Strasbourg, 6 May 2008 CDLR(2008)14
Item 4.5 on the agenda
EUROPEAN COMMITTEE ON LOCAL AND REGIONAL DEMOCRACY
(CDLR)
Report of the High Level Task Force
on Social Cohesion in the 21st century
(Executive summary and synopses of the Rapporteur Group meetings)
Secretariat Memorandum
prepared by the
Directorate General of Democracy and Political Affairs
Directorate of Democratic Institutions
 |
Introduction
At their 1019th meeting (27-28 February 2008), the Ministers’ Deputies decided to transmit the Report of the High Level Task Force on Social Cohesion in the 21st century: “Towards an Active, Fair and Socially Cohesive Europe”, together with the relevant synopses of the Rapporteur Group meetings, to all relevant steering committees inviting them to make proposals for the Programme of Activities of 2009 and beyond.
According to the request of the Ministers’ Deputies, this document contains the executive summary of the Report of the Task Force[1] (Appendix I) and the meetings’ synopses of the following Rapporteur Groups (Appendix II): GR-C (Rapporteur Group on Education, Culture, Sport, Youth and Environment), GR-DEM (Rapporteur Group on Democracy), GR-H (Rapporteur Group on Human Rights) and GR-SOC (Rapporteur Group for Social and Health Questions).
Action required
Members are invited to get acquainted with the documents mentioned above and to have an exchange of views in order to identify topics that could be taken up as activities in the framework of the Intergovernemental Programme of Activities of 2009 and beyond.
APPENDIX I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Ministers’ Deputies
CM Documents
CM(2007)175 Addendum 31 October 2007
——————————————
Report of high-level task force on social cohesion in the 21st century
Towards an active, fair and socially cohesive Europe
Executive summary
——————————————
Background
1. This report follows from a decision taken at the Warsaw Summit of the Council of Europe, in May 2005, instructing the Committee of Ministers to appoint a high-level Task Force to review the Council of Europe strategy to promote social cohesion in the 21st century, in light of the Organisation's achievements in this field. The brief of the Task Force required it to formulate a long-term vision for promoting social cohesion in Europe and suggest policies and initiatives for different stakeholders, especially the Council of Europe.
2. The Task Force carried out its work between January 2006 and October 2007. To achieve its objectives, the Task Force met regularly and undertook extensive consultations with a range of stakeholders. A diversified methodology was utilised. This included hearings with a range of relevant parties, commissioning work and undertaking documentary research.
3. The report is both a state of the art document, assessing the current situation, and one that takes forward a set of ideas for policy. It offers an exposition of the likely implications for social cohesion of some contemporary changes and a consideration of options for policy makers. The report aims to provide guidance for reform, at national and international levels, and also to prioritise certain actions, especially for the Council of Europe.
MAIN MESSAGES FROM THE TASK FORCE
Main Challenges to Social Cohesion Today
4. There are five main challenges to social cohesion.
· Globalisation provides opportunities for further economic development but also requires social policy to secure individuals while contributing to flexibility in the labour market;
· Demographic changesin Europe are acting to change the population composition in terms of age, gender and generation, upsetting some existing balances and hugely challenging public policy;
· Greater migration and cultural diversity pose the double challenge of integrating migrants and continuing the search for a common set of values to which all sectors of society can give their loyalty and commitment;
· Political changes pose the challenge of declining trust in the political system and a change in both the extent to which and how people become politically active as well as the increasing remoteness of the political system from people’s lives;
· Economic and social changesendanger access to adequate financial and other resources, including employment, health and education, for some sectors of the population as well as making for big gaps across sectors.
What is at stake?
5. In the view of the Task Force there is nothing in these and other challenges that inevitably acts to reduce social cohesion or social solidarity. Without action, however, Europe’s social stability and achievements will be undermined. There are four major reasons why the concept of and fight for social cohesion are more relevant than ever in the Europe of today.
· The deeper conditions for a stable and consolidated democracy have not yet been fulfilled;
· Some genuinely new needs and vulnerabilities are emerging and these are increasing the risk of social fragmentation;
· Diversity, mobility and changing values are such that people living in the same community or society have less in common and may therefore be less likely to subscribe to a common culture and set of norms and values;
· The way that policies have responded to the challenges and changes has tended to pay too little attention to social factors and the social infrastructure.
Why social cohesion?
6. On the basis of its review, the Task Force is convinced that social cohesion has many strong points as a concept and guiding motto for social policy. For one, it encapsulates the social goals of Europe in a way that other concepts do not. In comparison to social inclusion for example, it is a broader approach and has a much stronger set of references to the functioning of democracy and the healthiness of society. Moreover, social inclusion focuses on “specialised” policies and actions whereas the social cohesion concept seeks a broader, more civic and societal responsibility. There is also the fact that a concern with social cohesion has deep roots in the European way of life, drawing upon a set of aspirations and vision that have evolved over time and were considered quintessential to the European way of life. Policy needs such a broad social approach (although not a vague one) that can serve as a vision or end point in relation to social objectives.
The value-added of the Council of Europe
7. The Council of Europe has done more than any other national or international organisation to develop social cohesion as a set of goals and practices for policy, converting it from a concept into a policy approach. Among other things, this means that there is an acquis to build on. The achievements of the Organisation in the field of social cohesion rest fundamentally on its legal instruments but derive also from activities relating to statements of vision and good practice. The Revised Strategy for Social Cohesion is noteworthy as a guiding document.
8. The Task Force considers that the Council of Europe has a unique contribution to make to European cohesion. It is also of the view that today’s Europe needs the Council of Europe’s expertise and action on social cohesion more than ever. The Organisation’s focus on human and social rights and equality is an important corrective to the primarily economic focus of the other international organisations in Europe. The Organisation not only orients itself to social Europe in general but it also acts as the guardian of the interests of vulnerable or potentially vulnerable groups, drawing the attention to those without a strong voice in our societies (such as Roma, those who are mentally or physically ill, ethnic and other minorities, migrants, people who are poor). Europe needs to have the interests of these people defended. Its large membership – 47 member states – and geopolitical coverage enables the Council of Europe not just to address the transnational dimension but do so in a way that has the advantage of a much broader perspective and set of influences. Its capacity to draw attention to the situation in and needs of the ‘non-EU countries’ is vitally important. However, while its field is unique the Council of Europe has a complementarity with the work and mission of the EU as well as other international organisations, such as OECD, UN, ILO, and WHO.
The Task Force understanding of social cohesion
9. Drawing upon existing work, social cohesion is defined as:
Social cohesion is the capacity of a society to ensure the well-being of all its members, minimising disparities and avoiding marginalisation. The Task Force emphasises in addition society’s capacity to manage differences and divisions and ensure the means of achieving welfare for all members.
10. The meaning of social cohesion is not and should not be fixed however. A very strong reason to be open is because of differences across countries. Although the notion of a “European social model” is widely spoken of, in practice there are many differences among countries and regions of Europe, especially if one conceives of Europe in terms of the 47 member States of the Council of Europe. Not only have they different historical legacies but countries vary in terms of the primacy accorded to social cohesion as a policy goal, the policy approaches adopted and the amount of resources that are or can be devoted to social objectives. For these and other reasons, a sustainable social cohesion strategy for Europe can neither be fixed nor uniform.
11. While European diversity and variation have to be kept in mind, it is possible, essential even, to set out common principles and goals for action. It is the view of the Task Force that the way of achieving social cohesion is vitally important. Transversalism is the approach favoured and developed by the Task Force. This has a number of applications. First, the connectedness across policy areas has to be recognised. Whether at local, national or international levels, policy boundaries are porous and each policy exerts an effect beyond its bureaucratic sphere. Secondly, and relatedly, there is a need for action at multiple levels and by many partners (member States, local and regional authorities, social partners, NGOs/civil society, international organisations). The local or regional level is extremely important – social cohesion is built from the ground up. This approach is not to be confused with State disengagement. Rather, the public authorities are the guarantors of cohesion, evolving towards social rights approaches and active consultation geared to improving democracy, generating greater social solidarity and creating innovation and stability in an increasingly complex society. The Council of Europe can play a pivotal role, not least because protecting social cohesion in Europe requires global, European, national and local level action and vision.
How is social cohesion in Europe to be achieved?
12. The Task Force advocates an approach that both focuses on the classic social policies, albeit changing their content and orientation in key respects, and institutes a transversal approach which goes beyond individual policy spheres to target more global objectives and activities.
