(1

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, xxxSEC(2001) yyy final

$66(660(17�2)�7+(�,03/(0(17$7,21�2)�7+(������(03/2

2

,1752'8&7,21

The European Employment Strategy as defined by Article 128 of the Treaty is an integratedpart of a wider political agenda adopted by the Lisbon and follow-up Summits aiming atmaking the European Union the most dynamic knowledge based economy and regaining theconditions for full employment.

Title VIII of the Treaty establishing the European Community lays down the principles andprocedures towards developing a co-ordinated strategy for employment. Article 128specifically details the steps leading to the formulation of such a strategy including, on anannual basis, guidelines for employment, recommendations to the Member States and a jointreport by the Council and the Commission to the European Council on the employmentsituation in the Community and on the implementation of the guidelines. Each Member Stateis to provide the Council and the Commission with an annual report on the principal measurestaken to implement its employment policy in the light of the guidelines for employment.

This year is the fourth round of this process and Member States duly sent their NationalAction Plans for employment (NAPs) to the Council and Commission in May.

The present document is designed to support the preparation of the Joint Employment Reportcalled for under Article 128. It reflects the Commission services’ own detailed analysis andassessment of the NAPs and the extent to which they respond to the Employment Guidelinesand Recommendations agreed by the Council on 19 January 20011. It also takes into accountcomplementary information or explanations presented by Member States at the bilateralmeetings held with the Commission in late June/early July 2001.

Part I of the supporting document provides a thematic and European Union wide assessmentof the 2001 National Action Plans on employment. The Guidelines for 2001, approved by theCouncil on the 19 January 2001, were updated to reflect the Lisbon strategy by including fivenew horizontal objectives and some new or adjusted guidelines, inter alia on bottlenecks inthe labour market (GL 6); discrimination (GL 7); undeclared work (GL 9); the common targetfor workers’ ICT literacy by 2003 (GL 15) and national targets on gender gap and carefacilities (GL 17/18).

Part II assesses the progress made by each Member State in implementing the objectives andGuidelines for 2001. This is based on the NAPs and on the performance indicators.

1 Council Decision on Guidelines for Member States’ employment policies for the year 2001 (2001/63/EC); OJECL 22 of

22.01.2001.

3

7$%/(�2)�&217(176

INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................... 2

PART I THE EUROPEAN UNION........................................................................................... 6

1. Horizontal Objectives: building conditions for full employment in a knowledge-based society................................................................................................................. 7

1.1. Moving towards full employment (Horizontal Objective A) ....................................... 8

1.2. Comprehensive and coherent national strategies for lifelong learning (HorizontalObjective B) ............................................................................................................... 13

1.3. Role and contributions of the social partners (Horizontal Objective C) .................... 20

1.4. Policy mix (Horizontal Objective D) ......................................................................... 25

1.5. Development of common indicators (Horizontal Objective E).................................. 29

1.6. Knowledge society ..................................................................................................... 31

2. Pillar 1: Employability ............................................................................................... 35

2.1. Tackling youth and long-term unemployment (Guideline 1)..................................... 37

2.1.1. Preventing long-term unemployment ......................................................................... 38

2.1.2. Promoting the re-integration of the long-term unemployed....................................... 44

2.1.3. Modernising Public Employment Services (PES)...................................................... 46

2.2. Tax-benefit reforms (Guideline 2a)............................................................................ 49

2.3. Active labour market policies (Guideline 2b and 2c)................................................. 51

2.4. Policies for active ageing (Guideline 3) ..................................................................... 59

2.5. Skills and lifelong learning (Guideline 4) .................................................................. 62

2.6. Development of e-learning (Guideline 5)................................................................... 68

2.7. Bottlenecks (Guideline 6)........................................................................................... 71

2.8. Combating discrimination and exclusion (Guideline 7)............................................. 75

4

3. Pillar 2: Entrepreneurship........................................................................................... 81

3.1. Improving the business environment (Guidelines 8 and 9)........................................ 83

3.2. Job creation and the service sector (Guideline 10)..................................................... 88

3.3. Regional and local action for employment (Guideline 11) ........................................ 89

3.4. Employment and taxation (Guideline 12) .................................................................. 95

4. Pillar 3: Adaptability ................................................................................................ 103

4.1. Modernisation of work organisation: initiatives of the social partners (Guideline 13)105

4.2. Modernisation of work organisation: regulatory environment (Guideline 14) ........ 110

4.3. Lifelong learning (Guideline 15).............................................................................. 117

5. Pillar 4: Equal opportunities..................................................................................... 123

5.1. Gender mainstreaming (Guideline 16) ..................................................................... 125

5.2. Tackling gender gaps (Guideline 17) ....................................................................... 127

5.3. Reconciliation of work and family life (Guideline 18) ............................................ 136

6. Budgetary impact of the National Action Plans ....................................................... 142

Annex: Indicators for Guideline 1 .......................................................................................... 145

PART II THE MEMBER STATES........................................................................................ 149

BELGIUM.............................................................................................................................. 150

DENMARK............................................................................................................................ 159

GERMANY............................................................................................................................ 167

GREECE................................................................................................................................. 176

SPAIN . ................................................................................................................................. 185

FRANCE ................................................................................................................................ 194

IRELAND............................................................................................................................... 202

ITALY . ................................................................................................................................. 210

5

LUXEMBOURG.................................................................................................................... 219

NETHERLANDS ................................................................................................................... 227

AUSTRIA............................................................................................................................... 236

PORTUGAL........................................................................................................................... 244

FINLAND............................................................................................................................... 252

SWEDEN................................................................................................................................ 260

UNITED KINGDOM............................................................................................................. 267

Annex: Comments on key indicators of the Member States fiche ......................................... 275

6

3$57�,7+(�(8523($1�81,21

7

��� +25,=217$/� 2%-(&7,9(6�� %8,/',1*� &21',7,216� )25� )8//(03/2

8

Opportunities Pillar, less emphasis has been placed in the 2001 NAPs compared to theprevious year.

