|
7.3.2019 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 86/84 |
Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions on the ‘European Social Fund Plus’
(2019/C 86/07)
|
I. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS
Amendment 1
Preamble, first citation
|
Text proposed by the European Commission |
CoR amendment |
|
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 46(d), Article 149, Article 153(2)(a), Article 164, Article 168(5), Article 175(3) and Article 349 thereof, |
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 9, Article 46(d), Article 149, Article 153(2)(a), Article 164, Article 168(5), Article 174, Article 175(3) and Article 349 thereof, |
Reason
Given the scope of the ESF+ it seems appropriate to mention Article 9 TFEU. More emphasis should be placed, moreover, on the regional policy objective, in line with Article 4(2) of the proposal for a Common Provisions Regulation, which states that the ESF+ will contribute to the EU’s efforts to strengthen its economic, social and territorial cohesion.
Amendment 2
Preamble, Add new citation after the fifth citation
|
Text proposed by the European Commission |
CoR amendment |
|
|
having regard to the Interinstitutional Proclamation on the European Pillar of Social Rights (2017/C 428/09), |
Amendment 3
Recital 1
|
Text proposed by the European Commission |
CoR amendment |
||||
|
|
Reason
More emphasis needs to be placed on the regional policy objective, without undermining efforts to achieve the European Pillar of Social Rights.
Amendment 4
Recital 2
|
Text proposed by the European Commission |
CoR amendment |
||||
|
|
Amendment 5
Recital 5
|
Text proposed by the European Commission |
CoR amendment |
||||
|
|
Reason
It is important to use technology-neutral terminology that is already current.
Amendment 6
Recital 6
|
Text proposed by the European Commission |
CoR amendment |
||||
|
|
Amendment 7
Recital 8
|
Text proposed by the European Commission |
CoR amendment |
||||
|
|
Reason
A reference to the ‘characteristics of the actions’ is included in order to increase requirements for simplification in the case of actions that affect the most deprived people. The simplification of procedures and costs reinforces the achievement of policy objectives as it focuses energy on the efficiency of measures, thus facilitating small beneficiaries’ access to the funds.
Amendment 8
New recital after recital 8
|
Text proposed by the European Commission |
CoR amendment |
||
|
|
|
Reason
Given the need to raise awareness about the increasingly local and regional focus/approach of the ESF+ beyond 2020, a clear reference should be made to community-led local development.
Amendment 9
Recital 14
|
Text proposed by the European Commission |
CoR amendment |
||||
|
|
Reason
The territorial dimension of the ESF must be safeguarded.
Amendment 10
Recital 15
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
CoR amendment |
||||
|
|
Reason
In accordance with Recital 1, the ESF+ should support investments in people and systems in the policy areas of employment, education and social inclusion — it is not necessary to make support in the area of education dependent on the issue of social inclusion.
Amendment 11
Recital 18
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
CoR amendment |
||||
|
|
Reason
It is necessary to highlight the key role of local and regional authorities in contributing to economic, social and territorial cohesion.
Amendment 12
Recital 19
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
CoR amendment |
||||
|
|
Reason
It is necessary to highlight the key role of local and regional authorities in contributing to economic, social and territorial cohesion.
Amendment 13
Recital 20
|
Text proposed by the European Commission |
CoR amendment |
||||
|
|
Reason
It is necessary to avoid any kind of overlap between the ESF+ and the Asylum and Migration Fund so that the actions financed by them are not only complementary but also coordinated.
Amendment 14
Recital 21
|
Text proposed by the European Commission |
CoR amendment |
||||
|
|
Reason
The link between the ESF+ funding and the European Semester should take into account not only the social scoreboard, but also national reports that are prepared following close consultation between the Commission and the Member States, and which need to be prepared following consultation with local and regional authorities. Given the close link between the ESF+ and the patterns of employment included in the European Semester, the ESF+ can act as a financing instrument for the European Semester as regards those actions that fall within the scope of one of the fund’s objectives.
Amendment 15
New Recital after Recital 22
|
Text proposed by the European Commission |
CoR amendment |
||
|
|
|
Amendment 16
Recital 23
|
Text proposed by the European Commission |
CoR amendment |
||||
|
|
Reason
It is necessary to highlight the key role of local and regional authorities in contributing to economic, social and territorial cohesion. Furthermore, although various Member States are affected by high rates of youth unemployment and inactivity, rates at regional level may vary considerably within the same state. Calculations should therefore be made based on different regional situations and the allocation and implementation of resources should take place in the areas identified as being sensitive.
Amendment 17
Recital 24
|
Text proposed by the European Commission |
CoR amendment |
||||
|
|
Reason
The territorial approach underlying the ESF+ should also ensure close interaction between all levels of government and other bodies as provided for in Article 6 of the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR) in order to ensure coordination and complementarity.