13. The classic package of social policies is, of course, central to social cohesion. This policy infrastructure already exists in most countries, which means that in many cases it is a question of rethinking, modernising and sharpening the approach to social cohesion. The report devotes considerable attention to putting substance on a social cohesion policy for our time, especially to how the existing social policies can be better oriented towards social cohesion given the changes that are underway and the insights that are coming forward about old and new approaches to social problems. However in all countries, even those that would see themselves as already having a strong orientation to social cohesion, the understanding of what constitutes relevant policies for social cohesion has to broaden beyond the classic social policy frame. This is true in two senses. First, while social protection policy would be readily recognised in most member States as central to social cohesion, the Task Force suggests that employment, health, education and housing policies also have a crucial role to play. A broader policy mix comes into focus therefore. Secondly, in addition to these policy domains, social cohesion requires what will be in many cases a new domain of policy – one specifically oriented to activation and societal integration. The Task Force is of the view that the current understanding of activation as primarily economic in nature must be broadened to refer also to participation in social and political processes. When this is put together with societal integration, the spotlight is placed on the need for a new package of policies (in addition even to those that have been emphasised by the EU in its social protection and social inclusion approach) to promote an active and integrated society. The package we are talking about here comprises policies on migration, on better integrating migrants and other groups into society, on facilitating adaptation to cultural diversity and reconciliation and on better realising democracy by, inter alia, further instituting social dialogue and introducing procedures for civic dialogue (whereby groups or sectors of society which have potentially opposing interests, or which are very different in terms of culture, can come together).
14. The Task Force therefore emphasises the need for member States to revisit their social and other policies with a view to tailoring them more closely towards social cohesion objectives. The following is how the Task Force frames the set of actions/considerations involved.
15. As a major focus for its recommendations, the Task Force concentrates on developing social cohesion as a transversal approach. This is because, while social cohesion is a matter for particular domains of policy, it is also one that transcends both individual areas of policy and national boundaries. Hence, a different method is called for. Actions by the Council of Europe as a transnational organisation have a key role to play in both complementing action by national bodies and showing leadership. That said, the Task Force is of the view that the Organisation needs to reform some aspects of its structure and practice. To the extent that social cohesion is a transversal phenomenon, effectiveness is hampered by some aspects of current organisational practice. In particular, the current organisational design based on specialism and bureaucratic function may result in a weak association among units and a paucity of projects and activities that cross functional areas within the Organisation and especially runs the risk of the Directorate General on Social Cohesion being engaged in peripheral rather than core matters.
16. The suggested broad-ranging programme of action, outlined below, is designed with both short- and long-term objectives in mind and is intended to be sufficiently flexible and adaptable to meet country- or region-specific conditions. The programme is intended to serve as a road map for policy makers at different levels, to enable them to design, adjust, refocus and implement appropriate policies. Given the brief of the Task Force, actions by the Council of Europe are prioritised in the programme of action. The recommendations, however, are framed within a multi-agency context which recognises the vital roles of member States, regional authorities, social partners, NGOs and citizens, inter alia, alongside the Council of Europe. Most of the recommendations also have direct application and can be transposed to member State level.
Specific Recommendations
1. Member States should adopt social cohesion as a specific and active policy concern and place social cohesion at the centre of their development models. The goal of such a policy should be an active, fair and socially cohesive society in which policies for economic and social development work in tandem.
2. The promotion of social cohesion should be one of the core elements of the work of the Council of Europe. Social cohesion is a strategic concept for the Council of Europe, intersecting closely with the achievement of the core objectives on human rights, democracy and the rule of law. It is therefore central to the core mission of the Organisation.
3. So as to renew and generate political commitment to social cohesion, every third year a Ministerial conference of the Ministers responsible for social cohesion should be held to consider new risks and responsibilities for social cohesion in light of globalisation and other challenges and to work towards the development of a new social contract for the future. The first conference should be in 2009 and should focus on this report as a starting point to transform the recommendations in concrete programmes and actions.
4. As a programme of action, the Task Force recommends that social cohesion in Europe be addressed transversally by a four-fold programme that: 1) reinvests in social rights, 2) develops a wider sense of responsibility, 3) strengthens democratic foundations and mechanisms of social and civic dialogue and 4) builds confidence in the future. It is recommended that the programme and its achievement be kept under regular review and that the European Committee for Social Cohesion (CDCS) be given a major role in this regard.
The following are the recommended first steps in this programme, with particular reference to the role of the Council of Europe.
CONTENT OF PROGRAMME OF ACTION FOR SOCIAL COHESION
1. Reinvesting in Social Rights and in a Cohesive Society
Towards this end, the Council of Europe should:
Intensify the promotion of social rights in Europe:
a) Renew efforts to widen ratification of the Council of Europe’s legal instruments, among member States and the EU and make these a benchmark for social policy;
b) Continue to invest in monitoring the implementation of the instruments and evaluation of difficulties involved;
c) Institute a programme to extend the application of social rights to groups or sectors of the population which have not been central to the classic framework of rights. These include children, migrants, workers without full social rights, people with disabilities, minorities, recipients of long-term care, people living in poverty, families headed by young, low-income parents, the homeless.
Further develop health as a basis for social cohesion:
a) Promote a ‘health and human rights for all’ approach;
b) Undertake a programme together with the social partners and NGOs to highlight inequalities in life expectancy and counteract the increasing socio-economic gradient to health;
c) Spearhead the development of a value-based ‘governance framework for our time’ in health care;
d) Investigate and give guidance on how the development of social care services for dependent people can be informed by a rights-based approach.
Further develop education as a basis for social cohesion:
a) Develop a programme, together with the OECD, to enhance the contribution of education and life-long learning to improve both people’s capacity to cope with transitions and social mobility;
b) Promote democratic skills as part of a concerted programme of civic education for all, engaging the teaching profession and local and national education providers;
c) Spearhead a programme of activities to affirm the value for social cohesion of historic, cultural and environmental heritage.
2. Building a Europe of Responsibilities that are both Shared and Social
The Council of Europe can offer a leading example in this by:
Furthering the social responsibilities of the public authorities, including regional and local authorities:
a) Develop and disseminate knowledge-based guidelines for incorporating social cohesion and sustainability concerns into economic decision-making processes at all levels;
b) Develop responsibility and transversalism at local and regional levels by
i) Following up on the recent Recommendation of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities by developing the concept of ‘responsible territory for social cohesion and sustainable development’ as a basis to set up local strategies to ensure social cohesion development and rolling out the ‘multi-partite social contract model’ as a way of formally connecting the activities of public and private service providers;
ii) Promoting an exchange of experience, at both local and national levels, on how to support and improve the role played by public service administrations in building social cohesion.
Increasing citizens’ sense of social responsibility:
Undertake actions to enable citizens to act responsibly, especially in their employment, consumption and investment patterns and life styles.
Increasing social responsibility-oriented actions by social partners and civil society:
a) Promote, in co-operation with the EU and the active involvement of the social partners and NGOs, the social responsibilities of enterprises, especially as regards multi-nationals and sub-contracting;
b) Invite the media to engage in a dialogue on its social responsibilities and contribution to increased social cohesion in Europe.
3. Strengthening Representation and Democratic Decision-making and Expanding Social Dialogue and Civic Engagement
To take this forward the Council of Europe should:
Spearhead a programme of activity to reactivate democratic processes. As well as following up on the social rights work suggested above, this should identify remedies and means to address deficits of representation of groups in situations of risk of poverty or vulnerability, specifically children, young people, adults and families living in poverty and in precarious life situations, migrants, ethnic minorities, people with disabilities, elderly people. The NGOs should be considered major partners for this purpose but also the groups concerned themselves.
Devote a forthcoming meeting of the Forum for the Future of Democracy to a major topic related to social cohesion, such as the interdependence of democracy and social rights.
Promote and support the expansion of social dialogueby:
a) Engaging with the social partners on setting up programmes/agreements to improve the situation of younger workers;
b) Encouraging and facilitating the expansion of social dialogue to actively include intergenerational issues and life cycle approaches;
c) Encouraging and facilitating the social partners to undertake initiatives to address the situation of those furthest from the labour market.
Institute and expand civic dialogue by piloting, together with one or more member States, an initiative on civic dialogue which would see the creation at local level of “fora for dialogue”, for example among migrants and residents, or among faith communities, or inter-generational co-operation as recently proposed by the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities and the roll-out over time of this on a wider basis. As well as the Congress, the NGOs, third-sector organisations and others representing newcomers to society should be given a leading role in this.
4. Building a Secure Future for All
The Council of Europe could show leadership here by:
Undertaking a programme of work, in co-operation with the OECD, to develop proposals for improving social mobility;
As well as continuing to pursue its actions in favour of children, people with disabilities, Roma, those suffering extreme poverty and gender mainstreaming, instituting a programme of work to:
a) develop policy models of family-work reconciliation that are sustainable,
b) develop innovative policy responses to enabling young people to plan their own life projects and make free decisions about their family life;
c) develop political rights of long-term migrant workers in the host country;
d) As part of its New Horizons programme (suggested below) undertake a programme of research on:
i) how the public’s sense of security is determined;
ii) the implications of environmental change from the perspective of social cohesion.