Member States increasingly take into account WKH�UHJLRQDO�DQG� ORFDO�GLPHQVLRQ oftheir employment policies. More and more national programmes tend to be designedin a more flexible way, allowing for implementation adapted to differentcircumstances. In parallel, regions are beginning to launch their own programmeswhich often complement parts of national programmes. The European StructuralFunds play an important role in this development.

Progress has been achieved on the GHYHORSPHQW�RI�FRPPRQ�(XURSHDQ�LQGLFDWRUV.Initiatives for the development of indicators and benchmarks at national level,including by the social partners, have only been tackled in some Member States.

Although it is not a horizontal objective as such, a separate section is devoted to theNQRZOHGJH� VRFLHW\, in view of the importance of the subject as a follow-up to theLisbon conclusions. Member States have proposed a variety of approaches across thedifferent Pillars. Quality varies markedly from one Member State to another with, ingeneral, the strongest coverage of knowledge society issues in the EmployabilityPillar, followed by the Entrepreneurship Pillar. Both the Adaptability and EqualOpportunities Pillars tend to give much lighter coverage. No single NAP achieves aconvincing synthesis of knowledge society elements across all four Pillars.

����� 0RYLQJ�WRZDUGV�IXOO�HPSOR\PHQW��+RUL]RQWDO�2EMHFWLYH�$�

Recognising full employment as the goal of overall national economic policy,Member States are invited by Objective A to consider setting national targets forraising the rate of employment, with a view to contributing to the Lisbon objectives ofachieving a 70% overall employment rate and an employment rate of more than 60%for women by 2010. In pursuing these targets, the aim of increasing the quality of jobsshould also be taken into consideration.

2YHUYLHZ

Overall employment rates are gradually increasing in all Member States and in somecases already exceed the targets set for 2005 or even for 2010. The gap in overallemployment rates is closing at a rather slow pace and the differences betweenMember States are still substantial. The gender and age gaps are much wider in thoseMember States that have relatively low overall employment rates. Member States

9

make reference to Lisbon or Stockholm targets but most of them fail to set overall orspecific national employment targets.

Employment rates for older workers continue to be very low and discrepancies hereare much larger than in overall rates, reflecting differences in policies and pensionsprovisions between the Member States. Most Member States follow a piecemealapproach whereas a comprehensive approach is essential for promoting active ageingtowards improving the capacity of, and the incentives for, older workers to remainlonger in employment. Employment rates for women are increasing at a faster pacethan overall rates but the pace remains below its potential (for more details, seesection 5.2). Those Member States with low employment rates for women haveintroduced limited actions to improve the current female employment situation.

The issue of quality is more strongly reflected in the 2001 NAPs than previously,although more in relation to the quality of labour supply than in relation to the qualityof work as such.

(PSOR\PHQW�UDWH�WDUJHWV

As regards the setting of employment rate targets, the table below shows that MemberStates can be clustered into two groups:

,Q�WKH�ILUVW�JURXS are those that have DOUHDG\�UHDFKHG�HPSOR\PHQW�UDWHV very closeto or even exceeding the EU average target: Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, theNetherlands, Portugal and the United Kingdom. Most of these Member States setfurther fairly ambitious national targets – though sometimes referring to different agegroups or to participation instead of employment rates.

7KH� VHFRQG�JURXS are those Member States that make reference to the Lisbon andStockholm targets in general, but do not translate this into explicit national targets.These include: Belgium, Ireland, Spain, Germany and Luxembourg.

,Q� EHWZHHQ� WKHVH� JURXSV� DUH� )UDQFH�� ,WDO\� DQG� *UHHFH� France defines nationaltargets only for 2001. Italy only defines an overall national target for 2005 and 2010and Greece only for 2005.

10

7DEOH����(PSOR\PHQW�UDWH�WDUJHWV

MEMBERSTATES

EMPLOYMENT RATES IN2000

NATIONAL TARGETS INNAPS 2001

COMMENTS

OVERALL WOMEN OVERALL WOMEN

Austria 68.3 59.4 No No Overall and women’s rates close to EUtarget.

Belgium 60.5 51.5 No2 No

Denmark 76.3 71.6 Yes No Both rates exceed EU targets. Nationaltarget of further 1.3% increase inoverall rate by 2010

France 62.2 55.3 Yes (62.8) Yes (55.8) National targets only for 2001

Finland 67.5 64.4 Yes (70) No Both rates close to or exceed EUtargets. National target for overall rate,mid-term, 2005

Germany 65.4 57.9 No No

Greece 55.6 40.9 Yes (61.5) No National target for overall rate, mid-term, 2005

Italy 53.5 39.6 Yes No National targets for overall rate: 58.5%in 2005 and 61.3% in 20103

Ireland 65.1 54.0 No No

Luxembourg 62.9 50.3 No No

Netherlands 73.2 63.7 No Yes (65) Both rates exceed EU targets. Nationaltarget for women refers to participationrate, 2010

Portugal 68.3 60.3 No Yes Both rates close to or exceed EU target.National target for women: reducegender gap by 25% by 2003

Spain 55.0 40.3 No No

Sweden 73.0 71.0 Yes (80) No Both rates exceed EU targets. Nationaltarget for overall rate refers to ages 20-

64 by 20044

UnitedKingdom

71.2 64.6 Yes (75) Yes (70) Both rates exceed EU targets. Nationaltarget for women refers to lone parentsonly

2 Belgium subscribes to the Lisbon targets without making explicit commitments for national targets apart from the

remark that to reach such targets it would require current employment rates to grow by 1 percentage point per year.3 Based on complement to the NAP, June 2001.4 The national target rate of 80% for the age group 20-64 is comparable with about 76% for the group 15-64 years old.

