The Commissioner provided closing remarks at the end of a two-day conference on the future of the European Social Fund (ESF). He outlined four main messages from the discussion: 1) The ESF will continue to exist in the future as it has supported employment, human capital, and social inclusion for 50 years; 2) The future ESF must be aligned with the Europe 2020 strategy; 3) The ESF should have a broad scope to address member state and regional needs while focusing on Europe 2020 priorities; 4) More emphasis needs to be placed on monitoring the ESF's performance and achieving results. The Commissioner stated that input from the conference would help proposals for the new ESF due in mid-2011 and negotiations on
De Europese Commissie gaf in 2017 liefst 200 miljoen euro aan Tanzania. Homoseksualiteit is voor mannen verboden in het land. Vrijwel alle politici demoniseren homoseksuelen frequent en fanatiek. Er is daardoor een klimaat waarin LHBT's gevaar lopen te worden mishandeld en vermoord.
De Europese Commissie gaf in 2017 liefst 200 miljoen euro aan Tanzania. Homoseksualiteit is voor mannen verboden in het land. Vrijwel alle politici demoniseren homoseksuelen frequent en fanatiek. Er is daardoor een klimaat waarin LHBT's gevaar lopen te worden mishandeld en vermoord.
The Challenge from Within: New EU Donors and European Development Cooperation Dr Lendy Spires
Although the discussion of new donors in the changing global development landscape usually focuses on the development cooperation forays of emerging economies, the budding aid programmes of the dozen member states that have joined the EU since 2004 are also illustrative of challenges from the larger non-DAC donor community. They provide an instance of the diversification of sources of development finance and an example of shifting roles within the global economy, making a transition from being aid recipients to aid providers in a relatively short period of time. While challenges of donor coordination and learning how to cope with alternative perspectives on the guiding logic and preferred manner of implementing development cooperation are not unique to the arrival of new EU member states on the donor scene, the new EU member states pose a distinct and direct challenge for the future of European development cooperation, as these donors can shape the direction that EU development policy takes from within the EU system itself. Development Cooperation Profile of the New EU Donors As with other so-called ›new‹ donors, some of the EU’s newest member states have had experience with devel-opment cooperation stretching back several decades, even if the scale and the quality of development engagement has changed in connection with their accession to the EU. The influence of these states on EU development cooper-ation also predates EU accession, as European support for economic and political transition processes in Central and Eastern Europe in the 1990s drew attention away from other focal regions for European development policy.
Speech by Milovan Filimonovic, State Secretary of the Ministry of Finance of Serbia, made at the regional conference on Public Administration Reform Challenges in Western Balkan Countries held at the OECD in Paris, 4 December 2015.
Pocketbook: Competitiveness in South East Europe 2018OECDglobal
The OECD has been working with the South East Europe (SEE) region since 2000 to develop and successfully implement policies for private sector development and investment. This pocketbook brochure summarises the most recent work in the region in the second edition of the Competitiveness in South East Europe: A Policy Outlook 2018. The study assessed six SEE economies in 17 policy dimensions through a highly participatory evaluation process that included in-depth, evidence-based analyses to provide guidance to governments and the private sector, and a toolkit for donors and international development agencies. For more information on the full publication, please click on this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264298576-en
Polityka spójności Unii Europejskiej jest głównym narzędziem modernizacji społecznej
i gospodarczej w państwach Europy Środkowej. Dotyczy to zwłaszcza Polski, która otrzymuje największą pomoc finansową z tego instrumentu spośród wszystkich innych państw członkowskich UE. Celem artykułu jest analiza zmian w polityce spójności pod wpływem kryzysu
w strefie euro oraz ocena tego, w jaki sposób te zmiany mogą wpłynąć na procesy modernizacyjne w najsłabiej rozwijających się państwach UE, a także szerzej – jak wpłyną na sposób
funkcjonowania integracji europejskiej.