Amendment 18
New Recital after Recital 25
|
Text proposed by the European Commission |
CoR amendment |
||
|
|
|
Amendment 19
Recital 26
|
Text proposed by the European Commission |
CoR amendment |
||||
|
|
Reason
It is necessary to highlight the key role of local and regional authorities in contributing to economic, social and territorial cohesion.
Amendment 20
Recital 28
|
Text proposed by the European Commission |
CoR amendment |
||||
|
|
Reason
It is necessary to highlight the key role of local and regional authorities in contributing to economic, social and territorial cohesion.
Amendment 21
Recital 30
|
Text proposed by the European Commission |
CoR amendment |
||||
|
|
Amendment 22
Recital 31
|
Text proposed by the European Commission |
CoR amendment |
||||
|
|
Reason
In order to help spread ideas that are feasible, transnational cooperation should not be confined to innovations improved by Member States; rather, it should be extended to trial runs of proven innovations in different cities.
Amendment 23
Add new Recital after Recital 31
|
Text proposed by the European Commission |
CoR amendment |
||
|
|
|
Amendment 24
Recital 32
|
Text proposed by the European Commission |
CoR amendment |
||||
|
|
Reason
It is necessary to highlight the key role of local and regional authorities in contributing to economic, social and territorial cohesion.
Amendment 25
Recital 36
|
Text proposed by the European Commission |
CoR amendment |
||||
|
|
Amendment 26
Recital 46
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
CoR amendment |
||||
|
|
Reason
Consistency with the opinion 2389/2018 on the Multiannual Financial Framework package for the years 2021-2027.
Amendment 27
Article 2(1) point (3)
|
Text proposed by the European Commission |
CoR amendment |
||||
|
|
Amendment 28
Article 2(1)
Add new point after point (7)
|
Text proposed by the European Commission |
CoR amendment |
|
|
‘cross-border partnerships’ in the employment and social innovation strand, means structures of cooperation between public employment services and social partners in border areas of at least two countries; |
Amendment 29
Article 2(1)(10)
|
Text proposed by the European Commission |
CoR amendment |
||||
|
|
Reason
Amendment of translation only affects the Spanish version of the text. It is considered more appropriate in the Spanish version to replace ‘entidad jurídica’ with ‘sujeto de derecho’ since from the legal point of view it seems contradictory to refer to a natural person as a legal entity.
Amendment 30
Article 2(1)(16)
|
Text proposed by the European Commission |
CoR amendment |
||||
|
|
Amendment 31
Article 2(1)(17)
|
Text proposed by the European Commission |
CoR amendment |
||||
|
|
Amendment 32
Article 3, first paragraph
|
Text proposed by the European Commission |
CoR amendment |
|
The ESF+ aims to support Member States to achieve high employment levels, fair social protection and a skilled and resilient workforce ready for the future world of work, in line with the principles set out in the European Pillar of Social Rights proclaimed by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on 17 November 2017. |
The ESF+ aims to support Member States , at their different central, regional and local levels, to achieve high employment levels, fair social protection and a skilled and resilient workforce ready for the future world of work, in line with the cohesion policy principles of reducing disparities and increasing economic, social and territorial cohesion as set out in Article 174 TFEU, with the principles set out in the European Pillar of Social Rights proclaimed by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on 17 November 2017 , and with the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals, taking into account the need to develop integrated measures reflecting specific subnational situations. |
Reason
It is necessary to highlight the key role of local and regional authorities in contributing to economic, social and territorial cohesion.
Amendment 33
Article 3, second paragraph
|
Text proposed by the European Commission |
CoR amendment |
|
The ESF+ shall support, complement and add value to the policies of the Member States to ensure equal opportunities, access to the labour market, fair working conditions, social protection and inclusion, and a high level of human health protection. |
The ESF+ shall support, complement and add value to the policies of the Member States and their subnational authorities to ensure equal opportunities, access to the labour market, fair working conditions, social protection and inclusion, and a high level of human health protection. |
Reason
It is necessary to highlight the key role of local and regional authorities in contributing to economic, social and territorial cohesion.
Amendment 34
Article 4(1) point (i)
|
Text proposed by the European Commission |
CoR amendment |
||||
|
|
Reason
A specific reference should be made to people with disabilities as well as to the encouragement of cross-border labour mobility, given the importance of these aspects for a more cohesive Europe from an economic, social and territorial point of view. Boosting employment should apply to all economic operators.