11

4XDOLW\�RI�MREV

The European Councils of Lisbon and Stockholm stressed the need to improve jobquality in the EU5. The job quality objective, as well as being part of horizontalobjective A, cuts across a number of policy domains underpinning several Guidelines.

The issue of quality is more strongly reflected in the NAPs 2001 than previously,reflecting the Lisbon objectives of "more and better jobs". Quality of work ispresented as an overall objective of the NAPs in Portugal, Belgium, Denmark, Irelandand France, while other Member States refer to it under a number of Guidelines.

Most Member States, with only some exceptions, do not introduce quality as ahorizontal objective but adopt a more selective approach which recognises any lack ofquality in existing employment as a weakness both in terms of labour markets and theeconomy as a whole. In general most Member States have taken up the qualitydimension in the context of labour supply.

7KH�TXDOLW\�GLPHQVLRQ�KDV�EHHQ�WDNHQ�XS�LQ�WKH�FRQWH[W�RI�ODERXU�VXSSO\���

In the context of Member States’ RYHUDOO� HPSOR\PHQW� VWUDWHJLHV, the majorityconcentrate quality-related considerations on the provision of high quality laboursupply (e.g. in the Netherlands, but also other Member States, where general, sectoralor regional ERWWOHQHFNV are emerging). Several approaches can be identified, such asthe idea of making employment more attractive for older workers through improvedquality (e.g. in Austria, Belgium, France, Germany and the United Kingdom) andestablishing the necessary conditions for a culture of DFWLYH� DJHLQJ. Some MemberStates try to identify more clearly future needs, e.g. Finland where a study on thequality and quantity of skills needed in information technologies has been launched. Itis the context of new challenges – be it bottlenecks or be it the needs of theinformation society - which leads to a striking concentration of efforts on OLIHORQJOHDUQLQJ. The quality (and quality assurance) of education and training systems is, inmost Member States, clearly seen as the most important prerequisite for sustainableeconomic and social development in societies and economic systems which arebecoming increasingly dependent on information. Many interesting initiatives havebeen launched, such as action plans for immediately improving the quality of training(e.g. in France), the incorporation of quality requirements into training provisions(e.g. in Finland), incentives (e.g. a "quality award" for companies that invest in the

5 The relevant aspects of quality in work are spelled out in Commission Communication COM(2001)313, 20.06.2001.

12

employability of their employees in the Netherlands) or even the creation ofinstitutional structures (e.g. the "State Centre for Competence and QualityDevelopment" in Denmark).

Other areas where quality has become a comparatively strong issue are the preventiveapproach and the Entrepreneurship Pillar. In the case of SUHYHQWLRQ�DQG�DFWLYDWLRQthis can also be traced back to the challenge of sufficient, timely, sustainable and highquality labour supply (e.g. in Belgium). In general, Member States obviouslyincreasingly perceive the need to improve the quality and effectiveness of activepolicies (e.g. Belgium, Finland, France, Portugal) which in some cases have expandedconsiderably - in terms of quantity/financing - over the last few years. In this contextthe modernisation of the Public Employment Services is often conceived as followingthe objective of improved quality (e.g. Denmark, Finland, France, Sweden).

A strong quality focus has also been introduced in the (QWUHSUHQHXUVKLS Pillar bysome Member States. The scope ranges from very broad approaches (e.g. Irelandwhich works towards developing from low tech, low productivity activities andemployment to higher value activities and higher quality jobs for its whole economy)to very specific issues (e.g. Austria, where employee’s stock ownership - to besupported more proactively - is seen as a factor enhancing the quality of work).Undeclared work/the hidden economy is seen as an obstacle to the development ofhigh quality employment (e.g. in Italy).

��EXW�LV�OHVV�GHYHORSHG�LQ�WKH�QDUURZHU�VHQVH�RI�TXDOLW\�RI�HPSOR\PHQW

Although the issue of quality of employment has been introduced expressly under theAdaptability Pillar the theme has not been taken up very intensively. Where ZRUNRUJDQLVDWLRQ and quality are dealt with in the NAPs the focus is more on lifelonglearning/training (e.g. in Ireland); other priorities or broader approaches - e.g. Finlandwhere workplace development programmes attempt to improve inter alia the qualityof working life and wellbeing at work - are rarely mentioned. On health and safety atwork a great deal of contextual and procedural information is provided but without thequality dimension being properly developed. This reflects partly the fact that theVRFLDO�GLDORJXH, which is directly linked to the Adaptability Pillar, dos not specificallycover the quality dimension. All Member States make reference to the role andimportance of social partners and to desirable results of social partners or tripartiteactivities, but the process and social dialogue itself (how it works not only in terms offactual short-term results but also in terms of e.g. scope of co-operation) are not dealtwith.

13

The quality dimension is not very well developed in the context of HTXDORSSRUWXQLWLHV. Very little information is provided and where it is, it mainly concernschild-care facilities (e.g. Denmark, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Sweden).