The Challenge from Within: New EU Donors and European Development Cooperation Dr Lendy Spires
Although the discussion of new donors in the changing global development landscape usually focuses on the development cooperation forays of emerging economies, the budding aid programmes of the dozen member states that have joined the EU since 2004 are also illustrative of challenges from the larger non-DAC donor community. They provide an instance of the diversification of sources of development finance and an example of shifting roles within the global economy, making a transition from being aid recipients to aid providers in a relatively short period of time. While challenges of donor coordination and learning how to cope with alternative perspectives on the guiding logic and preferred manner of implementing development cooperation are not unique to the arrival of new EU member states on the donor scene, the new EU member states pose a distinct and direct challenge for the future of European development cooperation, as these donors can shape the direction that EU development policy takes from within the EU system itself. Development Cooperation Profile of the New EU Donors As with other so-called ›new‹ donors, some of the EU’s newest member states have had experience with devel-opment cooperation stretching back several decades, even if the scale and the quality of development engagement has changed in connection with their accession to the EU. The influence of these states on EU development cooper-ation also predates EU accession, as European support for economic and political transition processes in Central and Eastern Europe in the 1990s drew attention away from other focal regions for European development policy.
Speech by Milovan Filimonovic, State Secretary of the Ministry of Finance of Serbia, made at the regional conference on Public Administration Reform Challenges in Western Balkan Countries held at the OECD in Paris, 4 December 2015.
Pocketbook: Competitiveness in South East Europe 2018OECDglobal
The OECD has been working with the South East Europe (SEE) region since 2000 to develop and successfully implement policies for private sector development and investment. This pocketbook brochure summarises the most recent work in the region in the second edition of the Competitiveness in South East Europe: A Policy Outlook 2018. The study assessed six SEE economies in 17 policy dimensions through a highly participatory evaluation process that included in-depth, evidence-based analyses to provide guidance to governments and the private sector, and a toolkit for donors and international development agencies. For more information on the full publication, please click on this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264298576-en
Polityka spójności Unii Europejskiej jest głównym narzędziem modernizacji społecznej
i gospodarczej w państwach Europy Środkowej. Dotyczy to zwłaszcza Polski, która otrzymuje największą pomoc finansową z tego instrumentu spośród wszystkich innych państw członkowskich UE. Celem artykułu jest analiza zmian w polityce spójności pod wpływem kryzysu
w strefie euro oraz ocena tego, w jaki sposób te zmiany mogą wpłynąć na procesy modernizacyjne w najsłabiej rozwijających się państwach UE, a także szerzej – jak wpłyną na sposób
funkcjonowania integracji europejskiej.
Speech by Michael Koehler, European Commission, on The European Neighbourhood Policy and public administration reform at the conference co-organised by SIGMA with the Jordanian Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation and the EU at the Dead Sea, Jordan 10 May 2016.
A Shared European Policy Strategy for Growth, Jobs, and StabilityLucio Ghioldi
Un documento di nove pagine del Governo Italiano diviso in tre punti e una conclusione.
Il primo punto è intitolato: "A Fragile Recovery: Challenges and Opportunities "
Il secondo punto è intitolato: "A Comprehensive Policy Mix". Dove si descrive un complesso di misure che realizzino una politica espansiva al posto di quella di austerità e rigore fin qui imposta dalla Commissione (e dalla Germania). Bisogna aumentare le capacità di crescita, sostenere la politica monetaria della Bce, varare una politica fiscale europea che tenda a riequilibrare le politiche nazionali aiutando la loro flessibilità in modo da ristabilire tra loro un equilibrio attualmente molto alterato. Completare l'Unione Bancaria ed estendere le garanzie in favore dei depositi bancari dei singoli Paesi. Fare intervenire l'Europa anche nelle politiche sociali e sindacali dei singoli Paesi, sempre al fine di rafforzare l'integrazione europea ed una politica di crescita e di equità. Rafforzare i confini europei verso il resto del mondo e smantellare al più presto possibile i confini interni ripristinati in molti Paesi violando il patto di Schengen. Dunque una politica comune dell'immigrazione più volte chiesta dall'Italia ma finora inesistente.
Il punto tre del documento rappresenta, con un titolo altamente significativo, lo sbocco istituzionale della politica europeista delineata nelle pagine precedenti: "From the Short-term to the Long-term View"
1. SPEECH/10/340
Mr. László ANDOR
Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion
"Shaping the future of the ESF – ESF &
Europe 2020"
Conference on "Future of the ESF" – Charlemagne Building
Brussels, 24 June 2010
2. Madame Gruny,
Monsieur Verrue,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
This conference has provided us with two interesting days of discussion and
exchange of ideas.
I would like to thank you all for your input.
I regret I could not be present for the whole of the conference. However, the
discussions I have listened to and the feedback
I have received confirm that this has been a very useful exercise.
Let me share with you what I believe are the four main messages to take from this
conference.
