Strasbourg, 15 May 2015CDDECS (2015)8
EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR SOCIAL COHESION,
HUMAN DIGNITY AND EQUALITY
(CDDECS)
Compilation of the Member States’ replies to the Working Group Questionnaire on the Revision of the Council of Europe’s Social Cohesion Strategy and Action Plan - Compilation of national replies
COMPILATION OF ALL REPLIES
Working group questionnaire on the Revision of the Council of Europe’s Social Cohesion Strategy and Action Plan - Compilation of national replies
Contents
ALBANIA................................................................5
Working group questionnaire on the Revision of the CoE Social Cohesion Strategy and Action Plan
Compilation of national replies
Introduction of the questionnaire by the working group:
The working group, comprising the representatives of BE, FR, RU and TK, has considered the need for the Council of Europe’s Social Cohesion Strategy and Action Plan to be revised.
It reached the following conclusions:
In conclusion, the working group was in favour of revision of the Social Cohesion Strategy and felt that the political ambition of social cohesion needed to be reaffirmed on the basis of a stronger political commitment by the Council of Europe and its member states.
In order to determine the priorities to be set and methods to be used for this revision of the Social Cohesion Strategy, member states are invited (see the attached form) to answer a number of questions which will enable their political commitment to the revised Strategy and their expectations of it in practical terms to be gauged.
For more information, see the attached concept note.
Thank you in advance for taking part!
Note from the Secretariat: Total amount of replies was 22 member States.
Member state
|
ALBANIA |
|
|
YES |
NO
Please give your reasons |
|
YES
|
NO
If not, on what principles should it be based? |
|
YES |
NO
|
|
YES
|
NO |
|
YES
|
NO |
|
YES
|
NO |
|
YES
If so, what should those priorities for action be?
|
NO
|
|
YES
|
NO |
|
YES
|
NO |
|
YES
|
NO
If not, how frequently should it be revised?
|
|
YES
|
NO |
|
YES
|
NO |
|
YES
|
NO |
|
||
Member state
|
AZERBAIJAN |
||
|
YES
|
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
|
YES |
|
|
|
|
NO
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
|
YES If so, what should those priorities for action be?
The Revised Strategy will be a short and precise policy document focused on a few major priorities for action and will express member states’ commitment. Those priorities for action are:
|
||
|
YES |
|
|
|
YES |
|
|
|
YES |
|
|
|
YES |
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
|
|||
Etat membre
|
BELGIQUE |
||
|
OUI |
|
|
1) réinvestir dans les droits sociaux et dans une société cohésive ; 2) bâtir une Europe des responsabilités partagées et sociales ; 3) renforcer la représentation et le processus décisionnel démocratique, et développer le dialogue social et l’engagement civique ; 4) bâtir un avenir sûr pour tous
|
OUI
|
|
|
|
OUI
|
|
|
|
OUI
|
|
|
|
|
NON |
|
|
OUI, mais le CDDECS doit établir sa propre stratégie en matière de cohésion sociale sans que celle-ci ne se résume à une compilation des stratégies des comités subordonnés
|
||
|
OUI,en prenant en compte les 4 principes directeurs mentionnés à la question 2, déclinés en actions concrètes pour chaque partie (Conseil de l’Europe, Etat membre, …)
|
||
|
OUI
|
|
|
|
OUI, car ce processus est particulièrement intéressant en termes de méthodologie et de participation
|
||
|
OUI
|
|
|
|
OUI
|
|
|
|
OUI, sur la base des actions à mener, par le biais d’un reportage annuel concis (actions réalisées) et d’un rapport de suivi à mi-parcours et final
|
||
|
OUI
|
|
|
Comme le préconise la note de support sur la révision de la Stratégie, l’ambition politique de cohésion sociale doit être réaffirmée avec force, particulièrement en ces temps de crise et de régression des acquis sociaux, à la fois par le Conseil de l’Europe et par ses Etats membres. Les droits sociaux et les droits civils de même que l’effectivité de ces droits doivent rester au centre de l’engagement du Conseil de l’Europe et des Etats membres à la réalisation de la cohésion sociale, comme par ailleurs souligné dans le Processus de Turin. |
|||
Member state
|
CROATIA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
especially Action plan
|
|
|
If so, what should those priorities for action be?
