in the light of experience, as stated in its Article 8(2).

1.8

With regard to the provisions of Regulation 1371/2007/EC and possibilities for future developments, the EESC calls on the European Commission to study the following potential areas for improvement:

1.9

Furthermore, the EESC calls on the European Commission and on Member States to conduct a joint study into the following areas for improvement:

1.10

Lastly, with regard to subsidiarity, the EESC calls on the Member States to look into the following areas for improvement:

2.1.1

Gauging passenger satisfaction and arriving at a common position is made all the more difficult by the fact that it is the companies concerned that hold the basic information for analysis, setting their own service quality standards and monitoring their own performance accordingly (Article 28 of Regulation 1371/2007/EC). The same applies to commitments made in relation to punctuality, frequency, cleanliness, customer reception, information, and pricing, to give just a few examples.

2.1.2

Many passengers experiencing rail service problems complain of the multiple factors to blame for disruptions, unpredictable services with no immediate possibility of knowing what is happening in real time and a general lack of information when problems arise. They have the impression that the situation is continuing to worsen in individual Member States. Rail service operators that offer the right to compensation under Regulation 1371/2007/EC do not make it easy for passengers to access these measures.

2.1.3

When it comes to rail services subject to public service obligations, which account for the vast majority of day to day transport, there are many examples that have required the intervention of transport authorities, or competent authorities, to maintain services at the necessary level.

2.1.4

The proliferation of services provided by different players, without any operational connection or coherence between them, in an organisational environment that has undergone major structural changes and that lacks stability and transparency, has resulted in local operators responding to situations without immediate access to real-time information, leading to problems and thus to passenger dissatisfaction. In the light of these observations, there is a need to take stock of the situation in the sector in each Member State so as to pinpoint potential areas for improvement.

—

difficulty accessing information, faulty or ill-suited information display systems,

—

unclear or opaque pricing,

—

impossibility of planning journeys far enough ahead of departure dates owing to advance booking limits,

—

problems relating to over-booking,

—

ill-suited waiting areas in trains and stations and ill-suited platforms (crowded waiting areas), unhygienic facilities, or lack of toilets,

—

poor disabled access to platforms, stations, toilet facilities, trains, excessive pre-booking requirement for assistance from specialised services (48 hours), or overly strict load criteria (total weight),

—

lack of security on trains and in stations,

—

late provision of equipment, failure to take account of platform changes when making connections,

—

two trains leaving within a few minutes of each other from the same platform, even when there are many unused platforms,

—

insufficient luggage space,

—

failure to take account of multi-modal transport options, (difficulties in coping with bicycles, poor or zero organisation and management of connections with other modes of transport, lack of information or integrated pricing and service arrangements),

—

poor punctuality, inadequate frequency of services, train cancellations with no prior warning,

—

poor passenger care in the event of a disruption, compensation insufficient or refused,

—

removal or rescheduling of services with no prior consultation of users, their representatives, or the local authorities concerned (e.g. removal of night trains, timetable changes, changes in frequency, etc.),

—

increase in time taken between two stops,

—

poor accessibility of sales and distribution circuits.

—

bad weather: failure to put technical equipment or procedures in place in advance so as to improve the quality of the service provided,

—

equipment problems: consequences of poor monitoring of equipment life-cycles and life-spans and failure to address obsolescence and lack of planning and long-term budgeting of maintenance,

—

human problems: suicides, associated with access to vulnerable infrastructure; an issue whose causes and effects the EESC does not wish to discuss in this opinion.

—

high level of safety for people and transport,

—

staff professionalism,

—

potential contribution of railways to spatial planning and regional development.

3.1

The European Commission has upheld the Treaty principles of the free movement of people and sustainable mobility. Rail is acknowledged as a high performance mode of mass public transport, capable of meeting the demands of the relevant authorities, environmentally sound and utilising infrastructure that is still very present, well-maintained or easy to restore to use.

3.2

The EU has mapped out a European network of international routes. Extremely large investments have been and will continue to be made to complete this network. This Community initiative must however be able to count on Member States making similar investment choices, so as to enable European passengers to travel door to door without too many changes in mode of transport.

3.3

The examination of regional services and their planning has nevertheless given rise to arbitrary strategic choices, failing to give consideration to the need to design transport systems with fewer of the changes breaking up a journey that have a detrimental effect on public transport use.

3.4

Although, increasingly, the prior examination of such weighty choices is now built into the deliberations of the authorities responsible, they are nevertheless faced with issues relating to unpredictable and unstable medium- and long-term financing.