First, we will have an ESF in the future. It may be an obvious thing to say. But, I
want this point to be absolutely clear right from the start.
For the last 50 years, the ESF has been the main instrument at EU level to invest in
employment, human capital and social inclusion. Various studies prove that these
are key factors for boosting growth.
In addition, the ESF has been THE concrete proof of solidarity between European
citizens. Over the years, the ESF has been developed and adapted to changing
political and socio-economic contexts. This is what has ensured its continued high
relevance. It will still need to evolve and adapt.
The future ESF should therefore be fully aligned in all Member States with the
Europe 2020 strategy and the integrated guidelines. This will increase the relevance
of the fund as a policy instrument.
Many elements of the EUROPE 2020 Strategy qualify for ESF support.
The ESF should contribute to the achievement of several headline targets, notably
the employment target, the educational attainment target, and the poverty reduction
target.
I believe that the ESF is the best instrument we have to show to people what Europe
2020 means for them. I believe that the ESF should continue to intervene
throughout Europe, since these objectives are common to all Member States.
The debate today has shown that the majority of stakeholders want the ESF to have
a broad scope. I share this view.
A broad scope will ensure that the Member States, the regions and local
stakeholders can design operational programmes that address their needs and
specific situations.
However, this has to happen within the policy framework of Europe 2020. A broad
scope should not lead to a dispersion of means.. The Commission will work with the
Member States to establish concentration on priorities relevant for them and their
regions
The ESF is not an island.
Indeed, the ESF is one of the instruments that the EU, the Member States and the
Regions use to support their policy objectives.
2
3. Support to employment, human capital and social inclusion should be more visible
at EU level and should have transparent allocation criteria between Member States.
Criteria should be linked to the challenges Member States have to face in terms of
education, training, employment and social inclusion and their capacity to tackle
them.
The ESF is an essential thematic instrument but it also contributes to the economic,
social and territorial cohesion objectives of the Treaty.
Therefore, it would make sense to have some common rules for all the Funds even
if there may be a need for specific rules according to the different types of projects.
This would make coordination between Funds much easier.
In addition, it is urgent to reinforce the political ownership of the funds. I would like to
involve our institutional partners - the European Parliament and the Ministers in
charge of employment and social affairs - more closely in the follow-up of the
programmes' implementation.
We need to shift our focus to what the ESF actually achieves.
This means that we need to put in place systems to monitor the performance of the
actions supported by the ESF. We should also be able to react according to this
information.
Admittedly, in the past, performance reserves largely failed to achieve what they
were set out to do. Yet we have seen successful examples in the Member States.
We could also consider setting up a compliance reserve based, inter alia, on the
achievement of Europe 2020 targets.
Furthermore, a set of core indicators common to all operational programmes could
facilitate the demonstration of results achieved at EU level.
We need also to think about moving towards a more results-based delivery system
for some types of operations.
This could simplify the delivery system through the use of lump sums and flat rates,
and the possibility of introducing budget support elements linked to results in a given
area.
Finally, it would be worth looking at how to promote the use of financial engineering
instruments. This would allow more capital to be invested in the policies supported
by the European Social Fund.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The discussions on the future of the ESF – thanks to all of you – are now entering a
decisive stage. This is very positive. The messages we got from you are very clear.
They are also very useful for the work that lies ahead.
Time is not yet running out but the pressure is growing: our proposals for the new
ESF are already expected for mid-2011. For the moment, we are still in the listening
mode – and this is why I invite all those who so wish – to send us their ideas. There
is still time.
As Madame Bérès said yesterday, the future of all European instruments and
programmes will depend on the shape of the next financial framework for the years
2014 – 2020.
These discussions – which will start after the summer – come at a critical time for
Europe and its Member States who have recently reaffirmed their determination to
ensure fiscal sustainability and strengthen budgetary consolidation.
Pressure on public finances is high and it is clear that this situation will continue in
the future.
3
4. There is no doubt that, in this difficult and complex context, the negotiations on the
next European Budget for seven years will be intense.
At the same time crucial questions will be raised: for instance, whether payments
from Brussels should be conditional to fulfilling obligations under the Treaties, in
particular the Stability and Growth Pact. In my view, it will be our main duty to avoid
measures that would be seen as unfair and counterproductive.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
It will be no easy task. But we have a clear mandate to support the Europe 2020
strategy. And the ESF is its financial lever, to translate our policy objectives into a
reality on the ground.
Thank you.
4