����� &RPSUHKHQVLYH� DQG� FRKHUHQW� QDWLRQDO� VWUDWHJLHV� IRU� OLIHORQJ� OHDUQLQJ�+RUL]RQWDO�2EMHFWLYH�%�

Horizontal objective B requires Member States to develop comprehensive andcoherent strategies for lifelong learning, covering all the different education andtraining systems, in order to promote employability, adaptability and participation inthe knowledge-based society. This involves the sharing of responsibilities between allthe main actors and particular action by the social partners to negotiate and agree oneducation and training measures for workers. Member States are also invited to set,and monitor progress towards, targets for increasing investment in human resourcesand participation in adult education and training.

2YHUYLHZ

Lifelong learning is now a clear policy priority throughout the European Union withmost NAPs giving a high profile to the wide range of issues involved, often with clearlinks made to quality of labour supply and social inclusion concerns. Almost half theMember States can be said to have developed and implemented comprehensive andcoherent strategies – which represents a welcome advance on last year. SeveralMember States have undertaken crosscutting reviews of their education and trainingsystems the impact of which will only be felt in the medium term. However, despitethese promising developments, more policy attention and concrete action is needed toraise overall levels of investment and to promote participation in further learning.Several Member States are establishing systems to recognise non-formal learning and,to a lesser extent, information, advice and guidance services. However, measuring theimpact of developments will be difficult in the continued absence (with a fewexceptions) of appropriate overall targets for lifelong learning.

Government collaboration with social partners on lifelong learning policy andimplementation is fairly strong overall and takes various forms (consultation,participation in policy-making, tripartite dialogue at various levels). Less informationis provided on social partners' autonomous initiatives. Wider partnerships (with publicauthorities, learning providers and NGOs or civil society) are largely lacking, with afew rather ad hoc exceptions.

14

7RZDUGV�FRPSUHKHQVLYH�DQG�FRKHUHQW�VWUDWHJLHV

One of the main conclusions from last year’s Joint Employment Report was the lackof coherent and comprehensive lifelong learning strategies, as reflected in theRecommendations given last year to some two-thirds ofMember States. Since then,substantial progress has been made in formulating and implementing such strategiesand initiatives - in line with the Guidelines and consistent with the interrelatedobjectives of the Memorandum on Lifelong Learning6.

Assessment of progress made by the Member States has to be placed within itsnational context and take account of Member States’ different points of departure inrelation to formulating and implementing lifelong learning policies.

The main building blocks of national lifelong learning strategies seem to be in placein an increasing number of Member States. However, in general, the absence of co-ordination between the various stages and sectors of education and training, inparticular within national Governments and between the various other actors, is amajor obslacle to the development of comprehensive and coherent lifelong learningstartegies. In addition, as most Member States are at a development or earlyimplementation phase of their strategies, evaluation of the actual impact of policy isstill premature.

Table 2 sets out in some detail the extent to which Member States can be consideredto be developing and implementing comprehensive and coherent strategies forlifelong learning by assessing their policies and actions in this area against variouscriteria.

• Under column 1, the first set of criteria concerns the FRPSUHKHQVLYHQHVV ofMember States' lifelong learning strategies and measures by defining the majorsectors or systems which they should cover. Evidence is sought that the full rangeof issues within each criterion are covered – for example, 'formal adult educationand training' covers everything from basic skills and academic study to full-timeprofessional training and continuing vocational training. In addition, three separatecriteria highlight non-formal learning (including in the workplace), prioritisingdisadvantaged groups and investment/funding issues because of their particular

6 SEC(2000) 1832, 31.10.2000.

15

relevance and importance within the context of the Employment Strategy and theambition to make Europe a learning society for all.

• The other criteria in column 1 describe key elements that help ensure theFRKHUHQFH of Member States’ policies and actions. In each case, the bracketedwording illustrates some of the forms these may take. However, every aspect ofeach criterion is not expected to be covered – for example, under 'cross-cuttingissues', it may be that accessible advice and guidance services make the differentlearning systems sufficiently transparent so as to lessen the need for othermechanisms to facilitate learners' movements within and between such systems.

Further illustrations of these criteria are set out in the box below. Assessments againstthese criteria, as set out in the table, are based mainly on the NAPs 2001 but also onother relevant information available to the Commission services. On the basis of thisanalysis, overall assessments indicate the following three groups of Member States:

In the first group, as the best performers, 'HQPDUN, WKH�1HWKHUODQGV, )LQODQG, 6ZHGHQand� WKH� 8QLWHG� .LQJGRP have already put in place the main building blocks fornational lifelong learning strategies whilst )UDQFH and *HUPDQ\ are still in the processof developing and refining some elements. Workplace learning in its different guises(from on-the-job training through recognised non-formal learning to competencedevelopment schemes) is a clear strength across the board. Several Member States areshifting their priorities towards issues of quality and efficiency. Member States needto continue to strive for improvements, particularly in terms of overall investment andhow best to reach those adults least inclined to learn, including through innovativefunding and non-formal learning.

%HOJLXP and ,UHODQG, in the second group, are developing their strategies (Ireland isclose to joining the first group) but both need further efforts particularly as regardscoherence: Belgium needs to clarify the responsibilties of the different actors in thiscontext and improve overall partnership working, including with civil society; Irelandneeds to translate findings of different policy fora into coherent implementation, whileensuring that the traditional divide between education and training is not propagated.$XVWULD is another candidate for this group as reporting on lifelong learning in its NAPfocuses almost exclusively on ICT issues and Hlearning, making a progressassessment of other areas extremely difficult.