Spearheading a campaign, together with other international organisations, to promote the adoption of codes of good practice in regard to migration and the integration of migrants in society and develop further the concept of ‘co-development.
5. To make a transversal approach operational within the Council of Europe, scope must be provided and methods devised for co-ordination among specialists in the various areas of policy that are involved. This requires that the Council of Europe undertake reform in its structure and practice, in particular so that there is stronger internal integration and synergies, especially as regards the work on social cohesion. For this purpose:
· The various intergovernmental committees and their Bureaux should co-ordinate their respective agendas to address issues of common interest and develop shared perceptions and strategies;
· In forming committees or groups of experts, the multidisciplinary aspect should be highlighted when candidates are sought and selected;
· At the political level, common working ‘platforms’ might be established for central themes relating to social cohesion, bringing together representatives of the Parliamentary Assembly, the Committee of Ministers, the European Committee for Social Cohesion (CDCS), other committees, the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities, the INGO Liaison Committee and experts;
· Within the Secretariat, inter-departmental meetings should be introduced as standard practice to assist exchanges and co-ordination among objectives, approaches and responsibilities;
· More integrated or transversal projects or activities should be funded and undertaken.
All of these have application at member State level also.
6. The work of the Council of Europe on social cohesion should be organised to fulfil three functions: standard setting, monitoring and evaluation; facilitating the further development and implementation of social cohesion policy approaches; assisting countries/regions in the development and implementation of programmes of action relevant to social cohesion.
Standard setting, monitoring and evaluation
A key contribution of the Organisation is a monitoring/evaluation or policy watch function. This should consist of two main activities:
a) Monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the existing instruments and the factors conducive to ratification and implementation and producing methodological and other guides for this purpose;
b) Devising and disseminating, together with other agencies as appropriate, a set of policy-watch indicators to allow member States and relevant bodies to assess progress towards greater social cohesion. The Task Force recommends the progressive development and application of indicators at both national and local levels.
At the national level, the following indicators are suggested:
|
Component |
Indicator |
|
Equity and economic well-being |
Mobility (social/geographical), income inequality, persistent poverty |
|
Dignity and recognition of diversity |
People’s perception of being discriminated against |
|
Participation |
Citizens’ participation in democratic processes |
|
Sense of belonging |
Levels of trust (institutional, in the future, in others) |
|
Sharing of responsibilities |
Scope and extent in social and civic dialogue |
At the local level, the Task Force supports the encouragement that the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities gives to developing indicators through a process co-ordinating the actions of the principal stakeholders (elected representatives, public services, associations, businesses) and providing ample scope for citizen participation, especially as regards the identification and validation of indicators. A possible set of indicators is presented in Appendix 3 of the Task Force report.
Member states are invited to accept these indicators and set in train processes to gather, collate and exchange the resulting information for the purpose of appraising progress towards social cohesion.
Analysis and development
The Task Force recommends the resourcing within the Council of Europe of a two-sided analytic/development function in relation to social cohesion to:
a) Continue and consolidate the work on investigating the links between policies and social cohesion and the elaboration of appropriate goals and structures that best deliver on social cohesion;
b) Engage in ‘future oriented’ or ‘horizon scanning’ work to explore future policy scenarios and anticipate and prepare for risks and opportunities for social policies.
Assistance with country/regional programming
Having invited member States to embrace social cohesion as a national objective and to develop a national strategy for the progressive implementation of appropriate policies, the Organisation might organise its assistance to specific countries or regions through ‘country/regional social cohesion programmes’. Such programmes, initiated and renewed at regular intervals jointly with member States, are seen as the main vehicle whereby the Council of Europe organises plans and organises its support to particular countries or regions.
7. In carrying out its functions, the Council of Europe should undertake activities oriented to building partnerships and links with other national and international organisations. Towards this end, consideration should be given to a instituting a multi-annual programme of work with the EU on social cohesion. Linkages with other international organisations such as OECD and ILO, the UN and relevant subsidiary bodies, should also be strengthened with a view to undertaking complementary work. As a first step, the Council of Europe should invite the EU and other international organisations to a series of meetings to consider the transversal method and the view of social cohesion advanced here and their significance for the social policy activities and reporting engaged in by EU member States under the Lisbon process and Open Method of Co-Ordination, as well as other relevant concepts and developments.
8. It is necessary to add more value to the Organisation’s work on social cohesion through improved dissemination strategies. Every activity undertaken should have a strategy for disseminating the results. This is not just a job for the central Organisation – all participants (ministries, NGOs, academics) in the Council of Europe have a role to play. Three main objectives ought to guide the expanded dissemination policy:
a) Closer targeting of outputs towards particular target groups, and especially public administrations, social partners, universities/research institutes, and the ‘European publics’ (via the internet especially);
b) Developing more intensive communication with professional and social bodies;
c) Work more closely with the international and national media.
Two roadmaps summarising and outlining the implementation of these recommendations follow.
The Task Force requests the Committee of Ministers to endorse and give their full support to this report and its recommendations. In particular, it is suggested that the report be taken forward by drawing up implementation plans on a regular basis and instituting ways of reporting on progress.
Roadmap 1 Recommended Programme of Action
Focus Objective Suggested Actions Implementation
|
Social rights |
To reinvigorate social rights and re-address vulnerabilities by: Strengthening the commitment to social rights Developing health as a basis for social cohesion Developing education as a basis for social cohesion |
Widen ratification of legal instruments Continue to invest in monitoring A programme to extend the application of social rights to groups outside the classic social rights framework Promote health and human rights as related Highlight inequalities in life expectancy Spearhead a new governance framework for health Give guidance on the rights basis of social care services Develop a programme to enhance the contribution of education to social mobility Promote democratic skills as a component of civic education Programme to affirm the value of heritage to social cohesion |
Council of Europe, member States, EU Council of Europe, member States, health professionals and providers, social partners, NGOs Council of Europe, teaching profession, local and national education providers, OECD |
|
|
Responsibilities |
Increase all actors’ sense of social responsibility by: Furthering the social responsibilities of public authorities Increasing citizens’ sense of social responsibility Increasing social responsibility oriented actions by the social partners and NGOs |
Develop guidelines for incorporating social cohesion into economic decision making at all levels Develop the concepts of ‘responsible territory for social cohesion and sustainable development’ and ‘multi-partite social contract model’ so as to make for more integrated service provision and more integrated attention to social cohesion at local level Promote exchange of experience on how service administrations can help to build social cohesion through better practice Undertake a range of actions to promote citizens’ sense of responsibility Promote the social responsibilities of enterprises especially as regards sub-contracting Invite the media to a dialogue on its social responsibilities |
Council of Europe, member States, local and regional authorities, NGOs Council of Europe, NGOs, local authorities, citizens Council of Europe, social partners, media |
|
|
Democracy |
Improve democratic participation among all sectors and extend processes of dialogue and engagement |
Spearhead a programme of activity to reactivate democratic processes, especially for the most vulnerable sectors Devote a forthcoming meeting of the Forum for the Future of Democracy to a major topic related to social cohesion Expand social dialogue by: - setting up programmes/agreements to improve the situation of young workers - encouraging the adoption of intergenerational issues in social dialogue - encouraging initiatives to address those furthest from the labour market Institute and expand civic dialogue by setting up at local level ‘fora for dialogue’ |
Council of Europe, member States Council of Europe, member States, social partners, local and regional authorities Council of Europe, member States, local and regional authorities NGOs, social partners, civil society |
|
|
Security and confidence in the future for all |
Engender a sense of confidence in the future |
Organise a programme of work to develop models for improving social mobility Institute a programme of work to develop sustainable models for better family-work reconciliation, innovative responses to enabling young people to plan their life projects and political rights for long-term migrants in the host country Institute a programme of research on how the public’s sense of security is determined the implications of environmental change for social cohesion.