Establishing good coordination |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other suggestions:
-Clear definition of measures and targets the Action Plan aims to achieve -Ensuring the conditions for a successful fight against poverty and social exclusion and for reducing inequalities in the society (strategic areas: education and lifelong learning; employment and access to employment; housing and the availability of energy; access to social benefits and services; access to the healthcare system; care for the elderly; fight against indebtedness and financial independence; balanced regional development). -Ensuring the conditions for providing high-quality and accessible services (for children from the earliest age/preschool services, extracurricular activities, primary and secondary-school education, incentives for higher education and lifelong learning) as well as ensuring high-quality and accessible social services for all citizens (social welfare, health care, education); developing innovative programmes in all fields -Ensuring the conditions for Integration of migrants -Creating opportunities for raising the employment rate of working-age persons and the employability of disadvantaged groups; -Ensuring the conditions for housing and environmental policy development (ensuring affordable apartments for the youth and the socially endangered, protecting the real estate in which a person lives…) -Establishing good coordination and cooperation at all levels for the purpose of harmonising policies and establishing a data collection and exchange system -The Strategy will have a tangible link with the Council of Europe Gender Equality Strategy 2014-2017 and EC Strategy for equality between women and men 2016 -2020.
Suggestion of principles, which have to be observed in the Strategy
-multidimensional approach -solidarity and the principle of non-stigmatisation -subsidiarity principle -using Methodological guide of social cohesion indicators to set possible measurable indicators of activities and measures in the Action Plan -synergetic participation of all stakeholders in Strategy preparation and implementation, -innovative social policy approach -Ensuring quality analysis and research for enabling the monitoring and evaluation of implementation measures to serve as a foundation for the adoption of strategic decisions and policy making in accordance with the European and global standards. |
||
Member state
|
CYPRUS |
|
|
YES |
|
|
YES
|
|
|
YES |
|
|
YES
|
|
|
|
NO |
|
YES
|
|
|
YES
If so, what should those priorities for action be? -To reduce the number of people living be low national poverty lines -To raise the employment rate of the population -To improve the business environment, especially for SMEs, and to support the development of a strong and sustainable industrial base. -To modernise labour markets and facilitate the development of skills throughout the lifecycle with a view to better matching labour supply and demand. |
|
|
YES
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
|
NO |
|
YES
|
|
|
||
Member state
|
CZECH REPUBLIC |
|
|
NO The principles of the New Strategy and Action Plan social cohesion, goals and initiatives have been already sufficiently defined. Only an updating of them has been recommended. |
|
|
YES
|
|
|
YES |
|
|
YES
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
|
NO |
|
|
NO
|
|
|
NO |
|
YES
|
NO |
|
YES
|
|
|
|
NO |
|
YES
|
|
|
|
NO |
|
||
Member state
|
DENMARK |
||
|
YES
X |
|
|
|
NO
X
The guiding principles should reflect the principles and aims laid out in the CoE Programme and Budget. It would furthermore be of value to take into account the work and strategies of the subordinate committees. |
||
|
YES
X |
|
|
|
YES
X |
|
|
|
|
NO
X |
|
|
YES
X
|
|
|
|
YES
X
The priorities should take into account the work carried out in the subordinate committees |
||
|
YES
X |
|
|
|
|
NO
X |
|
|
YES
X |
|
|
|
YES
X |
|
|
|
|
NO
X |
|
|
|
NO
X |
|
|
|||
Member state
|
ESTONIA |
|
|
YES |
|
|
YES
|
|
|
YES |
|
|
YES
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
YES
|
NO |
|
YES
If so, what should those priorities for action be?