Making up the final group, *UHHFH, 6SDLQ, ,WDO\, /X[HPERXUJ and 3RUWXJDO areadvancing in different ways and to different degrees but have not yet achieved

16

comprehensive and coherent approaches to lifelong learning. Investment and funding,access for disadvantaged adults, better exploitation of the potential of non-formallearning, partnership working and coherence across different learning routes are allareas requiring further attention. Spain is characterised by the traditional dividebetween education and training. Portugal has made the most progress in terms ofpolicy planning and needs to ensure that the many different elements are properlyfollowed up.

6RPH�LOOXVWUDWLRQV�RI�SUDFWLFHV�FRQWULEXWLQJ�WR�FRPSUHKHQVLYH�DQG�FRKHUHQW�VWUDWHJLHV

On FRPSUHKHQVLYHQHVV, several Member States give balanced attention to formal provision foryoung people and adults as well as non-formal and workplace learning. )LQODQG has expandedthe practical content in basic vocational training and is making on-the-job training part of thestudies of all students. )UDQFH and WKH�1HWKHUODQGV are developing particularly ambitious andinnovative systems for recognising non-formal learning. ,WDO\ refers to the value of learningfor leisure. *UHHFH has defined priority groups for action (women, older people, ethnicminorities). 6ZHGHQ has a highly developed funding system for adults.

On FRKHUHQFH, some Member States have established tools for each stage of the policyplanning, implementation and evaluation process. 3RUWXJDO has set an extensive series oftargets which will require close monitoring. 'HQPDUN is operationalising the principle offlexible learning pathways (e.g. credit transfers) as well as focusing on the overall coherenceof the learning offer. In WKH�8QLWHG�.LQJGRP, Information, Advice and Guidance Partnershipsoffer support to adults in planning their learning routes and, as in *HUPDQ\, regional/localpartnerships of learning providers and others work to improve overall coherence.

17

7DEOH����0HPEHU�6WDWHV�SRVLWLRQV�RQ�GHYHORSLQJ�OLIHORQJ�OHDUQLQJ�VWUDWHJLHV

&+$5$&7(5,67,&6 %( '. '( (/ (6 )5 ,5/ ,7 /8; 1/ $8 37 ),1 6: 8.

&2035(+(16,9(1(66�2)�675$7(*,(6

Compulsory education P A A P P A P A P A P P A A A

Formal adult education/training P A P P P P A P P A P P A A A

Workplace/other non-formal/ recognised priorlearning

P A A P P A P P I P P P A A A

Focus on disadvantaged groups P P P A I P P I P P P P A A P

Overall investment / funding schemes P A P I P P P P P A P P P A P

&2+(5(1&(�2)�675$7(*<

6\VWHP�GHYHORSPHQW(policy needs, planning, targets, implementation,monitoring)

P A P P P A P I P A P P A A P

3DUWQHUVKLS�ZRUNLQJ(social partners, public authorities, learningproviders, civil society)

P P A I P P A P P P P P P A A

&URVV�FXWWLQJ�DVSHFWV(advice/guidance services, education/trainingmobility)

P A P P P A P P P P I I A P A

Notes:A = Adequate. ’Adequate’ denotes that a particular criterion is given appropriate priority within both the Member State’s strategy and concrete actions.P = Partial. ’Partial’ indicates that some attention is given to the criterion in both the strategy and actions RU that it given appropriate priority in one or the other.I = Insufficient. ’Insufficient’ refers to when the particular criterion is absent from both the strategy and the actions or is given some attention in one or the other.

18

,QYHVWPHQWV�LQ�KXPDQ�FDSLWDO

The development of human resources has become a priority issue for the Member Statesseeking to extend education and training access to all. Total public expenditure on educationas a percentage of GDP, a proxy for overall investment in human capital, represents just over5% on average of the EU GDP in 1997/1998. Over the period 1995-1998, the percentageremained fairly stable within Member States but it varies substantially between MemberStates with Denmark and Sweden reaching about 8% and Greece, Spain and Luxembourg atabout 4% of GDP in 1998.

Raising investment in human capital is also crucial to the smooth transition towards theknowledge-based economy and society. Lifelong learning strategies not only seek to remedyunemployment and improve employability for the whole working age population but,increasingly, to address skills mismatches and emerging shortages (as reported by all MemberStates) and to promote a more flexible adaptation of the workforce and of Europeanenterprises to rapid technological changes. The problem of skill shortages could beaggravated further with the substantial demographic changes, whilst the lack of ICT skilledlabour has been identified as one of the main impediments to the expansion of the ICT sector,as well as skills mismatches in the economy as a whole.

(QKDQFLQJ� WUDLQLQJ� RI� GLVDGYDQWDJHG� JURXSV�� DQG� WKH� EDODQFH� EHWZHHQ� LQLWLDO� DQG� DGXOWOHDUQLQJ

Lifelong learning strategies address the needs of disadvantaged groups such as women (re-)entering the labour market, people with learning difficulties or with low levels ofskills/qualifications, ethnic minorities and migrant workers. On the whole, policy measuresare largely focused on adult learning, either as a means of addressing basic skills needs orwith a view to promoting access to further learning. Initial education is less adequatelycovered, despite its importance in giving individuals the necessary foundation for successfulparticipation in the labour market and for better access to further learning.