|
Council of Europe, member States, social partners Council of Europe, other international organisations, national research institutes |
|
Roadmap 2 Recommended Reforms and Implementation Strategies
Goal Suggested activities/reform
|
Strengthening transversalism in the work of the Organisation Increasing political commitment to social cohesion Functions of the Organisation re social cohesion Other aspects of Organisational practice
|
Co-ordination of respective agendas of intergovernmental committees and their Bureaux to meet on and address common issues Common working platforms to bring together representatives of, inter alia, the Parliamentary Assembly, Committee of Ministers, the European Committee for Social Cohesion, Congress of Local and Regional Authorities, INGO Liaison Committee to assist communication and the development of shared strategies Interdepartmental meetings and joint working groups within the Secretariat for the purpose of exchanges and co-ordination of objectives More integrated or transversal projects and activities
Organisation every third year of a Ministerial conference of the Ministers responsible for social cohesion on new risks and challenges to social cohesion and developing a new social contract for Europe Invite member states to accept common indicators of social cohesion and set in train processes to gather, collate and exchange the resulting information for the purpose of appraising progress towards social cohesion The work of the Organisation on social cohesion should be organised to fulfil three functions:
Initiating and consolidating partnerships with other organisations, so as to improve effectiveness and avoid duplication, by: considering setting up multi-annual programmes of joint work on social cohesion with the EU; inviting EU and other international organisations to a series of meetings to discuss this report and its implications for the social approaches of different organisations Closer targeting of outputs towards particular target groups, and especially public administrations, social partners, universities/research institutes, and the ‘European publics’ (via the internet especially); developing more intensive communication with professional and social bodies; working more closely with the international and national media. |
APPENDIX II
SYNOPSES
Ministers' Deputies / Rapporteur Groups
GR-C
Rapporteur Group on Education, Culture, Sport, Youth and Environment
GR-C(2017)CB2 rev [2] 20 February 2017
————————————————
Synopsis
Meeting of 7 February 2017
————————————————
1. The Rapporteur Group on Education, Culture, Sport, Youth and Environment (GR-C) met on 7 February 2008 with Ambassador Eleonora Petrova-Mitevska, Permanent Representative of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, in the Chair. It discussed the following items in the light of the annotated agenda (document GR-C(2008)1). The agenda (GR-C(2008)OJ3) was adopted.
1. Report of the High-Level Task Force on Social Cohesion (TFSC)
CM(2007)175, CM(2007)175 corr (English only),CM(2007)175 add and CM/Del/Dec(2007)1014/6.6
2. Ambassador Yevhen Perelygin, Permanent Representative of Ukraine, introduced this item as Chair of the Rapporteur Group for Social and Health Questions (GR-SOC). He drew attention to two issues. Firstly he referred to the revised draft decisions that had been distributed, in the light of discussions that had already taken place within different rapporteur groups. Secondly the Ambassador encouraged the GR-C to discuss and define areas, and at a later stage, concrete projects which could respond to some of the recommendations of the High Level Task Force. In the light of the discussions in the rapporteur groups, the Secretariat would prepare a consolidated paper for the GR-SOC’s consideration.
3. Mr Alexander Vladychenko, the Director General for Social Cohesion then briefly presented the Report of the High Level Task Force on Social Cohesion (“task force”), highlighting three main conclusions. Firstly, that the concept of social cohesion is more relevant then ever for Europe today. Secondly, whilst many of the fundamentals are already in place, social cohesion still needs to be achieved in Europe and can contribute to solving some of Europe’s most pressing problems. Thirdly, the task force asserts that the Council of Europe, with its expertise and history of strong leadership in this field, has a key role to play, as the guardian of social Europe. Social cohesion should become a strategic concept for the Council of Europe, intersecting closely with the Organisation’s core objectives of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. The Director General also drew attention to the action plan proposed by the task force to be implemented at different levels and the importance of addressing the transversal nature of social cohesion.
4. Mr Vladychenko then referred to three specific elements mentioned by the task force of particular relevance to the GR-C. The first was the proposal that the Council of Europe further develop education as a basis for social cohesion through the preparation of a programme to enhance the contribution of education and life long learning to improve both people’s capacity to cope with transitions and social mobility. It should also promote democratic skills as part of a concerted programme of civic education for all. The value for social cohesion of preserving historic, cultural and environmental heritage was also signalled. Secondly, the task force considered that social dialogue should be targeted at young people, be about them and be carried out with their participation. It recommends that a programme of activity be launched to reactivate democratic processes in order to identify remedies and means to repair the deficit of representation of young people. It also suggests that programmes be developed with social partners to improve the situation of younger workers. Thirdly, the task force indicated the need to develop the intercultural dimension of social cohesion, in particular with regard to the integration of migrants. Finally the Director General informed the group that an intersecretariat working group is being set up to promote transversality through the co-ordination and streamlining of social cohesion related activities.
5. In the ensuing discussions, several delegations underlined the need for any follow-up given to the report to fall squarely within the priorities set at the Warsaw Summit. In this respect, one delegation stated that activities should contribute as directly as possible to promoting the effective implementation of the rights provided for in the different Council of Europe legal instruments, so as to ensure that more and more citizens can effectively enjoy those rights, including cultural ones. Another delegation pointed out that the Warsaw Action Plan specifically refers to the integration of a youth perspective in all Council of Europe activities. Other delegations stated that it was imperative that the transversal element is fully addressed to ensure that the follow up to the report is carried out in a co-ordinated manner, and not on a sectorial basis. It was also mentioned that whilst there was a high number of interesting and relevant issues that emerged from the report, it should be understood that in the light of resources and organisation priorities, it may not be possible to respond on all levels. In this respect, the Secretariat was asked to prepare a position paper giving some indication for delegations as to priority actions that might be carried out in the fields of education, youth and cultural diversity, as a response to the report, but also in the light of, and in relation to, the work underway on the White Paper for Intercultural Dialogue.
6. Following on from this context, Ms Battaini-Dragoni, the Director General for Education, Culture, Youth, Sport and Environment informed the Group that in her view, many proposals emerging from the report were already reflected in some way in the current programme of activities of her Directorate General or could be integrated without too much difficulty. In particular, with regard to education, she mentioned the last Ministerial Conference on Education for an Inclusive Society (Istanbul, May 2007), the follow up of which could be enhanced in the light of the relevant issues in the Task Force report. With regard to culture, she mentioned that the Steering Committee for Culture (CD-CULT) had expressed interest for looking into the role of culture as a tool in integration and inclusive policies and could therefore pursue the issue of access to culture or cultural services. She also mentioned the intercultural cities programme, which was an interesting and concrete illustration of how culture can contribute to social cohesion. The Director General highlighted the importance of cultural rights and recalled the conference being organised later in the year by the Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH) on access to rights in a multicultural society. In her view, this was a prime example of where transversal co-operation could be promoted, indicating that cultural diversity can be an obstacle to the enjoyment of these rights. She considered that it would be important for the Council of Europe to look at the obstacles that citizens face when trying to access their cultural rights. Finally with regard to the youth field, again the Director General considered that in the framework of the Agenda 2020, a number of relevant issues emerging from the task force are being addressed such as the access of young people to jobs, health service, housing, education and social protection.
7. The Chair concluded that the draft decisions would be circulated to all delegations for possible comments before being transmitted to the Deputies for adoption at their 1019th meeting on 27 February 2008[3].
2. Ad hoc Committee European Co-ordination Forum on the World Anti-doping Agency (CAHAMA) – Draft terms of reference
CM(2008)18
8. The Chair invited the Deputy Secretary General to introduce this item, thanking her for her presence. The Deputy Secretary General first highlighted the particular added value of the CAHAMA, as the only pan-European body where senior officials from European states can prepare European positions on political issues to be decided in WADA governing bodies, in the light of the unique technical expertise of the Monitoring Group of the Anti-Doping Convention. She recalled that the events which took place in November in Madrid last year relating to the election of the Chair of WADA were a trigger and an illustration of the need to bring European representatives together in order to discuss and improve coordination of the European Ministers of Sport and of European representatives in the governing bodies of WADA. On this last point, she recalled the meeting which had taken place on 25 January 2008 at the initiative of the Minister for Sport of Slovenia which had provided an opportunity to explore with Mr Fahey, the newly elected Chair of WADA, ways in which European representation might be improved within WADA. The Deputy Secretary General suggested that there were three particular issues, which had become apparent in the light of events in Madrid and were floored during discussions in Ljubljana, and which would merit CAHAMA’s attention.
9. The first question raised related to the issue of European representation in WADA, and whether, given the importance of, for example, Europe’s budgetary contributions, its anti-doping policies, its specialist anti-doping laboratories, it was appropriate for Europe to be represented by only 5 of the 18 public authorities members of the Foundation Board or whether this would need to be reviewed. Similarly, it was pointed out that there was only one European representative on the Executive Committee of the Foundation Board. The Deputy Secretary General pointed out that the CAHAMA, as a preparatory body, could assume an important role in addressing these questions, and carrying out the groundwork in preparing decisions for the Committee of Ministers and consequently for the Conference of the Ministers of Sport which will take place in Greece at the end of the year. However, she recalled that ultimately, these questions cannot solely be addressed on a European level but would need to be addressed within the framework of the UNESCO Convention which is the only worldwide intergovernmental forum on anti-doping.