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
||
Member state
|
FINLAND |
|
|
NO
The Strategy should be merely reviewed, as the current ToR of the CDDECS are valid until the end of 2015 and thus do not permit a full revision of the Strategy. It would thus be advisable to attempt to finalise the review by the end of the mandate period without taking on further commitments. |
|
|
YES
If a revision takes place, unnecessary to define new principles. |
|
|
YES |
|
|
|
NO |
|
YES
|
|
|
|
NO |
|
|
NO
|
|
|
NO |
|
|
NO |
|
NO
As indicated under question 1, the review should preferably take place within the current mandate period of the CDDECS.
|
|
|
|
NO |
|
|
NO |
|
|
NO |
|
||
Etat membre |
FRANCE |
||
|
OUI |
|
|
1) réinvestir dans les droits sociaux et dans une société cohésive ; 2) bâtir une Europe des responsabilités partagées et sociales ; 3) renforcer la représentation et le processus décisionnel démocratique, et développer le dialogue social et l’engagement civique ; 4) bâtir un avenir sûr pour tous |
NON
les “principes directeurs “ doivent être redéfinis en termes opérationnels et compréhensibles par tous. |
||
|
OUI |
|
|
|
OUI |
|
|
|
|
NON |
|
|
OUI |
|
|
|
OUI Si oui, sur quelles priorités d’action ?
Justice sociale
Lutte contre les discriminations
Lutte contre l’exclusion sociale et la pauvreté
|
||
|
|
NON |
|
|
|
NON |
|
|
OUI |
|
|
|
OUI |
|
|
|
OUI |
|
|
|
|
NON |
|
|
|||
Member state
|
GEORGIA |
|
|
YES |
|
|
YES
|
|
|
YES |
|
|
YES
|
|
|
|
NO |
|
YES
|
|
|
YES
If so, what should those priorities for action be?
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
||
Member state
|
HUNGARY |
|
|
YES |
|
|
YES
|
|
|
YES |
|
|
YES
|
|
|
|
NO |
|
YES
|
|
|
YES
If so, what should those priorities for action be?
Preventing and combatting violence and discrimination Promoting social cohesion - economic, social and territorial cohesion Reducing risk of poverty and social exclusion
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
|
NO |
|
YES
|
|
|
||
Member state
|
LITHUANIA |
|
|
YES |
|
|
NO
If not, on what principles should it be based?
extension – in the end of this questionnaire |
|
|
YES But “social cohesion” – not the last words in this context. Social rights as such are at the centre of Charter therefore the Strategy (and CDDECS) shall have its own role in the Turin process, to avoid normative aspect.
|
|
|
|
NO |
|
|
NO |
|
YES
|
|
|
YES
If so, what should those priorities for action be?
extension – in the end of this questionnaire |
|
|
YES It is hard to describe such link: maybe, because of fight against poverty, but more emphasis on aspects within CoE |
NO |
|
|
NO |
|
YES
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
YES
|
|
+ The same working group or the newly established one should tackle a total revision of the Strategy process. + Invitation of one independent expert for input into the process could be considered. |
||
Extended reply to questions 2 and 7:
A suggestion could be to use proposals (as very initial ones) of MS collected during drafting of CDDECS WP 2014-2015, for instance, further elaboration and development of the following topics like:
Or we can count on very general goals to be elaborated as well:
Final remark: principles / priorities should be more concrete, targeted. Strategy EU2020 is a good example. Member States shall have a background for real actions.