3LORWV�DQG�RSHUDWLRQDO�GHYHORSPHQWV�LQ�VXSSRUW�RI�OLIHORQJ�OHDUQLQJ

Some Member States have established or are in the process of establishing structures whichwill help underpin lifelong learning, such as the Learning and Skills Councils in the UnitedKingdom. Others are in the process of carrying out pilot projects, e.g. workplace literacy(Ireland), training for disadvantaged groups including older workers (Finland, Belgium andGreece), job rotation/switch-leave (Belgium and Finland), distance learning (Greece),learning regions (Finland, Germany).

19

The need to develop mechanisms for recognition of prior and work-based learning isacknowledged by several countries notably in France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark,Portugal, Finland, Sweden and Ireland, as an important element of coherent lifelong learningstrategies. However, such tools need to be developed in a more systematic manner to easemovement between different learning systems. Equally, more efforts are needed to improveavailability and quality of information, advice and guidance/counselling services, even thoughinteresting initiatives are reported by some Member States (Belgium, Finland, France, theUnited Kingdom, Spain, Luxembourg).

(QFRXUDJLQJ�D�SDUWQHUVKLS�DSSURDFK

Lifelong learning strategies require co-ordination between the competent ministries andpartnership involving all relevant actors, public authorities, learning providers, social partners,individuals and civil society. The crucial role of social partners in lifelong learning isrecognised by all Member States. Although the nature and extent of their involvement varyfrom one Member State to another, all Member States report consultation and/or participationof social partners in the development of lifelong learning strategies. In some Member States(France, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden, Portugal) the socialpartners focus on general lifelong learning agreements, including regional and sectoraldimensions (France, Italy), while others have social partner involvement at all levels (theUnited Kingdom) or in apprenticeship systems (Austria).

In contrast, little information is provided on social partners’ autonomous initiatives in termsof implementing lifelong learning policies and the involvement of civil society is marginal.Social partners agreements are expected to yield more concrete results towards achievingtargets set for this year, particularly in the field of ICT training. Although involvement ofother actors is limited, several references are made to valuable though all too often ad hoccollaboration with learning providers, citizens, NGOs or civil society (Finland, Belgium,Ireland, Italy, the United Kingdom and Greece).

In general, mechanisms for adequate articulation between the different levels of intervention(local, regional and national), including by public authorities, should be emphasised in aclearer fashion.

6HWWLQJ�QDWLRQDO�WDUJHWV

Member States were invited to set targets in relation to increasing investment in humanresources and participation in education and training. Very few such overall targets arereported in the NAPs. Exceptions are the Netherlands, France, Portugal, Germany andBelgium (Flanders), on participation targets, and Belgium on investment targets for in-

20

company training. The targets set by the Netherlands, France and Belgium were in place lastyear and yet they do not report on progress against them. Some Member States have set theirown specific targets, though these vary in scope and time-frame and often focus on trainingfor young people and employees to the exclusion of other elements of lifelong learning (seeTable 5, Section 2.5). Progress against these targets should be clearly indicated in futureNAPs.

����� 5ROH�DQG�FRQWULEXWLRQV�RI�WKH�VRFLDO�SDUWQHUV��+RUL]RQWDO�2EMHFWLYH�&�

The social partners have been called upon to play a key role in developing and implementingpolicies at national and European level. This is clearly articulated in horizontal objective Cwhere first of all Member States are asked to develop a comprehensive partnership with thesocial partners� Secondly social partners are invited to step up their action in support of theLuxembourg process [and] to develop, in accordance with their national traditions andpractices, their own process of implementing the guidelines for which they have the keyresponsibility, identify the issues upon which they will negotiate, and report regularly onprogress, in the context of the National Action Plans if desired, as well as the impact of theiractions on employment and labour market functioning.

2YHUYLHZ

In general, the NAPs reflect a WUHQG�WRZDUGV�WKH�GHVLUHG�VWUHQJWKHQLQJ�RI�FR�RSHUDWLRQ, insome cases as a response to previous Recommendations (Greece, Luxembourg, theNetherlands, Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom). Some Member States try to establish along-term framework for the development of social dialogue in general (e.g. Spain) or thejoint action within the European Employment Strategy in particular (e.g. Austria). The socialpartners are still contributing more to policy developments in the context of nationalemployment strategies. As far as implementation is concerned, they focus on themodernisation of work organisation, mainly with regard to working time issues and theimplementation of new forms of work contracts. The European social dialogue, in particularat sectoral level, made further progress.

7KH�LQYROYHPHQW�RI�VRFLDO�SDUWQHUV�LQ�WKH�SUHSDUDWLRQ�RI�WKH�1$3V

The social partners have a specific role in twelve Guidelines or areas of the EuropeanEmployment Strategy. Generally, their contributions on Objective E and Guideline 9 were notreported. Contributions to Guidelines 17 and 18 were reported by a minority of MemberStates. On the other Guidelines, the social partners provided contributions mainly at thedevelopment stage.

21

At national level, social partners were involved to different degrees in the development of theNAPs despite the European social partners’ statement of 15 June 2000 which called onMember States to involve the national social partners fully in the preparation, evaluation and,where appropriate, the implementation of NAPs. In addition, they presented a collection ofexemplary social partner practices contributing to implementation of the four Pillars of theEmployment Guidelines which was disseminated widely in the EU�

6WURQJ�VRFLDO�SDUWQHU�LQYROYHPHQW

• In Austria, the participation of social partners in developing the NAP is based on legal provisions and formaladministrative procedures.

• In Denmark and Sweden various forms of partnership between Government and social partners exist. Thecontents of the NAP have been discussed between the two sides and social partners contributed directly to thetext.