10. A second question concerned the possible review of internal procedures of WADA, such as the need for quorum or who can take initiatives and possible amendments to the WADA statutes. It had been agreed that CAHAMA could make proposals in this respect. A third issue referred to was the need to clarify the role of the informal meetings of public authorities before the foundation board and the executive committee. This issue, which needed to be looked at WADA’s level rather than a European one, would be addressed during a forthcoming expert meeting in Montreal.
11. The Deputy Secretary General went on to highlight the important preparatory work that has already been carried out by the CAHAMA and which has been much appreciated by the Foundation Board of WADA. She also informed the Group of an informal meeting of the European Union’s Director Generals for Sport which had taken place in Ljubljana this week. This meeting resulted in a decision to set up an anti-doping working group within the structures of the EU. She welcomed the idea of the Council of Europe and the EU joining forces in this area but, given the unique and pan-European nature of the CAHAMA and its valuable expertise, she would follow closely developments in the EU..
12. The Chair, together with several delegations, thanked the Deputy Secretary General for her presentation and her commitment to this issue. One delegation reiterated the importance of CAHAMA in preparing actions within WADA and emphasised the importance of cooperation in this field with the European Union. On this point, the Secretariat suggested that the theme of anti-doping could be considered as a specific field of co-operation to be mentioned in the Memorandum of Understanding between the Council of Europe and the European Union.
13. As to the terms of reference of CAHAMA, a number of amendments were proposed during the discussion but not agreed upon, delegations preferring to receive them first in writing. The Chair therefore invited delegations to submit their amendments in writing[4] and other delegations would be invited to submit any comments they may have on them to the Secretariat before 5.00 p.m. on 14 February 2008. The Secretariat would then prepare a revised draft of the terms of reference, as appropriate which would be transmitted for consideration to the Ministers Deputies for possible adoption at their 1018th meeting on 20 February 2008.
3. European Diploma of Protected Areas
Draft Resolution CM/ResDip(2008)… on the revised regulations of the European Diploma of Protected Areas
CM(2008)11 and CM/Del/Dec(2007)1009/9.1
14. The Chair recalled that at their 1009th meeting (24 October 2007), the Ministers’ Deputies invited the Standing Committee to the Bern Convention to give its opinion on the proposal that it be instructed to prepare opinions for the Committee of Ministers on the granting, renewal or non-renewal of the European Diploma on Protected Areas and transmitted to that committee the draft resolution on the revised regulations of the European Diploma of Protected Areas. At its 27th meeting from 26 to 29 November 2007, the Standing Committee of the Bern Convention approved the proposal of the Committee of Ministers. In the light of this positive opinion, the Group examined the draft Resolution CM/ResDip(2008)… on the revised regulations of the European Diploma of Protected Areas, and agreed to transmit it to the Ministers’ Deputies for adoption without further debate at their 1018th meeting (20 February 2008).
4. European Conference of Ministers responsible for Spatial/Regional Planning of the Council of Europe (CEMAT) – Draft Resolution Res(2008)... on the rules governing the Landscape Award of the Council of Europe
CM(2007)188 corr
15. It was recalled that on 9 January 2008, the GR-C decided to postpone consideration of the above-mentioned draft resolution pending a last review of the text by the Department for Legal Advice (DLAPIL). The Group examined the revised text of draft Resolution Res(2008)... on the rules governing the Landscape Award of the Council of Europe, as it appears in document CM(2007)188 corr. Following one editorial amendment (French only) and one technical clarification as to the exact nature of amendments brought during the legal review, decided to transmit it to the Ministers’ Deputies for adoption without further debate at their 1018th meeting (20 February 2008).
5. Documents distributed for information
a. Written communication by the Director General of DG IV
16. A number of comments were raised on the written communication of the Director General of DG IV (DD(2008)48). Firstly, the Azerbaijani delegation drew the attention to its country’s proposal to organise an informal Ministerial conference in the beginning of November 2008 in Baku, with the aim of bringing together Ministers from the Council of Europe member states as well as from ALECSO member states. The delegation stated that preliminary discussions had taken place with regard to preparations of this conference and that possible themes would be presented to the Ministers’ Deputies in due course. A number of delegations expressed their interest and support in this proposed conference. One of these delegations, while underlining the importance of promotion of intercultural dialogue, expressed the opinion that national delegations should be involved in preparatory works. Another delegation pointed out this was an important issue and it would be desirable that the whole of the Steering Committee for Culture (CDCULT) be consulted in addition to its Bureau. The Secretariat responded that such a consultation process was underway and that the GR-C would be regularly informed of the developments.
6. Other business
17. None.
7. Date of the next meeting
18. In the light of the information provided by the Secretariat that the draft White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue would only be available in the two official languages towards the end of the week beginning 11 February, it was decided to postpone the meeting of the GR-C which would be devoted to the examination of that document from Tuesday, 19 February 2008 to Thursday, 13 March at 3.00 p.m. The next regular meeting of the GR-C is scheduled for Tuesday, 22 April 2008 at 10 a.m.
Ministers' Deputies / Rapporteur Groups
GR-DEM
Rapporteur Group on Democracy
GR-DEM(2008)CB2 rev 6 February 2008
————————————————
Synopsis
Meeting of 31 January 2008
————————————————
1. The Rapporteur Group on Democracy (GR-DEM), chaired by Ambassador Eberhard KÖLSCH, Permanent Representative of Germany, examined the following issues in the light of the convocation (see document GR-DEM(2008)OJ2).
1. Azerbaijan: Draft action plan for the presidential elections
2. The Chair recalled that the Group had already examined the draft action plan at its last meeting, but had decided to postpone transmitting it to the Committee of Ministers for approval until the Representative of Azerbaijan had obtained instructions from his authorities. The Representative of Azerbaijan indicated that his authorities had accepted the draft action plan and were ready to co-operate fully with the Secretariat in implementing it. One delegation indicated that the GUAM member states supported the draft action plan. Another delegation drew attention to the importance of timely adoption of the revised Electoral Code in Azerbaijan, so as to ensure that the presidential elections would be well-prepared and the electoral staff training activities provided for in the draft action plan could be implemented. In conclusion, the Group agreed to transmit the draft action plan to the Ministers' Deputies for approval at their 1017th meeting (6 February 2008).
2. Bosnia and Herzegovina: Compliance with obligations and commitments and implementation of the post-accession co‑operation programme: Update on developments (April-December 2007)
3. The Director for Political Advice and Co-operation presented the update on developments (see document SG/Inf (2008) 2), pointing out that a full monitoring report would be submitted in a few months' time, after a Secretariat delegation had visited Bosnia and Herzegovina in the spring. Regarding matters of substance, she noted that litlle progress had been made in the implementation of the commitments during the period covered by the report and that following a difficult period in the autumn, the political situation had improved in Bosnia and Herzegovina in late 2007, thereby engendering a climate favourable to progress with the implementation of the country's commitments vis-à-vis the Council of Europe. She mentioned a number of recent developments in this respect, including the ratification of three Council of Europe conventions by Bosnia and Herzegovina on 11 January 2008 and the launch by the country's authorities of initiatives concerning reforms of the police and of the Constitution. She indicated that the authorities should take advantage of this more positive climate in order to move ahead with various reforms, in particular concerning the office of Ombudsman and the education system, and to complete the ratification of the last Council of Europe conventions to which Bosnia and Herzegovina had undertaken to accede.
4. The Representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina stated that the findings set out in the secretariat document were generally acceptable to him, while drawing attention to the significant progress his country had made in various fields, such as reform of the police and of the Constitution. He hoped that this progress would enable his country to sign the Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union in spring 2008. He concluded his statement by indicating that he wished to make a few technical corrections to the document prepared by the Secretariat.
5. Several delegations expressed satisfaction with the progress recently made by Bosnia and Herzegovina, which had permitted it to initial the Stabilisation and Association Agreement at the end of 2007. Mention was made, in particular, of the police reform and the good co-operation between Bosnia and Herzegovina and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). One delegation nonetheless considered that these advances remained modest. It thought Bosnia and Herzegovina still had much progress to make, in particular with regard to the return of refugees, the efforts to combat ethnic segregation in the education system and the triyng of persons prosecuted for war crimes.
6. The Group encouraged the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina to take advantage of the more favourable political climate since the end of 2007 with a view to moving ahead with reforms still pending, in particular concerning the Constitution, the police, the office of Ombudsman, the education system, protection of minorities and the permanent return of refugees and displaced persons. It also called on them to make full use of Council of Europe expertise and assistance to this end. One delegation asked the Secretariat to submit in due course, preferably in the next monitoring report, a more detailed analysis of the durability of the return of refugees and displaced persons in their region of origin. Two delegations also stressed the importance of continuing to promote regional co-operation between the countries of South-East Europe.