3.5

After all, transport represents a considerable burden on national and regional budgets. The public are aware of this situation, especially in the current crisis, and they would like to see real transparency and reliable information. They still have concerns about the lack of additional expertise offering a second opinion on new large-scale projects. As the EESC noted in its opinion TEN/479, dialogue between the authorities and civil society is extremely important, particularly where investment in transport infrastructure projects is concerned.

4.1

This own-initiative opinion follows on from previous opinions:

4.2

The commitment to establishing a European transport network has meant that the bulk of European funding has naturally gone to mainline railways. This trend has been accompanied by choices favouring the construction of high-speed lines, sometimes at the expense of the upgrading of other existing lines, owing to budget cuts. Public authorities must aim to give a greater role to rail transport within public transport supply, possibly even making it, in some cases, the backbone of a coherent multi-modal system. There is a case here for merging European funds for the benefit of a coherent sustainable mobility policy (allocation of DG Regio's transport funds).

4.3

The Committee therefore calls for an objective evaluation of the current rail transport situation (advantages/disadvantages). The Commission should conduct this evaluation openly, by providing the requisite information and asking members of the public to say what they expect from rail services, a subject that concerns the overwhelming majority of people (commuting, occasional business trips, family visits, holidays, etc).

5.1

At this time of crisis, with shrinking public resources available, a policy of recovery based on a strategy of sustainable development would have a positive impact on employment and job quality, helping to meet modal shift objectives and improve access to transport services of general interest for Europeans. The EESC notes therefore that large-scale works must tie in with this global strategy.

5.2

The EESC would like to point out that if services deteriorate as a result of changes to trains or timetables, this can cause people to move house or change job. This forced mobility is not the kind of mobility our fellow Europeans want to see. The EESC emphasises that change often results in a shift in transport use (to car or plane) running counter to transport policy objectives.

5.3

The EESC would like the European Commission to consider and design a European programme to re-develop rail networks and/or support future programmes in the Member States. A European programme aimed at meeting the expectations of rail passengers could easily be built into the European strategies (Sustainable Development Strategy, Horizon 2020, etc.). A dialogue on transport policy with civil society would be very much appreciated by ordinary Europeans. The redirection of transport funds from regional policy could provide the leverage necessary for this strategy.

15.2.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/53

1.1

The right to housing is an international obligation incumbent on the Member States, which the European Union has a duty to take into account. Indeed, this right is recognised in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which lays down that ‘Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services’. The Council of Europe's revised Social Charter states that ‘With a view to ensuring the effective exercise of the right to housing, the Parties undertake to take measures designed to promote access to housing of an adequate standard, to prevent and reduce homelessness with a view to its gradual elimination and to make the price of housing accessible to those without adequate resources’. The right to housing is incorporated into many Member States' constitutions and/or is covered by specific laws regarding its proper implementation.

1.2

The European Union's own Charter of Fundamental Rights stipulates that ‘In order to combat social exclusion and poverty, the Union recognises and respects the right to social and housing assistance so as to ensure a decent existence for all those who lack sufficient resources, in accordance with the rules laid down by Community law and national laws and practices’.

1.3

In most Member States, these rights are implemented by means of a service of general economic interest (SGEI), in line with Article 36 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, according to which ‘The Union recognises and respects access to services of general economic interest as provided for in national laws and practices, in accordance with the Treaty establishing the European Community, in order to promote the social and territorial cohesion of the Union’.

1.4

Pursuant to Article 106(2) of the TFEU, and where universal access to housing is classified as an SGEI, undertakings entrusted with the operation of such services are only subject to Community competition rules and to the prohibition and monitoring of State aid, in so far as the application of such rules does not obstruct the performance, in law or in fact, of the particular tasks assigned to them by national, regional or local authorities. The Commission's decision of 20 December 2011 (the SGEI decision) restricts provision of subsidised social housing to people who are disadvantaged or socially less advantaged groups which, due to solvability constraints are unable to obtain housing at market conditions.

1.5

Under the terms of Protocol No 26 annexed to the Treaty of Lisbon, the primary responsibility for commissioning, providing, financing and organising SGEIs falls to the Member States and their national, regional and local authorities, which have wide discretion in the matter and the freedom of democratic choice.

1.6

The same protocol requires, among other things, that Member States ensure a high level of affordability for their SGEIs and promote universal access to them.

1.7

Implementation of the right to housing determines that of other fundamental rights such as the right to human dignity, the protection of private, home and family life, water, health, energy, etc. Having decent housing is essential if an individual is to be able to thrive and integrate into society.

1.8

The effectiveness of the right to housing usually and essentially depends on the availability of an adequate housing supply. The right to housing often simply means a right to access decent and affordable housing.