• In Finland, a permanent national committee ensures participation of social partners in drafting the NAP.

• In Belgium, Denmark, France, Portugal, Sweden and Luxembourg, the social partners were fully involved indeveloping the NAP.

• In the Netherlands, the social partners are involved in the drafting of the NAP. Effective improvement can beexpected due to procedural agreements on the co-ordination of European activities.

In Member States where social partners were strongly involved in the development of theNAPs this exercise was generally run within tripartite bodies. In Germany and Ireland socialpartners are key partners of the tripartite "Alliance for Jobs" and the "Plan for Prosperity andFairness 2000-2003" and, in this context, discuss employment related policies. In Belgium,Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain, social partners were consulted and commented on theNAPs to different degrees. A particular case is Sweden: the central organisations of the socialpartners provided the text for the actions under the Adaptability Pillar which were addresseddirectly to them. They emphasised, however, the political responsibility of the Governmentfor the overall NAP.

22

*UDSK����,QYROYHPHQW�RI�VRFLDO�SDUWQHUV�LQ�QDWLRQDO�HPSOR\PHQW�VWUDWHJ\�DQG�SURJUHVV

High involvement

AT ES BE FR DE IT DK LX NL SF SV

Low progress High progress

IE UK EL PT

Low involvement

Source: NAPs 2001 and information provided by social partners. "Involvement" refers to their role in the preparation and implementation ofthe national employment strategy; "progress" indicates, whether or not the role of the social partners became more important in and since2000.

The efforts made by Member States to better involve the social partners in the preparation andimplementation of the NAPs have to be continued both through improving the level ofinvolvement in some countries and through strengthening partnership.

7KH�LQYROYHPHQW�RI�VRFLDO�SDUWQHUV�LQ�WKH�LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ�RI�1$3V

The degree of involvement of social partners in the implementation of NAPs also�differs fromMember State to Member State. Involvement is organised in accordance with bargainingstructures, and agreements underpinning social partners’ contributions can be concludedbilaterally or as tripartite cross-industry agreements. Those cross-industry agreements cover abroad range of issues such as wage development, training and work organisation. Under theAdaptability Pillar the focus of contributions was on (i) the modernisation of workorganisation, (ii) better application of health and safety legislation and (iii) strategies forlifelong learning (see section 4.3). Outside the Adaptability Pillar social partners contributedto issues such as training, gender mainstreaming and a better balance between work andfamily life.

23

%HVW�SUDFWLFHV

The central income policy agreement 2000-2002 of the Finnish social partners includes a FRQWLQXRXVQHJRWLDWLRQ� SURFHGXUH. This framework provides for flexible handling of matters such as lifelong learning,gender equality or workplace development.

In Portugal the TXDOLW\� RI� VRFLDO� GLDORJXH improved significantly: within the Standing Committee for SocialDialogue the Portuguese social partners are fully integrated in all phases of the NAP process; a joint declarationunderlined the commitment of social partners to negotiations and initiatives encouraging competitiveness andemployment; a tripartite agreement is focusing on a methodology of negotiating a new phase of the socialdialogue, concentrating on medium-range agreements and four thematic priorities (health and safety,employment, work organisation and wages, social protection).

Although the European social partners have started on a PRQLWRULQJ� SURFHVV at Europeanlevel by collecting information from their national member confederations, availableinformation does not yet provide a comprehensive picture of the adaptability process incollective agreements and in labour market reforms.

*UDSK����,QYROYHPHQW�RI�6RFLDO�3DUWQHUV�DQG�SURJUHVV�LQ�DGDSWDELOLW\�PHDVXUHV

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

'. % 1/ ( $ 6 , ' ),1 ) / 3 8. ,5/ (/

Improvement

No Progress

Deterioration

Source: NAPs 2001 and social partners’ contributions on the procedure and the substance of their involvement in the national employmentstrategy. The social partners’ contributions were analysed with regard to their own assessment, whether their role became more or lessimportant or remained unchanged since 2000 in the context of the preparation and implementation of actions under the Adaptability Pillar.The analysis represents the average of all available information from the social partners. For Luxembourg, Portugal and Greece noinformation at all was provided.

Methodology applied: the length of the vector (-2, -1, 0, +1, +2) is based on the social partners’ assessment: For both aspects (preparation andimplementation) +1 point each was allocated in the case of improvement, -1 point in the case of deterioration, 0 points in the case of nochanges.

24

7KH�(XURSHDQ�6RFLDO�'LDORJXH

In the context of the European social dialogue, the social partners made contributions at bothcross-industry and sectoral level.

The cross-industry social partners participated in the Luxembourg process, in particularthrough their commitment to negotiations on WHPSRUDU\�DJHQF\�ZRUN, though no practicaloutcome has ensued. Concerning WHOHZRUN they enhanced their own social dialogue andprovided material for the Commission’s reflections in the second stage of the consultation onmodernising employment relations. Following the consultation launched by the Commissionon 12 March 2001, UNICE, CEEP and ETUC expressed their desire to start negotiations on avoluntary basis. On OLIHORQJ� OHDUQLQJ� the social partners sent an interim report to theStockholm European Council setting out general principles and indicating that they wouldexplore LQWHU� DOLD the potential for the following: identification and anticipation of skillsneeds, innovative tools and approaches, recognition, validation and accreditation, resourcesfor Lifelong learning. The objective is to agree on a European framework, including commongoals in order to promote lifelong learning at all levels and particularly at enterprise level witha view to contributing to the Lisbon agenda.