Amendment 35
Article 4(1) point (ii)
|
Text proposed by the European Commission |
CoR amendment |
||||
|
|
Reason
A specific reference should be made to improving the quality of all aspects of work, given its importance in achieving a more inclusive and cohesive Europe from an economic, social and territorial point of view.
Amendment 36
Article 4(1) point (iv)
|
Text proposed by the European Commission |
CoR amendment |
||||
|
|
Reason
It must remain possible to promote education and training opportunities to increase the innovative potential of a region and to improve job opportunities in science and industry. Funding for higher education is particularly important in achieving this.
Amendment 37
Article 4(1) point (v)
|
Text proposed by the European Commission |
CoR amendment |
||||
|
|
Reason
It must remain possible to promote education and training opportunities to increase the innovative potential of a region and to improve job opportunities in science and industry. Funding for higher education is particularly important in achieving this.
Amendment 38
Add new point after Article 4(1) point (xi)
|
Text proposed by the European Commission |
CoR amendment |
||
|
|
|
Reason
The aim is to bring back thematic objective 11 of the current ESIF programming period for the post-2020 period, given the delay in strengthening institutional capacities and local administrations.
Amendment 39
Article 4(2)(1)
|
Text proposed by the European Commission |
CoR amendment |
||||
|
|
Reason
Training for unemployed people is key in enabling them to find employment, and trainers should therefore be specialised if they are to achieve success.
Amendment 40
Article 5(2)
|
Text proposed by the European Commission |
CoR amendment |
|
2. The part of the financial envelope for the ESF+ strand under shared management under the Investment for Jobs and Growth goal shall be EUR 100 000 000 000 in current prices or EUR 88 646 194 590 in 2018 prices of which EUR 200 000 000 in current prices or EUR 175 000 000 in 2018 prices shall be allocated for transnational cooperation supporting innovative solutions as referred to in Article 23(i) and EUR 400 000 000 in current prices or EUR 376 928 934 in 2018 prices as additional funding to the outermost regions identified in Article 349 TFEU and the NUTS level 2 regions fulfilling the criteria laid down in Article 2 of Protocol No 6 to the 1994 Act of Accession. |
2. The part of the financial envelope for the ESF+ strand under shared management under the Investment for Jobs and Growth goal shall be EUR 100 000 000 000 in current prices or EUR 88 646 194 590 in 2018 prices of which EUR 200 000 000 in current prices or EUR 175 000 000 in 2018 prices shall be allocated for transnational cooperation supporting innovative solutions as referred to in Article 23(i) . Particular attention shall be paid to less-developed regions and other regions mentioned in the third paragraph of Article 174 TFEU when allocating funding, with the aim of contributing to economic, social and territorial cohesion. In addition, EUR 400 000 000 in current prices or EUR 376 928 934 in 2018 prices shall be earmarked as additional funding to the outermost regions identified in Article 349 TFEU and the NUTS level 2 regions fulfilling the criteria laid down in Article 2 of Protocol No 6 to the 1994 Act of Accession. |
Reason
As the ESF+ will contribute to EU action to strengthen economic, social and territorial cohesion, in accordance with Article 174 TFEU, particular attention should be paid to less-developed regions and other regions mentioned in the third paragraph of Article 174 TFEU when allocating funding, with the aim of contributing to economic, social and territorial cohesion.
Amendment 41
Article 5(5)
|
Text proposed by the European Commission |
CoR amendment |
|
5. The amounts referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 may also be used for technical and administrative assistance for the implementation of the programmes, such as preparatory, monitoring, control, audit and evaluation activities including corporate information technology systems. |
5. The amounts referred to in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 may also be used for technical and administrative assistance for the implementation of the programmes, such as preparatory, monitoring, control, audit and evaluation activities including corporate information technology systems. |
Reason
The shared management funds covered by paragraph 2 should be used to provide technical assistance.
Amendment 42
Article 7(1), first subparagraph
|
Text proposed by the European Commission |
CoR amendment |
|
1. Member States shall concentrate the ESF+ resources under shared management on interventions that address the challenges identified in their national reform programmes, in the European Semester as well as in the relevant country-specific recommendations adopted in accordance with Article 121(2) TFEU and Article 148(4) TFEU , and take into account principles and rights set out in the European Pillar of Social Rights . |
1. The Managing Authorities in the Member States , at national and regional level, shall — while taking account of the specific features of each region — allocate a sufficient amount of their ESF+ resources under shared management to interventions that promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and the rights established by the European Pillar of Social Rights and that address the challenges identified in their national reform programmes, in the European Semester as well as in the country reports and country-specific social recommendations adopted in accordance with Article 121(2) TFEU and Article 148(4) TFEU as well as and in line with the Paris Agreement and the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Member States may only create additional obligations on beneficiaries where these are justified to deliver towards the objectives of the ESF+ and their implementation. |
Reason
It is necessary to highlight the key role of local and regional authorities in contributing to economic, social and territorial cohesion.