1.9

Guaranteeing access to housing rarely implies any obligation on the public authorities to provide housing to anyone requesting it. The State, or the public authority responsible, has a political duty to improve access to housing for everyone, by means of its policies and programmes.

1.10

Member States intervene - in highly differing ways and to highly differing degrees - in the workings of their housing markets in the context of enacting this fundamental right, to ensure that every citizen is able to access decent and affordable housing. Appropriate involvement of future occupants in the building of social housing contributes both to the affordability of this form of housing and to the employment prospects of those concerned.

1.11

In this regard, housing is a good (whether public or under trusteeship) for which the Member States set – in line with their own policy choices and collective preferences - minimum standards of fitness for habitation and comfort, specific urban planning and construction rules and maximum effort rates. Some States such as Germany manage increases in housing prices and even establish mechanisms for providing social assistance or tax support to help out with what is the main item of essential household expenditure.

2.1

The fact cannot be avoided that despite these provisions, access to decent housing is no longer affordable for many EU citizens. In 2010, despite the undertaking in the revised Council of Europe Social Charter to prevent and reduce homelessness with a view to its gradual elimination, 5,7 % of Europe’s population suffered from housing deprivation (Source: Europe Information Service S.A.), 17,86 % lived in overcrowded or unfit accommodation, and for 10,10 % of households, housing costs absorbed more than 40 % of their disposable income.

2.2

Many Member States have also chosen to define and organise a parallel supply of what is known as ‘social housing’ to complement the spontaneous supply on the private market. This social housing is provided on specific conditions, primarily by not-for-profit agencies created especially for this purpose, but also by private investors that are natural or legal persons entrusted with this task, subsidised by national, regional or local authorities.

2.3

All Member States except Greece have a stock of social housing. 25 million European households thus occupy social housing for which conditions for local and regional planning, access and prices are set directly by the public authorities in the Member States.

2.4

This parallel housing supply contributes in particular to limiting the magnitude of property market cycles and housing bubbles, due to its stability and its price management. As a result, Member States that have a substantial stock of social housing have not fallen victim to property bubbles and to the far-reaching consequences of such phenomena.

2.5

Social housing is one way in which the public authorities can respond to the housing market's failure to meet all housing needs and ensure universal access to decent housing at an affordable price/rent. Appropriate involvement of future occupants in the building of social housing makes such housing more affordable, improves occupiers' attitude towards the housing provided and allows them to acquire or improve working habits and skills, thus increasing their chances in the job market.

2.6

The market's failure to meet all housing needs does not only affect individuals who simply have no access to housing but also those living in housing that is unhealthy, unfit or over-occupied, and those spending the lion's share of their income on rent or mortgage repayments.

2.7

These housing needs vary considerably from one Member State to another and within Member States, between countries in western and eastern Europe, between rural and urban areas and, within urban areas, between city centres and suburbs.

2.8

The EU Member States make use of three different approaches

3.1

Given the failure of market forces alone to ensure decent housing for everyone, under Community law, social housing can be viewed as a service of general economic interest (SGEI), provided that it is classified as such by the Member State concerned and can consequently receive public subsidies or compensation.

3.2

Protocol No 26 annexed to the Lisbon Treaty confirms the essential role and the wide discretion of national, regional and local authorities in providing, commissioning and organising services of general economic interest as closely as possible to the needs of the users. Social housing is subject to public service obligations set by national, regional or local government with regard in particular to planning, pricing and criteria for eligibility and tenancy. This protocol requires Member States to ensure, among other things, that SGEI demonstrate a high level of affordability and equal treatment and promote universal access and user rights.

3.3

If classified as a SGEI, social housing is covered by the provisions of Articles 14 and 106(2) TFEU and its Protocol No 26, which establishes in particular the principle of collective social and cultural preferences and of meeting needs as expressed locally with regard to the Member States' definitions of SGEI. These provisions prioritise fulfilment of the missions assigned to social housing over the rules of competition and the internal market, provided that certain conditions defined in the SGEI decision, as described in point 3.6 below, are met.

3.4

Application of these provisions under the TFEU has led the Commission to exempt state aid granted to social housing agencies from the requirement for prior notification.

3.5

Member States' classification of social housing as a SGEI is subject only to the European Commission checking for obvious errors, under the auspices of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

3.6

In this area, because public service is social in nature, the European Commission considers that social housing should be defined with direct reference to people who are disadvantaged or to socially less advantaged groups rather than to reflect the diversity of housing needs as expressed on local housing markets. This is a permanent bone of contention between the Commission and some Member States, social housing agencies and social housing tenants' representatives, some of which disagree with the Commission’s position, whilst others endorse it.

