Background
The present document aims at giving support in drafting the replies to the questionnaire by indicating those aspects that usefully could be addressed.
Question 1 – The added value of the OMC
To what extent has the OMC helped to achieve progress in the national policy making process and at European level?
In particular, the following aspects should be addressed:
- How and to what extent has the OMC influenced or helped to advance the national policy agenda? Does it create incentives for reform/modernisation?
- Have recent reforms and policy initiatives benefited from experience in other countries?
- Is a reflection on the experiences of other EU-countries normally carried out in the process leading to the adoption of a new policy measure or important reform?
- Has the OMC been an efficient and effective method in view of achieving the common objectives that were established for it?
- To what extent has the OMC contributed to develop a common understanding of the challenges to social inclusion and to pension sustainability in the EU? Has it also led to a greater convergence of policy responses?
Question 2 – The Common objectives
Are the common objectives still in line with key policy priorities and do they still address the most important challenges as identified in the most recent Joint Reports?
Please differentiate between the policy areas, social inclusion and pensions.
The following aspects should be addressed:
- Have the objectives addressed all priority policy issues or have there been major gaps or blind spots?
- Has too much attention been devoted to a specific issue (in relation to its political importance)? Are there any objectives that might have become obsolete?
- Among the common objectives, across the different policy sectors, has there been overlap?
- Have the common objectives been formulated in a too general or abstract way/just about right/in too detailed or narrow way? Are there too many common objectives?
Question 3 – Indicators and targets
Have indicators fulfilled their role in monitoring the progress achieved towards the common objectives? Have targets proved to be both feasible and effective in driving forward more ambitious policy reform?
The following aspects should be addressed:
- Is the quality of available data sufficient (both European and national data), in particular in view of their policy relevance and timeliness?
- Are the agreed indicators in line with the existing objectives and are they an effective tool for monitoring the progress achieved?
- On the basis of the indicators that have been used in the Joint Inclusion Report [footnote 1] and Joint Pensions Report [footnote 2], please indicate in which areas you feel that improvements should be made.
- Are there indicators that are considered to be obsolete or insufficient to achieve their monitoring function?
- What should be the role of national indicators?
- Have national targets been used in an appropriate way, and is there scope for extending their use?
- Indicate in which areas it might be possible and appropriate to develop EU targets.
Question 4 – Mobilisation of all actors and co-operation at national level
Has the OMC, on the national level, been implemented effectively and in a way conducive to better coordination between different government departments and levels, and to greater mobilisation of stakeholders?
Please describe and assess in particular the following aspects:
- The process of preparing, drafting and approving NAP/NSR.
- The involvement of national parliaments.
- The coordination within the government (i.e. between the different ministries etc.) including the links to the preparation of the budget.
- The coordination and consultation between different levels of public administration on national, regional and local level. Has the consultation of the regional and local levels produced a visible impact?
- The consultation of other relevant actors, such as stakeholders from the civil society or social partners. Has this consultation produced a visible impact?
- The mobilisation of actors on the national level. Has it been effective? Have new structures been created as a consequence of the application of the OMC, in particular in view of ensuring the participation of all concerned actors?
- The dissemination of national action plans/strategy reports and of joint reports. Is the level of public awareness of the OMC satisfactory?
Question 5 – Working methods at European level
Have the working methods developed at European level to promote mutual learning and discuss results of the open method of coordination been the most appropriate and effectively managed?
Please comment in particular on the following types of activity:
- The "national seminars" that were held in view of drafting the NAPs and NSRs.
- The "peer-reviews" that have been held within the Social Protection Committee and the Indicators sub-group, and, in the case of pensions, with the Economic Policy Committee following up the NAPs and NSRs.
- The seminars and conferences organized by the Presidency or the Commission to debate issues of interest for the OMC.
- The contribution of the Community Action Programme to fight social exclusion, through the various actions that it supports (peer reviews, transnational action projects, awareness raising projects, EU networks of NGOs and local/regional authorities, studies, statistical data bases). The comment on this point can be rather brief [footnote 3].
Question 6 – The links between the OMC and other processes
How do you assess the interaction between the OMC in the field of social inclusion and pensions and other relevant coordination processes on the EU level?
Please address, as far as possible, the following aspects:
- How do you assess the consistency and complementarity between the OMC in the social protection/inclusion field and other processes, such as the European Employment Strategy (EES) or the coordination of economic policies in the framework of the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines?
- How do you assess the role of the Social Protection Committee and its cooperation between other committees and bodies working on economic and social on the European level (the Economic Policy Committee (EPC), the EPC's Ageing Working Group (AWG), Employment Committee, etc)?
Question 7 – Suggestions for the future development of the OMC in a streamlined context
What suggestions would you make for the future development of the open method of coordination in the field of social protection and social inclusion?
- While taking into account the results of the mid-term review of the Lisbon Strategy, what suggestions would you make for the future development of the OMC in the field of social protection and social inclusion, with respect to the nature of the objectives within the new streamlined process, the extent to which the three strands of work should be integrated and the use of indicators?
- Would you like to see any modifications to the working methods of the Social Protection Committee, for example, in the light of the EU-enlargement or of the future scope of work under streamlining?
- How can the OMC processes be more supportive of the objectives of the BEPGs and the EGs?
- How to simplify the OMC processes in order to limit the workload, in particular in the preparation of reports?
- In the context of this evaluation, have you any comments or suggestions regarding how health and long-term care can be addressed in the future streamlined process?
Footnotes
- http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/soc-prot/soc-incl/joint_rep_en.htm
- http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/social_protection/pensions_en.htm#forum
- The Community Action Programme for the fight against poverty and social exclusion is subject to a specific evaluation process which is already well advanced. The available findings will be taken into account by the Commission in drafting the evaluation report.