Amendment 43
Article 7(1), second subparagraph
|
Text proposed by the European Commission |
CoR amendment |
|
Member States and, where appropriate the Commission, shall foster synergies and ensure coordination, complementarity and coherence between the ESF+ and other Union funds, programmes and instruments such as Erasmus, the Asylum and Migration Fund and the Reform Support Programme, including the Reform Delivery Tool and the Technical Support Instrument , both in the planning phase and during implementation. Member States and, where appropriate the Commission, shall optimise mechanisms for coordination to avoid duplication of effort and ensure close cooperation between those responsible for implementation to deliver coherent and streamlined support actions. |
Managing Authorities in the Member States at national and regional level, and, where appropriate the Commission, shall foster synergies and ensure coordination, complementarity and coherence between the ESF+ and other funds, in particular the European Regional Development Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, as well as Union programmes and instruments such as Erasmus, the Asylum and Migration Fund and the Reform Support Programme, both in the planning phase and during implementation , without prejudice to the objectives set in Articles 3 and 4 of the Sustainable Development Strategy. Member States and, where appropriate the Commission, shall optimise mechanisms for coordination to avoid duplication of effort and ensure close cooperation between those responsible for implementation to deliver coherent and streamlined support actions. |
Reason
It is necessary to highlight the key role of local and regional authorities in contributing to economic, social and territorial cohesion. On the other hand, it is not necessary to include a reference to coordination with these new instruments: the Reform Delivery Tool and the Technical Support Instrument. Coordination with the EFSI is needed and should be included in the text, taking into account the main objective of the ESF+. Moreover, a clear reference to the Sustainable Development Strategy is needed.
Amendment 44
Article 7(2)
|
Text proposed by the European Commission |
CoR amendment |
|
2. Member States shall allocate an appropriate amount of their ESF+ resources under shared management to address challenges identified in relevant country-specific recommendations adopted in accordance with Article 121(2) TFEU and Article 148(4) TFEU and in the European Semester falling within the scope of the ESF+ as set out in Article 4. |
2. Member States , in coordination with the regions and taking into account the distribution of competences for managing the different policies and funding needed, shall allocate an appropriate amount of their ESF+ resources under shared management to address challenges identified in relevant country-specific recommendations — while factoring in specific regional characteristics — that have been adopted in accordance with Article 121(2) TFEU and Article 148(4) TFEU and in the European Semester falling within the scope of the ESF+ as set out in Article 4 . The principles and rights established in the European Pillar of Social Rights and the objective of economic, social and territorial cohesion should also be taken into consideration . |
Reason
Meeting these requirements can only lead to greater economic and social cohesion for the European Union. Therefore, when dividing up the amounts to be allocated, respect should be ensured for regional and local authorities’ management capacities and areas of competence, with regard to the challenges that fall under their remit.
Amendment 45
Article 7(5)
|
Text proposed by the European Commission |
CoR amendment |
|
5. Member States having a rate of young people aged 15 to 29 not in employment, education or training above the Union average in 2019 on the basis of Eurostat data, shall allocate at least 10 % of their ESF+ resources under shared management for the years 2021 to 2025 to targeted actions and structural reforms to support youth employment and school-to-work transition, pathways to reintegrate into education or training and second chance education, in particular in the context of implementing Youth Guarantee schemes. |
5. Member States having regions with a rate of young people aged 15 to 29 not in employment, education or training above the Union average in 2019 on the basis of Eurostat data, shall allocate at least 15 % of their ESF+ resources under shared management for the years 2021 to 2025 to targeted actions and structural reforms to support youth employment and school-to-work transition, pathways to reintegrate into education or training and second chance education, in particular in the context of implementing Youth Guarantee schemes at local and regional level. |
|
When programming the ESF+ resources under shared management for 2026 and 2027 at mid-term in accordance with Article [14] of [the future CPR], Member States having a rate of young people aged 15 to 29 not in employment, education or training above the Union average in 2024 on the basis of Eurostat data, shall allocate at least 10 % of their ESF+ resources under shared management for the years 2026 to 2027 to these actions. |
When programming the ESF+ resources under shared management for 2026 and 2027 at mid-term in accordance with Article [14] of [the future CPR], Member States having a rate of young people aged 15 to 29 not in employment, education or training above the Union average in 2024 on the basis of Eurostat data, shall allocate at least 10 % of their ESF+ resources under shared management for the years 2026 to 2027 to these actions. |
|
Outermost regions meeting the conditions set out in the first and second subparagraphs shall allocate at least 15 % of the ESF+ resources under shared management in their programmes to the targeted actions set out in the first subparagraph. This allocation shall be taken into account for verifying compliance with the minimum percentage at national level set out in the first and second subparagraphs. |
Outermost regions meeting the conditions set out in the first and second subparagraphs shall allocate at least 15 % of the ESF+ resources under shared management in their programmes to the targeted actions set out in the first subparagraph. This allocation shall be taken into account for verifying compliance with the minimum percentage at national level set out in the first and second subparagraphs. |
|
When implementing such actions, Member States shall give priority to inactive and long-term unemployed young people and put in place targeted outreach measures. |
When implementing such actions, Member States shall give priority to inactive and long-term unemployed young people and put in place targeted outreach measures. Member States shall allocate an adequate amount of their ESF+ resources under shared management to implement the European Child Guarantee in order to ensure children’s equal access to free healthcare, free education, free childcare, decent housing and adequate nutrition. |
Reason
Various Member States are affected by high rates of youth unemployment and inactivity, although rates at regional level may vary considerably within the same state. Calculations should therefore be made based on different regional situations and the allocation and implementation of resources should take place in the areas identified as being sensitive. Supporting youth employment should be one of the main challenges to be tackled by the ESF+, especially in those states with regions where unemployment rates are higher than average, and it must be ensured that this support is sufficient by means of an allocation of at least 15 %.