4.1

The way the European Commission makes decisions in checking obvious errors in Member States' classification of social housing as a service of general economic interest has led to changes in some Member States' policy choices for organising and financing social housing and generated legal disputes.

4.2

In the Netherlands, implementation of this decision-making method has led to nearly 400 000 households being excluded from access to social housing, as they are deemed too well-off - according to the European Commission - to access social housing. In reality, however, they are not sufficiently well-off to access housing under market conditions.

4.3

In Sweden, the refusal to apply this decision-making method has led to the public authorities excluding social housing from the scope of services of general economic interest, which jeopardises its funding in the form of public service compensation that is the only form compatible with the principle of prohibiting State aid under the Treaty.

4.4

In France, the Union nationale de la propriété immobilière [national association of property owners] has filed a complaint with the European Commission against the French government, primarily on the grounds that the income ceilings for accessing social housing are too high and would make it impossible to comply with the decision-making practices established by the Commission.

4.5

The proposed directives on public procurement and on concessions point towards submitting cooperation among social housing agencies covered by the concepts of social enterprises and public bodies to the provisions of these directives and to calls for tenders. By extending case-law relating to cooperation between public authorities to cover all contracting authorities, the European Commission is also helping to undermine the practices of cooperation and pooling of resources needed to modernise public housing, to ensure its proper management and to strengthen its local consolidation.

4.6

These practical examples demonstrate the direct impact of European Union law on the conditions for defining, organising and financing social housing by the Member States and call for a legal framework favourable to the development of social housing in the European Union.

4.7

Because of its numerous different aspects and its major presence in the European Union, social housing plays a key role in implementing the Europe 2020 strategy. It contributes actively to achieving the goal of making the EU a smart, sustainable and inclusive economy by helping to ensure high levels of employment, productivity, social inclusion and cohesion and makes an active contribution to combating climate change, while at the same time fighting against energy poverty.

4.8

While each Member State should adopt its own national targets in each of these areas, including building up a supply of social housing, practical, European-level measures should underpin the Europe 2020 strategy, not least in the field of social housing.

5.1

Social housing actively contributes to achieving a number of the Europe 2020 strategy's goals, regarding support for the strategy to boost the growth and attractiveness of regions, the investment generated and the creation of jobs that cannot be relocated, combating poverty and social exclusion and the commitment to the fight against climate change and energy poverty.

5.2

The European Union is the world's second largest producer of social housing, following China, which has made social housing a policy to support economic and urban growth and to mitigate housing bubbles in the private sector.

5.3

Social housing is fully eligible for the structural funds for the 2014-2020 period, as proposed by the European Commission, especially for renovations to improve energy efficiency and for promoting renewable energy, in the field of integrated measures for sustainable urban development and for combating exclusion from access to housing for marginalised communities and to affordable and high-quality social services.

5.4

Social housing offers a practical and effective response to the desire of the Commission and Council to strengthen economic governance of the euro area and in particular to monitor housing bubbles and the devastating effects these have on social and macroeconomic balances. Developing a parallel social housing supply helps limit the magnitude of these housing market cycles and bubbles.

5.5

If budgetary constraints or an excessively restrictive interpretation of the definition of people who are disadvantaged or of socially less advantaged groups mean that a Member State's social housing supply is no longer able to meet the real needs of its citizens, as stipulated by its international commitments on the right to housing, universal access to decent and affordable housing will only be achievable through major public authority intervention in the private market.

6.1

Social housing has to deal with the new climate situation and the need to improve the energy efficiency of its existing stock and new supply. Energy investment policies implemented by social housing agencies should receive public support, as they help combat climate change, combat energy poverty in low-income households and promote local employment and regional economic development. Cohesion policy can contribute actively to this process and provide leverage to harness additional financing from other sources.

6.2

Population ageing is also a major issue that will require adapting social housing to meet the needs of elderly and dependent people and to the development of new integrated services making it possible for dependent people to stay in their own homes and to access social housing.

6.3

The increasingly precarious situation of households living in and/or applying for social housing strengthens the need for a social mix and quality in the supply of social housing at local level and for the development of integrated approaches to sustainable urban development covering the social, economic, urban and environmental aspects, as put forward in the European Commission's draft ERDF Regulation.

7.1

The European Union must first provide a legal framework that supports the development of social housing in the Member States, both in terms of financing this supply and the arrangements for defining and operating such housing. This favourable legal framework can be broken down into monitoring obvious mistakes in classifying such supply as a service of general economic interest, the compatibility of state aid granted to social housing agencies, implementation of the provisions on public procurement and cooperation between social housing agencies but also the application of reduced VAT rates as it is a basic necessity.