7. Some delegations indicated that they would like to have some information on the assistance being provided by the Council of Europe to Bosnia and Herzegovina with a view to honouring the country's commitments and on the financial resources needed, and available, for providing this assistance. In reply, the Director for Political Advice and Co-operation said that all the fields covered in the document prepared by the Secretariat constituted sectors where the Council of Europe was already providing, or was ready to provide, assistance to Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, this assistance was restricted by the Organisation's limited budgetary resources.
8. In conclusion, the Group instructed the secretariat to prepare draft decisions reflecting the exchange of views for consideration by the Ministers' Deputies at their 1017th meeting (6 February 2008).
3. Russian Federation: Electoral matters
9. The Representative of the Russian Federation recalled that his delegation had proposed in the past that the Council of Europe should undertake work on drafting a convention on standards in electoral matters. He indicated that the time was not right to envisage the possibility of the Council of Europe's providing his country with assistance in electoral matters, since the presidential elections in the Russian Federation were just a few weeks away. He proposed coming back to this question after these elections, in the light of the conclusions issued by the international observers who monitored them. In this connection, Russia's Central Electoral Commission had invited a large number of countries and various international organisations, including the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, to send observers. The representative of the Parliamentary Assembly Secretariat indicated that the Assembly delegation would comprise thirty observers. A pre-electoral visit to the Russian Federation would be made in early February. The election observation mission's report would be submitted to the Bureau of the Assembly in March 2008.
10. Some delegations were disappointed that no proposal for pre-electoral assistance activities was available, while understanding that it was difficult to prepare proposals of this kind just a few weeks before the presidential elections in the Russian Federation at the beginning of March. They nonetheless hoped that such proposals would be submitted at a later date. They also hoped that the presidential election campaign would be entirely free, in particular from the standpoint of media coverage, and that no restrictions would be imposed on the opposition's activities or on monitoring of the elections by the observers. One delegation voiced regret that only four candidates were standing in the presidential elections. As for the Russian Federation's proposal that the Council of Europe draw up a convention on standards in electoral matters, certain delegations pointed out that it had not met with support in the past. They therefore considered it pointless to re-discuss the proposal.
4. Serbia: Compliance with obligations and commitments and implementation of the post-accession co-operation programme - 3rd report (July 2007 – January 2008)
11. The Director of Political Advice and Co-operation introduced the report (see document SG-Inf(2008)3), pointing out that it had been prepared following a visit by a Secretariat delegation to Serbia in December 2007 in a difficult political context. In terms of substance, most of the formal commitments entered into by Serbia had been fulfilled. However, other commitments had still to be honoured, particularly as concerned full co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the handing over to it of the indictees still at large, the reform of the judicial system, the promotion of local self-government, the protection of national minorities and the setting-up of independent agencies.
12. The Representative of Serbia underlined the high number of monitoring reports prepared in respect of her country since the end of the Serbian chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers and reiterated the wish of her authorities to fulfil all their commitments. She noted that significant progress had been achieved by her country since the previous monitoring report had been submitted. She cited several examples in support of this, such as the adoption of the Law on the Constitutional Court and the ratification of the European Charter of Local Self-Government. Regarding co-operation with the ICTY, her authorities were doing everything in their power to arrest the indictees still at large and hand them over to the Tribunal. As for the other commitments yet to be complied with, every effort would be made to do so, particularly with regard to the reform of the judicial system and the protection of minorities. The Serbian authorities were ready to continue their co-operation with the Council of Europe to that end.
13. In the ensuing discussion, several delegations supported Serbia’s wish for better coordination in the scheduling of the Council of Europe monitoring reports and welcomed the progress made by Serbia in honouring its commitments as well as its successful chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. However, some delegations noted that there was still room for improvement, especially as concerned full co-operation with the ICTY and the protection of national minorities. A number of delegations also noted the major challenge represented by the implementation of the Re-admission Agreement which Serbia had signed with the European Union. They emphasised the importance of rapidly implementing a national strategy for this purpose. In reply, the Representative of Serbia indicated that her authorities had set up a working group on this subject. It was hoped that its work would be completed by the end of the first half of 2008.
14. In conclusion, the Group asked the Secretariat to prepare draft decisions reflecting the discussion for consideration by the Ministers’ Deputies at their 1017th meeting (6 February 2008). Following a request from one delegation, the Director of Political Advice and Co-operation said that the Secretariat would prepare an information document on assistance activities organised by the Council of Europe for Serbia, including the financial aspects.
5. Forum for the Future of Democracy: Preparation of the next session of the Forum (Madrid, October 2008)
15. The Director of Democratic Institutions informed the Group that the date and theme of the next session of the Forum had been approved at the meeting of the Forum’s Advisory Board on 25 January 2008, thus making it possible to launch the preparations for this event. There would be a Secretariat mission to Spain in February 2008 in this connection. With regard to content, the Advisory Board had noted that the session of the Forum should focus on the political aspects of e-democracy, rather than concern itself with the technical aspects. The representative of Spain indicated that her authorities agreed with this approach. The meeting of the Forum’s Advisory Board had also been an opportunity to discuss the activities undertaken and foreseen following the conclusions of the last session held in Sweden, which was particularly important for ensuring the continuity of the Forum process.
16. One delegation mentioned the criticism from members of the Parliamentary Assembly concerning the fact that the meetings of the Forum’s Advisory Board were held while the Assembly was in session. In reply, the Secretary General pointed out that the opposite criticism had been made in the past by members of the Assembly. Consultations were in progress with all the interested parties to try and find an acceptable solution. Furthermore, one delegation noted that, during the meeting of the Advisory Board, it had been suggested that the 2009 session of the Forum for the Future of Democracy might be combined with the celebrations to mark the 60th anniversary of the Council of Europe in that year. This delegation emphasised the need to devote particular attention to this matter and to ensure that the different events organised on that occasion were properly co-ordinated. The Secretary General indicated that the Secretariat was working on this.
6. Ad hoc Committee on e-democracy (CAHDE) – Abridged report of the 2nd plenary meeting (Strasbourg, 8-9 October 2007)
17. The Director of Democratic Institutions presented a progress report on the work of the CAHDE, stressing the many initiatives that were in preparation within this committee thanks, inter alia, to the meetings of an informal working group held in the intervals between the committee’s plenary meetings. It had been proposed that the outcome of this work should be a draft recommendation. This proposal would be considered at the committee’s next meeting in May. In conclusion, the Director of Democratic Institutions thanked the Netherlands authorities for seconding a member of staff to the secretariat of the CAHDE. Two delegations stressed the importance of the work of the CAHDE, which they considered promising. They felt that more resources should be allocated to this committee. Following the discussion, the Group agreed to forward the CAHDE meeting report to the Ministers’ Deputies, who would be invited to take note of it without further debate (item placed in the box) at their 1017th meeting (6 February 2008).
7. Other business
18. The Director General of Social Cohesion briefly introduced the report of the High-Level Task Force on Social Cohesion, drawing attention to the task force’s proposal that a future meeting of the Forum for the Future of Democracy be devoted to a major issue related to social cohesion, such as the interdependence of democracy and social rights. While noting the importance of the issue, the Chair pointed out that proposals had already been submitted for themes for the 2009 and 2010 sessions of the Forum. One delegation, supported by several others, recalled that a proposal had already been made to devote a session of the Forum to the theme of migration. It was noted that, as appropriate, it might be possible to combine this theme with that of social cohesion. Following the discussion, the Group agreed to bear in mind the proposal from the High-Level Task Force.
19. The Chair indicated that, in accordance with the decision taken by the Deputies at the end of 2007, the Secretariat would submit proposals, together with figures, for possible future assistance activities for Belarus at the Group’s next meeting. He raised the question of whether the representative of Belarus should be invited to participate in the Group’s discussion on this subject, bearing in mind that such an invitation would require the unanimous agreement of the Ministers’ Deputies. Some delegations were in favour of inviting the representative of Belarus. Others, however, were opposed to this, arguing that in the absence of any progress on the part of the Belarus authorities towards adhering to the Council of Europe’s values, such an invitation would send out the wrong message. In the absence of a consensus, it was decided not to invite the representative of Belarus. However, the Chair would inform him of the results of the discussion which would be held at the next meeting.