Amendment 46
Article 8(1)
|
Text proposed by the European Commission |
CoR amendment |
|
1. Each Member State shall ensure adequate participation of social partners and civil society organisations in the delivery of employment, education and social inclusion policies supported by the ESF+ strand under shared management. |
1. Managing Authorities in the Member States at national and regional level, shall ensure adequate participation of social partners and civil society organisations in the delivery of employment, education and social inclusion policies supported by the ESF+ strand under shared management, in line with the European Code of Conduct on Partnership and multi-level governance . |
Reason
It is necessary to highlight the key role of local and regional authorities in contributing to economic, social and territorial cohesion.
Amendment 47
Article 11
|
Text proposed by the European Commission |
CoR amendment |
|
The actions addressing the challenges identified in relevant country-specific recommendations and in the European Semester as referred to in Article 7(2) shall be programmed under one or more dedicated priorities. |
The actions addressing the challenges identified in relevant country-specific recommendations and in the European Semester as referred to in Article 7(2) shall be programmed under one or more priorities. Adequate flexibility shall be guaranteed at the level of the Managing Authority, in order to identify the priorities and areas for ESF+ investments, depending on specific local and regional challenges. |
Reason
Actions linked to country-specific recommendations (concerning various thematic areas and included under various specific objectives) should not be incorporated into one or more dedicated priorities. Actions linked to country-specific recommendations should be part of one or more priorities in accordance with the relevant thematic area.
Amendment 48
Article 13(1)
|
Text proposed by the European Commission |
CoR amendment |
|
1. Member States shall support actions of social innovation and social experimentations, or strengthen bottom-up approaches based on partnerships involving public authorities, the private sector, and civil society such as the Local Action Groups designing and implementing community-led local development strategies. |
1. Member States shall support actions of social innovation and social experimentations and/ or strengthen bottom-up approaches based on partnerships involving public authorities, at national, regional and local level, the private sector, social partners and civil society such as the Local Action Groups designing and implementing community-led local development strategies. |
Reason
Rural development groups and community-led local development strategies should be seen in the ESF+ as a general instrument for strengthening its territory-based approach. For this reason, their role must be extended and become a tool for innovative actions.
Amendment 49
Article 13(4)
|
Text proposed by the European Commission |
CoR amendment |
|
4. Each Member State shall dedicate at least one priority to the implementation of paragraphs 1 or 2 or to both. The maximum co-financing rate for these priorities may be increased to 95 % for the allocation of maximum 5 % of the national ESF+ allocation under shared management to such priorities. |
4. Each Member State shall dedicate at least one priority to the implementation of paragraphs 1 or 2 or to both. The maximum co-financing rate for these priorities may be increased to 95 % for the allocation of maximum 5 % of the national ESF+ allocation under shared management to such priorities. A minimum proportion of the national ESF+ allocation under shared management should be earmarked for supporting social innovation and social experimentation actions. Audit rules for such actions should be sufficiently flexible to allow risk-taking and creativity. There will be support for transnational cooperation, in order to transfer proven innovations to other contexts at local, regional or national level. |
Reason
Evidence from the 2014-2017 period shows that the ESF can act as a catalyst for social innovation at local level, but the audit regime, which is too strict, stifles its potential. It is also important that the rules are sufficiently flexible to allow risk-taking and thinking on one’s feet. In order to help spread social innovations that are successful, transnational cooperation should not be confined to innovations improved by Member States; rather, it should be extended to trial runs of proven innovations in different cities.
