The baseline situation report for PROGRESS : Initial results

(1)

The baseline situation report for PROGRESS 2007-2013:

Initial results

Fifth meeting of the PROGRESS Committee

(2)

Scope of the baseline

assessment

Initial results

Finalising the assessment

(4)

Role of the baseline assessment

Baseline assessment…

- … provides a snap-shot of situation in the areas which are targeted by the programme, which

- … will serve as a gauge to measure its subsequent achievements.

The present assessment shall

- establish “values” for the defined performance measures, where possible – per PROGRESS policy area, for

- the situation as of (2006-)2007;

- provide a summary of monitoring information, but does not provide fully fledged diagnosis and proposals for way

forward

Initial results Finalising the assessment

(5)

Current status

Sources used:

- Desk research (policy documents, expert reports, evaluation reports, public opinion surveys, various statistics, etc.),

- Web-based survey (in the area of partnerships), - Interviews with experts.

Challenges:

- The relative lack of information (usually available only at too detailed or too aggregate level)

- The complex, intertwining structure of the objectives in the PROGRESS policy areas

The presented results and findings are initial, therefore are only indicative and not definite

(6)

Intermediate Outcome 1:

Compliance with EU law

1. Transposition rate of EU law ...

9 The transposition deficit in PROGRESS-related areas was higher than the average rate for all the Internal Market directives. The most complicated area in this respect was labour law, followed by health and safety.

Also to be established: fragmentation rate, share of long time overdue directives.

2. Effectiveness of application of EU law ...

9 Infringement cases in the PROGRESS-related policy areas account for some 10 percent of total infringement cases.

Among the sectors with the most infringement proceedings, they rank fourth. Within them, gender equality (53 in 2007) followed by non-discrimination (41) accounts for the most number of infringement cases.

(7)

Intermediate Outcome 1:

Compliance with EU law

9 speed of resolving infringement cases: On average it takes

longer to resolve an infringement case in EU 15 than in EU 10;

yet the overall trend in the NMS is towards an increase in the duration of resolving infringement cases.

9 In 2006-2007 there were 63 referrals for preliminary ruling lodged at the ECJ, of which 51 related to Working conditions, 19 – Non-Discrimination and 8 – Gender Equality. None of them came from the new Member states.

9 In 2006-2007 in 7 Member states (25%) there were no

active/substantial litigation/dispute settlement activities in the area of Gender Equality

9 Public opinion: on average, awareness of the existence of anti- discrimination laws is quite low in the EU (in case of disability - 51%, but the other five strands - four out of ten citizens or fewer). Awareness levels vary greatly between the EU15 (higher awareness) and the NMS (lower).

(8)

Intermediate Outcome 2:

shared understanding and ownership of EU objectives

1. Attitudes of decision-makers, key stakeholders and general public regarding EU objectives in PROGRESS policy areas

9 Decision-makers’ attitudes are in principle reflected by adoption and effective application of EU law (Community method) and/or agreement on the high-level objectives and taking measures at national level to achieve them (OMC);

yet also important is so-called penetration ratio, i.e. to what extent attitudes are shared not only by the representatives of national administrations at the EU level, but also other decision makers, who are not in direct contact with the EU affairs

For example, in the area of Employment:

Scope and current status Initial results Finalising the assessment

(9)

Intermediate Outcome 2:

shared understanding and ownership of EU objectives

Qualitative assessment Comments

Decision makers and key stakeholders have largely common perceptions of the

challenges relating to employment for the European countries

The most commonly mentioned challenges include globalisation and increased competition and the resulting need for competitiveness, demographic change, and the question of quantitative labour needs Practically no one denies the relevance and

usefulness of a common approach to these problems, although there are slight differences in how they are assessed

However, respondents often have some reservations and indicate that “precautions” need to be taken

When the respondents are asked about the relevance of the EES with regard to the employment situation in their own Member State, the respondents point at problems that are specific or that have particular aspects in their country

But they do not question the existence of

challenges and problems of a similar nature across Europe from a

medium to long term perspective

The respondents have a different view

regarding the deeper penetration of the EES concepts in sociopolitical circles in Member States. They believe awareness about the

importance and role of the EES is low beyond the limited number of officials directly involved.

Key EES concepts have not “reached

downwards”, neither to national Parliaments, nor regional decision makers, nor a large number of social partners and representatives of civil society with the exception of those “specialised”

(10)

Intermediate Outcome 2:

shared understanding and ownership of EU objectives

9 Overall the general public is rather positive with regard to the EU’s role in the PROGRESS policy areas: more than 70%

believe that it was positive; yet there is fragmentation of public opinion among the MS per policy area:

9 It has been tested that at the Member state level there is no correlation between these responses and general attitude of citizens towards the EU

Policy area Share of MS (EU25) with more than 75% positive, 2006

Employment 24%

Social protection and inclusion 33%

Working conditions 24%

Non-discrimination 52%

Gender equality 64%

(11)

Intermediate Outcome 2:

shared understanding and ownership of EU objectives

2. Extent to which national policy discourses or priorities reflect EU objectives

9 In 2007 NRP Implementation reports, there were 7 MS in case of which the Commission (Council) did not have recommendations for substantial improvement in the field of Member States‘

Employment policies.

9 One of the priorities of the 2006 Joint Report Social Protection and Social Inclusion was “Interact closely with the Lisbon objectives...”:

Strong interaction: 10 MS (effective and mutual interaction between the NSR and NRP; is fully consistent with, fully coherent, strongly interlinked, etc.)

Sufficient interaction: 13 MS (NSR refers to NRP, provides links to NRP, is broadly in line, NRP is mentioned in the NSR)

Limited interaction: 4 MS (further efforts are needed to illustrate mutually reinforcing actions)

(12)

Intermediate Outcome 3:

Effective partnerships

1. Existence of common ground/consensus among

policy and decision-makers and stakeholders on EU objectives and policies

9 A dominating view that there is a consensus on the major policy objectives, yet some divergence in approach when it comes to more specific policies and their implementation 9 The consensus is steady and/or increasing

2. Identification and involvement by the EU of key

actors in a position to exert influence or change at EU and national levels

9 There is a shared belief that the key EU networks are largely successful in increasing awareness and exerting pressure;

networks feel they were more successful at the EU level, while EC officials point more to the national level.

(13)

Intermediate Outcome 3:

Effective partnerships

3. Effectiveness of partnerships in relation to outcomes related to PROGRESS policy areas

9 generally positive assessment of the effectiveness of partnership between the Commission and policy

committees/high level working groups, especially in the area of encouraging exchange of experience and good practice between Member States

(14)

Next steps

Within next several weeks:

- Integrating survey results and additional data,

- Generating more detailed results (per policy area), cross- checking them,

- Finalising the draft baseline assessment report.

In parallel:

- Arranging effective monitoring data collection (monitoring template, Guidance notes, feasibility study for IT system) - Preparing for the Annual Survey (October)

The baseline situation report for PROGRESS : Initial results

The baseline situation report for PROGRESS 2007-2013:

Initial results

Contents

Scope of the baseline

assessment

Role of the baseline assessment

Current status

Intermediate Outcome 1:

Compliance with EU law

Intermediate Outcome 1:

Compliance with EU law

Intermediate Outcome 2:

shared understanding and ownership of EU objectives

Intermediate Outcome 2:

shared understanding and ownership of EU objectives

Intermediate Outcome 2:

shared understanding and ownership of EU objectives

Intermediate Outcome 2:

shared understanding and ownership of EU objectives

Intermediate Outcome 3:

Effective partnerships

Intermediate Outcome 3:

Effective partnerships

Next steps