8. Date of the next meeting
20. The next meeting of the Group will be held on Thursday, 21 February 2008, at 10 a.m.
Ministers' Deputies / Rapporteur Groups
GR-H
Rapporteur Group on Human Rights
GR-H(2008)CB2 12 February 2008
————————————————
Synopsis
Meeting of 5 February 2008
————————————————
1. The Rapporteur Group on Human Rights (GR-H) met on 5 February 2008 with Ambassador C. Oldenburg, Permanent Representative of Denmark, in the chair. The following item was discussed:
08/07 Exchange of views on the follow-up to the Report of the High-Level Task Force on Social Cohesion (TFSC)
CM(2007)175, CM(2007)175 corr (English only), CM(2007)175 add, CM/Del/Dec(2007)1014/6.6 and GR‑H(2008)3
2. Opening the meeting, the Chairman recalled the Deputies’ decision, taken at their 1014th meeting (12 December 2007), following the presentation of the report of the High-Level Task Force on Social Cohesion in the 21st century: “Towards an Active, Fair and Socially Cohesive Europe” by Mrs Mary Daly, the Chair of the Task Force, at the GR-SOC meeting in November 2007, in which they invited the relevant Rapporteur Groups to examine the report, particularly its recommendations, and make proposals for follow-up action for consideration at their 1019th meeting (27 February 2008).
3. He drew attention to the draft decisions presented in the annotated agenda, and also to document GR-H(2008)3, prepared by the Secretariat as a basis for discussion and in particular to the practical proposals set out in paragraph 12 of that document.
4. The Secretariat (Director General of Human rights and Legal Affairs) referring to the spirit in which the document had been prepared, wished to underline four considerations in particular:
(i) the recognition by the Task Force of the primordial role of human rights;
(ii) the emphasis it had placed on the universality, indivisibility and interdependence of those rights, whether civil, political, social, economic or cultural;
(iii) the fact that access to these rights is an integral part of their exercise and enjoyment; and
(iv) the fact that, in a multicultural society, the intercultural dialogue must take place on the basis of a corpus of common values, i.e. democracy, rule of law and human rights.
5. The Director General underlined that the proposals contained in the document were pragmatic: a campaign in favour of the ratification of the Revised Social Charter and the Additional Protocol, an invitation to the major steering committees in the sector (CDDH, CDPC, CDEG, CDMC) to mainstream the social cohesion message in their work, and transmission to the relevant monitoring bodies for information.
6. One delegation, expressing agreement with the analysis contained in the document, indicated nonetheless that, in relation to the proposed ratification campaign, no additional resources should be made available as suggested in the text.
7. With regard to the draft decisions set out in the annotated agenda, this delegation proposed the following amendments:
(i) in draft decision 2, to add the Governmental Committee of the Social Charter to the list of bodies to which the Report should be transmitted;
(ii) in draft decision 3, following the reference to the criteria set out in document CM(2005)101 final, to add “and in the light of the priorities fixed at the Warsaw summit”;
(iii) in draft decision 4, this delegation expressed strong reservations about the advisability of programming a discussion of the social cohesion agenda at a meeting of the Forum for Democracy, observing that this body, relatively recent, should be given the chance to establish itself in its field of direct competence before diverging from it and noting that, in any case the themes for these meetings were already fixed for a number of years to come.
8. On the same point, another delegation said that whilst it was true that the major topics for Forum meetings have been allocated for some years in advance, the theme of social cohesion could be included on the special informal list of sub-themes as part of the debate on the future of democracy in Europe. With regard to the ratification campaign, this delegation suggested that it might be possible to envisage a more broadly based campaign for the promotion of social cohesion and social rights, of which the ratification issue would form part.
9. Another delegation wished to take issue with the idea of campaigning specifically in favour of ratification of the Revised Social Charter and the collective complaints procedure: given the uneven state of ratifications, it would be more appropriate to investigate why only a limited number of member states had ratified and whether they eventually should be revised. Along the same lines, another delegation stressed that the current status surely reflected careful national considerations on these subjects.
10. Most of the delegations who took the floor expressed their full agreement with the general observations set out in document GR-H(2008)3, in particular as regards the indivisibility and interdependence of all human rights. They supported the amendments mentioned in paragraph 7 (i) and (ii) above although views were more mixed concerning the third point. Other matters raised in debate included:
- the possibility of holding the projected ministerial conference in Moscow (however, some delegations said that they had no competent ministry);
- the idea of including in the campaign the compilation of a corpus of good practice concerning access to social rights in Council of Europe states;
- to universality, indivisibility and independence should be added non-discrimination;
- doubts concerning the procedural validity of separate debates in sectoral rapporteur groups: the project being transversal, a transversal approach should have been adopted since the beginning (several delegations supported this position);
- the heavy workload of the CDDH should be taken into account when proposing new terms of reference; however, the specific proposal made in §12 of GR-H(2008)3 was justified;
- attention should be paid to the promotion of social dialogue.
11. The Secretariat (Director General of Human rights and Legal Affairs) responded to the debate, emphasised that the Secretariat’s document was a set of suggestions proposed to facilitate the debate. With regard to the draft decisions, he agreed that the reference to the Summit priorities was most appropriate and had been intended, if not mentioned. As for the mention of the Governmental Committee he recalled that in his opening remarks he pad proposed that the Task Force report should be transmitted to the relevant monitoring bodies for information.
12. He agreed that the campaign should be broadly based, and would doubtless feature information and awareness raising seminars as well as technical and political events not solely limited to the question of ratification of the Charter. He took note of the idea that the phenomenon of non-ratification merited serious examination.
13. Finally he wished to make it clear that transmission of the Task Force report to the steering committees mentioned did not imply any additional terms of reference. The idea was that they should take account of the recommendations of the Task Force in the execution of their continuing mandates. In the case of the CDDH, this was to a large extent already being done.
14. The Secretariat (Director General of Social Cohesion) added that he agreed that the campaign should not be limited just to the Social Charter – there was also the European Social Security Code. He noted the comments made concerning the need for a transversal approach and informed the GR-H that the Secretary General had authorised the creation of an intersecretarial working group on social cohesion which would be meeting regularly in the framework of the follow-up to the Task Force report.
15. Summing up the debate, the Chairman indicated that there were no formal conclusions since this meeting had not been the end but rather the beginning of the process which would be carried on next by the GR-SOC and subsequently by other competent groups.
In terms of formal follow-up he noted that there was agreement to the idea of transmitting the report to the intergovernmental steering committees competent for the human rights and legal sectors so that the recommendations of the Task Force could be taken into account in the further development of their work – in the light, as agreed, of the priorities established by the Warsaw Summit.
He also noted that there was agreement that the report should be sent for information to the monitoring bodies responsible for ensuring respect for states’ obligations in the area of human rights, including the organs of the Social Charter.
As to the wording of the decision concerning the Forum for Democracy, there was a clear need to find more broadly-based language for this paragraph.
Finally, as regards the proposed campaign, a variety of points of view had been expressed and these needed to be reflected in the documentation on this item.
- Any other business
- Date of the next meeting
Tuesday, 18 March 2008 at 10 a.m.
Ministers' Deputies / Rapporteur Groups
GR-SOC
Rapporteur Group for Social and Health Questions
GR-SOC(2008)CB2 11 February 2008
————————————————
Synopsis
Meeting of 5 February 2008
————————————————
1. The Rapporteur Group for Social and Health Questions (GR-SOC), chaired by Ambassador Yevhen Perelygin, Permanent Representative of Ukraine, considered the following items in the light of the notes on the agenda (document GR-SOC(2008)2).
1. Communication by the Director General of DG III
2. The Director General’s communication on DG III’s main activities in recent and coming months was distributed during the meeting (document DD(2008)50).
2. Report of the High-Level Task Force on Social Cohesion (TFSC)
CM(2007)175, CM(2007)175 corr (English only), CM(2007)175 add and CM/Del/Dec(2007)1014/6.6
3. During its discussions on this item, the Group focused on two main aspects. Firstly, the Group addressed the question of what substantive follow-up would be given to the report, and in this context, looked to what the procedure and calendar should be. On the substance of the report, a number of delegations referred to the non-paper prepared by the Directorate General of Social Cohesion that had been circulated with a view to fuelling the first discussions on possible follow up to the recommendations of the Task Force Report. Whilst the paper would serve as a basis of discussion, the majority view was expressed that more time would be needed for official consultations to take place on the proposals made therein. Delegations also requested that such information be submitted simultaneously in both official languages.
4. Some delegations offered their first reactions to the paper, for example suggesting that social dialogue and social cohesion indicators were possible projects that could be added. Another delegation did not consider it advisable to group the elderly and the homeless together in one project. With regard to the proposed projects regarding migrants, the Group was informed that following a preliminary exchange of views, the CDMG Bureau had expressed support for these projects. Moreover, one delegation had also already forwarded proposals on the theme of migrants which would be examined with a view to integrating them into the proposed activities in this field. This delegation’s proposals would be circulated to all delegations for information following the meeting. Although complex, some delegations also signalled the need to further highlight the transversal elements flowing from the Report.