Amendment 50
Article 14(1)
|
Text proposed by the European Commission |
CoR amendment |
||||
|
1. In addition to the costs referred to in Article [58] of [the future CPR], the following costs are not eligible under the general support of the ESF+ strand under shared management: |
1. In addition to the costs referred to in Article [58] of [the future CPR], the following costs are not eligible under the general support of the ESF+ strand under shared management: |
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
Reason
Subparagraph (b) restricts expenditure unnecessarily and should therefore be deleted.
Amendment 51
Article 15(5)
|
Text proposed by the European Commission |
CoR amendment |
|
5. Member States shall, when data are available in registers or equivalent sources, enable the Managing Authorities and other bodies entrusted with data collection necessary for the monitoring and the evaluation of the general support of the ESF+ strand under shared management to obtain those data from data registers or equivalent sources, in accordance with points (c) and (e) of Article 6(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. |
5. Member States shall, when data are available in registers or equivalent sources, enable the Managing Authorities and other bodies entrusted with data collection necessary for the monitoring and the evaluation of the general support of the ESF+ strand under shared management to obtain those data from data registers or equivalent sources, in accordance with points (c) and (e) of Article 6(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. In addition, Member States shall guarantee access to this data through means that allow compliance with the transmission deadlines for the established indicators. |
Reason
The mere authorisation to obtain data from administrative records does not ensure compliance with the aim of Article 15, which is to obtain the individual data of the participants without having to collect it from them directly, and then to transmit the values of the indicators calculated on the basis of them ahead of the set deadlines. This requires permanent and flexible channels for cross-checking the information.
Amendment 52
Article 21(4)
|
Text proposed by the European Commission |
CoR amendment |
|
4. The Commission shall adopt an implementing act establishing the model to be used for the structured survey of end recipients in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 39(2) in order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Article. |
4. The Commission shall adopt an implementing act establishing the model to be used for the structured survey of end recipients in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 39(2) in order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Article. The information requested in the survey shall be limited to key variables for monitoring and evaluating the progress made by ESF+ support and tackling material deprivation. |
Reason
Preparing surveys aimed at households is expensive and may be an annoying burden to citizens, contrary to Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 on European statistics, which lays down the principle of ‘cost-effectiveness’. The information requested in the survey should be limited, with a view to avoiding including variables that are not really necessary or are disproportionately difficult to obtain in comparison to the benefits that they would bring if available.
Amendment 53
Article 23 point (h)
|
Text proposed by the European Commission |
CoR amendment |
||||
|
|
Amendment 54
Annex II, point 2 — Common result indicators
|
Text proposed by the European Commission |
CoR amendment |
||||
|
Number of the end recipients receiving food support |
Number of the end recipients receiving food support |
||||
|
|
Reason
The Spanish name of this indicator refers to an age group (0-18 years of age), the upper limit of which overlaps with the group that the following indicator on the list refers to: ‘Number of youths aged 18-29 years’. [Translator’s note: This amendment does not apply to the English version.] This creates confusion as 18-year-olds would be included in both groups.
II. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS
Role of the European Social Fund
|
1. |
highlights that the European Social Fund has become the main instrument for investing in people, promoting equality between men and women and improving the lives of millions of European citizens, and appreciates the positive effects of the European Social Fund in the period 2007-2013; |
|
2. |
welcomes the fact that new objectives in areas such as youth employment and the further promotion of social inclusion, health and poverty reduction have been added to the traditional objectives of European Social Fund — i.e. improving the effectiveness of the operation of labour markets and promoting access to quality jobs, improving access to education and training; |
|
3. |
considers it necessary for the European Social Fund to be able to become an instrument that allows greater GDP and productivity growth and addresses the challenges of access to decent, quality jobs, by helping to speed up the process of economic and social convergence in the EU, which was damaged by the crisis and poor economic and social recovery. This will ensure that it remains an essential pillar of cohesion policy and long-term growth, focusing efforts on improving the EU’s human capital, improving conditions of access and progress to more and better jobs and protecting persons and sectors that have been hardest hit by the economic crisis and have not yet fully recovered; |
|
4. |
is of the view that good design and implementation of the ESF+ can contribute to increasing positive perception of the European Union among citizens, raising the profile of the EU’s efforts to support the most deprived; |
Cohesion policy
|
5. |
welcomes the links that the proposal for an ESF+ regulation makes to the European Pillar of Social Rights, although it lacks a clearer link to the objective of economic, social and territorial cohesion, insofar as the two elements are complementary and interrelated. |
|
6. |
considers it necessary to recognise the ESF+ as a fundamental component of cohesion policy in the proposal for a regulation and to avoid transforming it into a sectoral European policy instrument; |