7.2

The Commission should reconsider its decision-making practices for checking obvious mistakes in Member States' classification of social housing as a service of general economic interest, because they may not always reflect the specific needs of the sector. Member States should be given the discretion to set access conditions and prices for housing in a way that takes account of local needs and local preferences, as well as the real needs of disadvantaged citizens or socially less advantaged groups, in accordance with the provisions of Protocol No 26 on services of general interest.

7.3

The EESC welcomes the European Commission's decision to renew the exemption from the obligation to notify State aid in the form of public service compensations granted to social housing agencies and is pleased to note that the decision takes into account certain features, concerning in particular the length of terms of office and long-term investment.

7.4

The Committee appreciates the willingness expressed by the European Commission in a communication on social entrepreneurship, to promote an ecosystem conducive to the development of social enterprises in the EU, which would also cover access to housing, and to fostering the establishment of socially-inclusive investment funds. It emphasises the need to uphold the role of the social partners in Member States where they are traditionally involved in the management of social housing.

7.5

The Commission, Parliament and the Council should include in the proposed directives on public procurement and concessions, cooperation between social housing agencies in their capacity as public bodies and social enterprises, by incorporating it into the sphere of public-public cooperation, in light of the public interest role of these bodies and their public or private participation.

7.6

The European Commission should reconsider its proposals on the future common VAT system by maintaining the option for Member States to apply reduced rates for the construction and renovation of social housing by public, social and private providers alike, as it is a basic necessity of a local nature that does not affect trade between Member States or the smooth operation of the internal market.

7.7

The EU should also support Member States in increasing the supply of social housing and in modernising it to meet the new demographic, social and climate-related challenges and thereby actively contribute to achieving the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy.

7.8

The EESC therefore welcomes the Commission proposal on the ERDF and ESF regulations, which consist of making the following areas eligible for the 2014-2020 Structural Funds: priority investments to finance energy-efficient renovation of social housing, integrated measures to ensure sustainable urban development, access to high-quality and affordable social housing for marginalised communities and support for social enterprises. The EESC would point out that the aim is to be able to offer high-quality social housing to anyone in need of it.

7.9

The EESC considers that such measures are necessary and should accompany the provisions of the European Commission's proposed directive on energy efficiency, which requires social housing agencies to improve the energy efficiency of 4 % of the social housing stock each year. This type of obligation must be flanked by specific measures for financing investment, through the ERDF in particular but also by setting up an investment fund at the European level.

7.10

The European Parliament and the Council should adopt the Commission's proposals for the ERDF and ESF regulations, which contribute to implementing the Europe 2020 strategy and for the first time recognise – in the Structural Funds regulations – housing's priority role in Member States' investment policies in the framework of cohesion policy for 2014-2020.

7.11

The regulation of housing markets in the Member States is an important issue for the stability of the euro area, given the macroeconomic and social impact of housing bubbles. Social housing helps to stabilise housing markets and regulate property cycles.

7.12

The EESC welcomes the Commission's proposal to establish stronger macroeconomic surveillance of the euro area and to include a chapter on the macroeconomic effects of housing bubbles. The Committee considers that this stronger surveillance mechanism should be accompanied by measures to promote mechanisms for the smart regulation of housing markets in Member States and for developing a supply of social and private housing to stabilise and mitigate property cycles, in line with the principles of sustainable urban development.

7.13

The EESC believes that a discussion should be opened on European reserves to stabilise the funding of social housing, which is part of the European social model. The idea of a capped European savings account for social housing should be considered. This account could be opened online with the EIB, which would manage the funds. Such a procedure would perform the two-fold task of stabilising investment in social housing and of giving account holders a strong sense of citizenship.

15.2.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/59

1.1

The Committee calls on the Commission to involve it in the ongoing activities of the various working groups that were set up as part of the third pillar, people-to-people dialogue; as the institutional platform for civil dialogue at EU level, the Committee has amassed a great deal of know-how and experience that it could bring to bear in the development of such dialogue with China. Back in 1999, the Committee pointed out that ‘culture shapes the areas in which civil society operates’ (1) and thus considers culture, within the broad definition that it has adopted, as a cross-cutting issue. With this approach, it is very well placed, within its areas of competence, to assist and support the soft power policies and intercultural diplomacy of the EU and China in their dialogue.

1.2

In the first instance, the people-to-people initiatives should, where possible, be strengthened at grass roots level through more student exchanges, possibly specific trainee programmes, and partnerships between towns and cities.

1.3

Attention should be given to developing cultural tourism. Experience has shown that cultural tourism not only boosts the economy, but can also make a lasting contribution to enhancing mutual understanding.