5. With regard to the possible organisation of a European Ministerial Conference on Social Cohesion, a number of delegations expressed possible hesitations in envisaging such a conference given that it was difficult, or simply not possible, to identify just one particular ministry which deals with social cohesion. The multidimensional nature of social cohesion, necessarily implicates several ministries which deal respectively with issues such as education, migration, family policy and health. On this point, the Chair pointed out that whilst such technical obstacles may exist, they should not pre-empt any decision on the organisation of the Conference, and that proper consideration should first be given to the potential usefulness and real added value of such an event. The Group also took note of the statement of the delegation of the Russian Federation that its country was, in principle, prepared to host such a conference, in the event that this recommendation is given a favourable response.
6. Regarding the procedure to be adopted in following up the Task Force Report, some delegations stressed that the input to be provided by the experts on Steering Committees was of crucial importance in feeding future discussions and in contributing to the decision-making process. Several delegations also pointed out that in order to ensure that the group’s discussions result in coherent and focused proposals, and priorities, a consolidated paper should be drawn up, reflecting the various positions that have or will be put forward by the different rapporteur groups and the Secretariat. The Chair suggested that such a paper be prepared for one of the future GR-SOC meetings. The Chair recalled, that in the first instance, the Secretary General would present his priorities for 2009 to the Ministers’ Deputies in March. However, whilst a number of outline proposals flowing from the Report would be included in those priorities and consequently in the Programme of Activities for 2009, he stressed that the follow-up to the Report did not solely concern 2009, but also the years beyond, and that this should be borne in mind by the GR-SOC during its discussions. The Director of Social Cohesion also informed the GR-SOC that an inter-Secretariat working group was being set up to promote transversal activities in this field. This working group would meet regularly and report directly to the Secretary General. The GR-SOC would also be regularly informed of its activities.
7. With regard to the second aspect of discussions, it was recalled, on a more concrete level, that following their decision of 12 December 2007 at their 1014th meeting on the Task Force Report, this item was due to be referred back to the Ministers’ Deputies at their 1019th meeting on 27 February. In that perspective, the Group examined the draft decisions as they appeared in the annotated agenda. Taking account of the discussions that had already taken place within the GR-DEM and GR-H, and of their own discussions, a number of amendments were proposed to the draft decisions, with a view to reflecting, in particular, a reminder that any follow up proposals to the report should fall strictly within the priorities set by the Warsaw Summit, that the discussions of the rapporteur groups be brought to the attention of the various steering committees when examining the Task Force Report, that the Governmental Committee of the European Social Charter and other monitoring bodies of the Council of Europe be informed of the exercise - with a view to promoting transversality - and that a consolidated paper be prepared by the Secretariat as a basis for the GR-SOC in its task to keep under review the follow-up to be given to the Report. The revised draft decisions would be finalised by the Secretariat and submitted to the Deputies for consideration at their 1019th meeting (27 February 2008), subject to possible amendments which may arise from discussions within the GR-C.
3. European Committee on Migration (CDMG)
a. Abridged report of the 54th meeting (Strasbourg, 11-12 October 2007)
b. Draft Recommendation CM/Rec(2008)… of the Committee of Ministers to member states on strengthening the integration of children of migrants and of immigrant background
c. Draft Recommendation CM/Rec(2008)… of the Committee of Ministers to member states on policies for Roma and/or Travellers
CM(2008)15
8. The group first examined the abridged report of the meeting 54th meeting on 11 and 12 October 2007 (CM(2008)15). In so doing, it supported the wish of the Committee to invite the European Association of Administrative Judges and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies to participate in its work as observers and agreed to recommend that the Deputies decide that its terms of reference be modified accordingly. The Group also took note of the state of preparations of the 8th Conference of European ministers responsible for migration affairs (Kiev, 4‑5 September 2008). A number of questions were raised on a practical level with regard to the organisation of given events and obtaining particular documents, to which the Secretariat agreed to respond after the meeting. Another delegation queried the origins and aims of the CDMG’s “series of working proposals for a communication strategy” mentioned in paragraph 42 of the report and requested more information on what exactly these would entail. The Secretariat was invited to prepare a brief information document on this point in time for the next meeting of the GR-SOC.
9. The Group also discussed the CDMG’s request to the Committee of Ministers to decide whether or not Belarus should be invited, as an observer, to attend the 8th Conference of European Ministers responsible for migration affairs (Kiev, 4‑5 September 2008). The Chair pointed out the possible interest in inviting Belarus to this particular Conference, given the fact that it borders on four member states. A number of delegations expressed the view that this issue was a horizontal one and needed to be discussed at the political level. The Chair concluded that the question would be proposed for discussion to the Ministers’ Deputies, who could, if need be, refer it back to the appropriate Rapporteur Group for further debate.
10. The group also welcomed the two draft recommendations on strengthening the integration for children of migrants and of immigrant background and on policies for Roma and/or Travellers respectively. Following discussions, the Chair noted that the group could recommend that the Deputies adopt the two Recommendations, without further debate at their 1018th meeting on 20 February 2008.
11. Lastly, the Chair of the GR-SOC informed the Group, that during his participation in this meeting of the CDMG, the possibility was raised of holding an exchange of views between interested delegations of the GR-SOC and the CDMG Bureau with a view to sharing ideas and information on priorities, concrete projects underway and thoughts or proposals for future lines of action. A number of delegations expressed their support for this initiative and expressed interest in participating in such an exchange. The Secretariat informed the Group that this could possibly take place during the next meeting of the CDMG, the dates of which are still to be confirmed. The GR-SOC would be informed of the practicalities in due course.
4. Public Health Committee (Partial Agreement) (CD‑P-SP)
a. Abridged report of the 80th session (Strasbourg, 6 November 2007)
b. Draft Resolution ResAP(2008)... on requirements and criteria for the safety of tattoos and permanent make-up (superseding Resolution ResAP(2003)2 on tattoos and permanent make‑up)
CM(2008)16
12. The Group examined the abridged report of the 80th session of the Public Health Committee (Partial Agreement) (CD-P-SP) which took place on 6 November 2007 as set out in document CM(2008)16, together with the draft resolution appended thereto. Following discussions, the Chair noted that the group could recommend that the Deputies, in their composition restricted to the States members of the Partial Agreement in the Social and Public Health Field,[5] adopt the resolution and take note of the abridged report of the meeting without further debate at their 1018thmeeting on 20 February 2008.One delegation highlighted the importance, and added value, of this draft Recommendation and consequently the desirability for the maximum number of member states to implement it once adopted.
5. European Pharmacopoeia (EDQM)[6] –
European Committee on pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical care (CD-P-PH) – Revised draft terms of reference
CM(2007)183 rev
13. The Group examined the draft revised terms of reference of the European Committee on Pharmaceuticals and Pharmaceutical Care (CD-P-PH) as set out in document CM(2008)183 rev.
The Group welcomed the fact that a solution had been found, following legal advice, with a view to allowing the name of the committee to be modified, without amendment to the Convention, so as to more accurately reflect its actual field of work. This solution was reflected in the draft decisions.
14. With regard to the terms of reference, one delegation stated his concerns that the CD-P-PH may duplicate the work of the Pharmacopeia and that it would prefer to see the tasks and functions of the Committee more precisely defined, in addition to those relating to counterfeit medicines and other forms of pharmaceutical crime. The Secretariat expressed its firm view that there would be no duplication in activities, as the activities would be overseen and co-ordinated by the EDQM like all other activities it co-ordinates. If deemed necessary, more precise wording could be proposed in 2010 when the terms of reference will need to be renewed.
15. On a procedural point, one delegation raised the question as to whether the composition of the two committees which have succeeded the CD-P-SP (i.e. the CD-P-PH, and the CD-P-CS) is to be renewed, as if it were the case, certain internal procedures would need to be initiated to this end. The Secretariat confirmed that this was the case and that letters would shortly be sent to delegations on this subject.
16. In conclusion, the GR-SOC agreed to recommend that the terms of reference of the European Committee on Pharmaceuticals and Pharmaceutical care (CD-P-PH) be adopted by the Deputies, in their composition restricted to the representatives of the States Parties to the Convention on the Elaboration of a European Pharmacopoeia, [7] together with the other draft decisions allowing for an amendment to the name of the Committee in question, at their 1017th meeting on 6 February 2008.
6. Other business
-
7. Date of next meeting
28 February 2008 at 3.00 p.m.
[1] The entire Report of the Task Force (attention to the volume before printing) can be found on: http://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=CM(2007)175&Language=lanEnglish&Ver=corr
[2] The changes refer to item 5 only.
[3] Following this meeting, the Chair of the GR-SOC brought one further amendment (which was proposed during the present meeting, and supported by several delegations) to the draft decisions which would be circulated to all delegations
[4] Cf. DD(2008)64 distributed after the meeting.
[5] States concerned: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and United Kingdom.
[6] States concerned: Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, Turkey and United Kingdom.
[7] States concerned: Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, Turkey and United Kingdom.