|
7. |
emphasises that the added value of the ESF+, in comparison to action taken by Member States, is linked to territorial needs and integration with other cohesion policy funds for the purposes of carrying out coherent and comprehensive initiatives at local level. Regrets, therefore, that the ESF+ has been separated financially from the ERDF and the Cohesion Fund, which may lead to a possible break-up of cohesion policy in the post-2027 MFF, as happened recently with the EAFRD; |
Decentralisation, shared management and co-financing
|
8. |
rejects the low profile of regional local authorities in the proposal for a regulation and reminds the Commission of the importance of these authorities in managing the Fund, supported by their extensive experience; |
|
9. |
rejects the key role given to the national authorities of the Member States at the expense of local and regional authorities, since it considers that this centralisation may only be granted by the institutional framework of the Member State concerned; |
|
10. |
notes that it has been proven that decentralisation has led to better implementation of place-based approach and more effective distribution of funding and therefore calls for the proposal for a regulation to give greater clout in managing and distributing the fund to local authorities in those Member States with high degrees of political and administrative decentralisation, so that the fund’s management structure can be adjusted to the Member States’ organisational structure — particularly in those countries with greater degrees of decentralisation; |
|
11. |
believes that the commitment made by the proposal for a regulation to introduce an — albeit modest — direct management model sets a precedent for future frameworks, which should be limited to actions that are relevant to the scope and aim of the ESF+; |
|
12. |
takes a very negative view of the return to the N+2 rule, the reduction in the co-financing rate and the amounts of pre-financing put forward in the CPR proposal, which, combined with a possible reduction in resources for the required national counterpart as a result of fiscal consolidation policies, will have a highly detrimental impact on the fund’s management, impeding achievement of the expected results. The Committee therefore calls for an increase in the co-financing levels for the 2007/2013 and 2014/2020 programming periods, or at least for these levels to be maintained, to ensure that the commitment to social inclusion and the Pillar for Social Rights is not undermined by reduced financial support from the European Union. It notes that the fulfilment of certain conditionalities does not fall within the remit of local and regional authorities, and therefore proposes that a penalty be applied only if local and regional authorities have been involved in negotiating them and have thereby taken some form of responsibility; |
Budget
|
13. |
takes a very positive view of the transparency exercise carried out for the first time by the Commission when allocating an exact financial envelope to the ESF+ for the period 2021-2027, as the Commission proposal has taken into account previous CoR opinions and proposed also using social indicators other than GDP when distributing resources between Member States. At the same time, the Committee encourages the Commission to take into account in future an indicator relating to the integration of third-country nationals going beyond a simple calculation of the net migration balance; |
|
14. |
regrets the deletion of the 23,1 % minimum share of cohesion policy that should be allocated to the ESF+, as well as the reduction resulting from the Commission proposal on cohesion policy with regard to the ESF. This reduction will lead not only to a cut in the total resources earmarked for employment and social inclusion but also to a smaller role for local and regional authorities in programming and managing the ESF+; |
|
15. |
expresses concern at the reduction in the financial envelope in a proposal which includes new additional objectives for the ESF+, as this will mean less resources being allocated to meet more objectives; |
|
16. |
stresses that the ESF’s specific role is to support those projects that make it easier to adapt local and regional potential based on human capital to labour market needs. This is the only way to limit the costs associated with migration of human capital and thus the loss of its value (including as a result of ‘brain drain’). It is therefore important to support measures linking the provision of education with labour market trends so that talent can be attracted and retained in the territory while at the same time creating jobs; |
|
17. |
urges the Commission, when distributing resources between the Member States, to factor in the individual characteristics of the regions especially less-developed regions. At the same time, account shall be taken of the specific circumstances of the outermost regions and the NUTS 2 level regions, which meet the criteria set out in Article 2 of Protocol No 6 to the 1994 Act of Accession and of those regions which suffer from severe and permanent natural or demographic handicaps, in accordance with the explicit mandate of Article 174 TFEU; |
Simplification
|
18. |
welcomes the commitment to greater simplification, which is apparent from the proposal. The CoR urges the Commission to adopt additional simplification measures both for Managing Authorities and for beneficiaries within the instruments to be adopted in the regulation, as the removal of barriers, costly requirements and red tape from the start of the operations selection process is key; |
|
19. |
welcomes the extension of ‘payment by results’ based instruments, as well as the joint action plans and the simplified costs options in the Common provisions regulation, and trusts that Members States will not add additional rules to those set out by the European Commission; |
|
20. |