Member state
|
REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA |
|
|
YES |
|
|
YES With small revision of core elements:
|
|
|
YES |
|
|
YES
|
|
|
NO A New Strategy and Action plan should be elaborated to respond to present needs and future requirements, based on in depth analysis, social cohesion remaining a core principle. |
|
|
YES Basic, tangible elements of other strategies included. |
|
|
YES If so, what should those priorities for action be? Social cohesion, socially oriented goals, social responsibility - individual and collective, responsibility of central and local authorities for results, promoting individual and collective contributivity, fighting corruptibility, accountability, social and financial ethics and morality, respect for human rights, human dignity, for personality and humanity, equality of rights, combating discrimination, exclusion and marginalisation; protection of vulnerable populations –children, persons with disabilities, minority groups, refugees, migrants, displaced, marginalised, minorities, women, young people, elderly, etc; collective responsibility of member states for maintaining peace, stability and well being of each individual in a welfare, based on law, state. |
|
|
YES
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
YES
|
|
I will join with pleasure the Working Group to work on future Strategy and Action Plan.
|
||
Member state
|
MONTENEGRO |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
especially Action plan
|
|
|
If so, what should those priorities for action be?
Establishing good coordination |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other suggestions:
-Clear definition of measures and targets the Action Plan aims to achieve -Ensuring the conditions for a successful fight against poverty and social exclusion and for reducing inequalities in the society (strategic areas: education and lifelong learning; employment and access to employment; housing and the availability of energy; access to social benefits and services; access to the healthcare system; care for the elderly; fight against indebtedness and financial independence; balanced regional development). -Ensuring the conditions for providing high-quality and accessible services (for children from the earliest age/preschool services, extracurricular activities, primary and secondary-school education, incentives for higher education and lifelong learning) as well as ensuring high-quality and accessible social services for all citizens (social welfare, health care, education); developing innovative programmes in all fields -Ensuring the conditions for Integration of migrants -Creating opportunities for raising the employment rate of working-age persons and the employability of disadvantaged groups; -Ensuring the conditions for housing and environmental policy development (ensuring affordable apartments for the youth and the socially endangered, protecting the real estate in which a person lives…) -Establishing good coordination and cooperation at all levels for the purpose of harmonising policies and establishing a data collection and exchange system -The Strategy will have a tangible link with the Council of Europe Gender Equality Strategy 2014-2017 and EC Strategy for equality between women and men 2016 -2020.
Suggestion of principles, which have to be observed in the Strategy
-multidimensional approach -solidarity and the principle of non-stigmatisation -subsidiarity principle -using Methodological guide of social cohesion indicators to set possible measurable indicators of activities and measures in the Action Plan -synergetic participation of all stakeholders in Strategy preparation and implementation, -innovative social policy approach -Ensuring quality analysis and research for enabling the monitoring and evaluation of implementation measures to serve as a foundation for the adoption of strategic decisions and policy making in accordance with the European and global standards. |
||
Member state
|
THE NETHERLANDS |
|
|
YES |
|
|
YES
These four guiding principles seem valid for the next years too. |
|
|
YES
Priority in the Turin process should be given to the ratification by member states (who haven’t done this so far) of the Revised Social Charter and of the Collective Complaints Protocol of the Charter. However, the Netherlands wants to make a scrutiny reservation regarding specific elements of the “Turin Process’ (as laid down in the Brussels Document, February 2015), such as the proposed upgrading of the status of the European Commission of Social Rights and the accession of the European Union to the Revised Social Charter.
|
|
|
YES
Whether the revised Strategy can rely on the assistance of the Council of Europe Development Bank is up to the EDB itself to decide.
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
|
NO |
|
NO
In the Netherlands we are already engaged in and working on a comprehensive national action plan, the so called ‘The National Human Rights Action Plan’. |
|
|
YES
However we do not support any obligation to report on the Social Cohesion Strategy within the framework of the Europe 2020 Strategy.
|
|
|
YES
|
NO |
|
YES
|
|
|
|
NO
See answer question 7. |
|
|
NO |
|
|
NO
Three conferences seems too much. |
|
||
Member state
|
PORTUGAL |
|
|
YES |
|
|
YES
|
|
|
YES |
|
|
YES
|
|
|
|
NO |
|
YES
|
|
|
YES
If so, what should those priorities for action be?