notes that the process of developing of indicators to measure implementation and results requires time and effort and therefore considers that, in order to avoid an excessive workload and jeopardising the viability and quality of the system of indicators, the submission of data should be twice a year, including preparations for the annual discussion of the managing authorities with the Commission and not bi-monthly as the proposal states; |
Coordination with other strategies
|
21. |
warmly welcomes those provisions in the proposal for a regulation which help to consolidate principles of gender equality and equal opportunities by strengthening their cross-cutting nature, as they must be taken into account at all stages of the programmes; |
|
22. |
takes a positive view of the continuation, restructuring and broadening of the fundamental objectives of ESF+ interventions, but points out that it is essential to allow more generic, flexible and open interventions than those that could be applied during the current programming period, in order to facilitate social inclusion and enable attention to be directed towards the most deprived persons; |
|
23. |
deems the opening up of the ESF+ to the area of social innovation as a promising step, but believes that there is a need to put in place tools and mechanisms to strengthen the capacities of key players when designing, implementing and evaluating this type of programme. The Commission should dedicate some of its efforts to building up a support network for awareness-raising, training and assistance in the planning and implementation of social innovation initiatives, in coordination with the InvestEU initiative; |
|
24. |
points out that the ESF+ can and should actively contribute to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, as it has a direct impact on many of them and an indirect impact on almost all of them; |
|
25. |
maintains that the ESF+ should improve coordination and promote synergies with adaptation initiatives and improve responses to the challenges of the digital revolution; |
|
26. |
maintains that the ESF+ must improve coordination and promote synergies with initiatives linked to aspects of health, both from the perspective of prevention and care; |
|
27. |
believes that the ESF+ should help to create a more equal society, adopting a people-centred approach. The Committee therefore welcomes the link between the ESF+ objectives and the European Pillar of Social Rights. The CoR remains however cautious about the link between the ESF+ and the country-specific recommendations adopted in the context of the European Semester. In this regard, it considers that the ESF+ should coordinate properly with the European economic governance process while preserving its autonomy and ensuring that it does not become subordinate to this process. Moreover, the CoR stresses the need to integrate the ESF+ investment priorities into a new long-term EU Strategy implementing the Sustainable Development Goals, recognising that the Commission’s proposal complies with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; |
|
28. |
believes it is not an appropriate solution for measures linked to the implementation of the country-specific recommendations (CSR), which usually concern very different thematic areas (education, activation, creation of childcare places and many others) and at the same time are included under various specific objectives in the EFS regulation, to be incorporated artificially into one or more dedicated priorities. The most appropriate course of action is to ensure that measures linked to implementation of the CSR form part of one or more priorities in accordance with the relevant thematic areas (employment, education, social inclusion). Attention should also be paid to the fact that CSR should be linked to the priorities planned for the long-term financial perspective; |
|
29. |
regrets the lack of precision with regard to the percentage of resources that Member States are to allocate to tackling the challenges identified in the European Semester for economic policy coordination, the national reform programmes and country-specific recommendations. The CoR calls on the European institutions to define the links with the European Semester with greater clarity without altering the fund’s governance and management model. In particular, this should not mean a cut in resources managed by regional authorities in highly-decentralised Member States; |
|
30. |
welcomes the fact that the socioeconomic integration of immigrants has been included under the strategic area of social inclusion, as part of Europe’s response to this issue. This response should be orderly, comprehensive, responsible, respectful of the people’s dignity and unyielding in the face of discrimination; |
|
31. |
notes that empirical evidence shows that the gradual integration of the working immigrant population can be an important opportunity in terms of economic dynamism and increased employment. This effect is maximised when immigrants offer qualified labour; |
|
32. |
calls for recognition for the important work carried out by local and regional authorities in relation to the socioeconomic integration of immigrants, especially unaccompanied minors and young people, and particularly those LRAs in areas with external borders. It stresses the need to seek greater complementarity with the Asylum and Migration Fund, thereby avoiding an overlap between the two instruments and improving coherence between policies for supporting and integrating migrants and for promoting social and labour market integration, catering for the regions with greater needs through specific additional funding; |
|
33. |
calls for the necessary mechanisms to be adopted to ensure that at least 10 % of the resources received from the ESF+ are used for measures to support youth employment in order to ensure their effectiveness and efficiency and to prevent the marginalisation of youth employment guarantee schemes in the new ESF+. The CoR also calls for these measures to take into account regional and local disparities which may exist within the same Member State. It considers it essential, therefore, that the level of young people aged 15-29 not in employment, education or training above the Union average in 2019 be calculated using regional rather than national Eurostat data. |
Brussels, 5 December 2018.
The President of the European Committee of the Regions
Karl-Heinz LAMBERTZ