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
||
Member state
|
ROMANIA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the Strategy will have a tangible link with the European Union’s Strategy, then it will have to cover the period up to 2020, to be in line with the Europe 2020 Strategy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Member state
|
SAN MARINO |
||
|
YES |
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
|
YES |
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
|
|
NO |
|
|
YES
|
|
|
|
YES
If so, what should those priorities for action be?
|
||
|
YES
|
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
|
NO, 3 years is enough because the time running so quickly
|
||
|
YES
|
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
|
|||
Member state
|
SERBIA |
|
|
YES |
|
|
YES
|
|
|
YES |
|
|
YES
|
|
|
|
NO |
|
YES
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
||
Member state
|
SLOVAK REPUBLIC |
|
|
YES |
|
|
YES
|
|
|
YES |
|
|
|
NO |
|
YES
|
|
|
|
NO |
|
|
NO
|
|
YES
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
|
NO |
|
|
NO |
|
||
Member state
|
SLOVENIA |
|
|
YES |
|
|
YES
|
|
|
YES |
|
|
YES
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
|
NO |
|
YES
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
||
Etat membre
|
SUISSE |
||
|
OUI, conformément aux conclusions du groupe de travail.
|
||
1) réinvestir dans les droits sociaux et dans une société cohésive ; 2) bâtir une Europe des responsabilités partagées et sociales ; 3) renforcer la représentation et le processus décisionnel démocratique, et développer le dialogue social et l’engagement civique ; 4) bâtir un avenir sûr pour tous
|
NON Si non, sur quels principes devrait-elle se baser ?
Non, une fois la révision de la stratégie décidée, il faut – comme proposé par le groupe de travail dans l’une de ses variantes –mandater un expert externe pour identifier les nouvelles problématiques ou nouveaux défis qui se posent à l’heure actuelle en Europe en matière de cohésion sociale et élaborer un premier projet de stratégie avec quelques lignes d’action prioritaires (comme proposé dans l’énoncé de la question 7 ci-dessous).
|
||
|
Plutôt OUI, en tous les cas se baser sur les droits sociaux et l’accès effectif à ceux-ci. (pro memoria, la Suisse n’est pas partie à la Charte)
|
||
Pas d’avis. Si le document est stratégique, je ne vois pas quelle forme pourrait prendre le concours de la Banque d’investissement du CdE.
|
OUI
|
NON |
|
|
|
NON
|
|
|
NON
Réponse aux questions 5 et 6 : Je propose un tout nouveau texte, plus court, plus percutant, qui se rapprocherait plutôt de la stratégie de cohésion sociale de 2004 ; la nouvelle stratégie ne devrait pas être alignée sur d’autres stratégies, mais porter spécifiquement sur la cohésion sociale. Par ailleurs, un document stratégique suffit, il n’est pas nécessaire de l’assortir d’un plan d’action, car le plan d’action actuel n’a jamais été opérationnel.
|
||
|
OUI Si oui, sur quelles priorités d’action ? A déterminer par l’expert externe (cf. plus haut)
|
|
|
|
NON Les thèmes seront certainement parfois semblables (par ex. lutte contre la pauvreté) mais sur le principe, non, car les Etats membres du CdE ne sont pas tous membres de l’UE…
|
||
|
NON Je ne connais pas suffisamment ce processus.
|
||
|
NON Si non, laquelle? Je propose de ne pas fixer de périodicité pour ne pas être liés par une date butoir. Si les circonstances changent beaucoup et nécessitent une adaptation de la stratégie, il "suffira" de faire figurer cette tâche dans le mandat du CDDECS (qui est désormais adapté tous les 2 ans).
|
||
Pas d’avis |
OUI
|
NON |
|
|
NON Il ne faut en aucun cas créer de nouvelles obligations pour les Etats membres (type reporting, même soft).
|
||
|
NON, pas nécessairement. Une conférence à haut niveau ou même technique est plus facile à organiser et à préparer tant au plan du CdE qu’au plan national qu’une conférence ministérielle.
|
||
|
|||