The European sectoral social dialogue has made substantial progress, particularly in thetelecommunications industry, the commerce sector, civil aviation, agriculture and theconstruction and tanning industries. In the telecommunications industry, guidelines for theRUJDQLVDWLRQ� RI� ZRUN were signed and a framework agreement was also signed in thecommerce sector. An agreement on working time for mobile workers in civil aviation wasconcluded in March 2000 and implemented as a Council Directive. The notion of OLIHORQJOHDUQLQJ� was given practical expression at grass roots through initiatives in a number ofsectors, the most notable of which was the opening of negotiations on the certification ofqualifications in agriculture. There were major achievements in the area of KHDOWK�DQG�VDIHW\(handbooks, codes of conduct),�particularly in agriculture and the construction and tanningindustries.

25

����� 3ROLF\�PL[��+RUL]RQWDO�2EMHFWLYH�'�

The new horizontal objective D invites Member States to give due attention to all the fourPillars and the horizontal objectives by setting their priorities in a balanced manner, so as torespect the integrated nature and equal value of the Guidelines, while responding to theparticular needs of their labour markets. In addition, the regional dimension and regionaldisparities should be taken into account in terms of differentiated policies and targets.

2YHUYLHZ

The Employment Strategy requires an integrated approach, as efforts under one Pillar riskbeing less effective if not supported by initiatives under the others. For example, it is noteffective to invest in employability-enhancing measures if the conditions for creating jobs arenot adequate. The attainment of the Lisbon and Stockholm employment rate objectivesrequire a balanced approach under all four Pillars.

Although Member States give more attention to the policy mix between the Pillars they stillput the greatest emphasis on the Employability Pillar. The Adaptability Pillar remains theleast developed.

Many Member States report regional disparities as an on-going and serious problem. Theyincreasingly take into account the regional dimension in their employment policies.

3ROLF\�PL[�EHWZHHQ�3LOODUV

In general, Member States describe a policy mix between the Pillars as appropriate for theirnational situation. The 2001 NAPs feature greatest emphasis on the Employability Pillar,followed by the Entrepreneurship Pillar, as in the previous years. Although some progress isnoteworthy this year in terms of involvement of the social partners in the development of thestrategy, the Adaptability Pillar remains the least developed. This situation can possibly beexplained by the nature of the measures called for, which depend not only on publicauthorities but also and to a large extent on the social partners. With respect to equalopportunities, less emphasis has been placed in the 2001 NAPs compared to the previousyear.

26

.H\�GHYHORSPHQWV�ZLWKLQ�HDFK�3LOODU

Under the (PSOR\DELOLW\� Pillar, the changing labour market situation is reflected in theincreasing attention devoted to the prevention of labour and skill shortages. However, in spiteof the improving employment situation in general, there is no relaxation of efforts towardsprevention of long-term unemployment. Within active measures, the focus is increasinglyshifting to training measures, which themselves are better focused on labour market needs andnew categories of unemployed or inactive people. Most NAPs fail to give a clear picture ofhow they use labour market policy tools to prevent and fight social exclusion anddiscrimination.

As regards (QWUHSUHQHXUVKLS, this year’s NAPs build on the previous reports and continue orconsolidate the earlier strategic approaches which aim at businesses growth and, in particular,growth in employment in small business. A large variety of measures is reported with nomajor change of focus. However, it is worth noting that measures to combat undeclared workare more prominent in the 2001 NAPs than before. While most Member States declare theircommitment to reducing labour taxation, especially for low wages, evidence based onindicators is still not visible. Meanwhile, some Member States have taken important measuresto reduce business taxation to support small businesses. On the whole, self-employment andsmall businesses would seem to warrant more concrete attention in the NAPs.

Regarding the�$GDSWDELOLW\�Pillar, the involvement of social partners in the development andimplementation of national employment strategies has clearly improved but the visibility oftheir contributions is still unsatisfactory. Concrete measures with respect to work organisationare still disproportionately concentrated on working time issues but the focus onduration/reduction is increasingly complemented by arrangements enabling flexibilisation,thereby better linking adaptability with the Equal Opportunities Pillar. Lifelong learning at theworkplace has received more, but not yet appropriate, attention from the social partners interms of autonomous initiatives. The issue of quality, introduced in the EmploymentGuidelines 2001, has led to a few initiatives especially in the field of health and safety at theworkplace.

*HQGHU�HTXDOLW\ tends to be weak in the policy mix, despite an encouraging positive trend inthe way in which Member States have addressed gender issues since 1998. A particularlydisappointing feature of the NAPs this year is the failure to set national targets for increasingwomen's employment and care services. The level of activity reported this year in the field ofreconciling work and family life is encouraging, and more initiatives to facilitate the return toemployment after an absence have been introduced. More efforts are required, especially fromthe social partners, regarding the gender pay gap. A comprehensive approach on gendermainstreaming still has to be developed in most Member States.

27

5HJLRQDO�DQG�ORFDO�GLPHQVLRQ

Regional disparities remain a serious problem in many Member States, most seriously still inSpain, Italy, Germany and Belgium, in the latter two even worsening considerably. On theother hand, Finland and the Netherlands succeeded in 2000 in reducing disparities inunemployment (measured by the coefficient of variation7). The situation in Austriadeteriorated, but remains at a very low level. As far as employment is concerned, disparitiesare growing in Finland, France and again in Austria whereas they decrease in the UnitedKingdom and particularly in Sweden. In general lower variation of employment rates can beobserved for countries with high employment rates and low unemployment rates, indicatingtightening national labour markets. Bigger variations of the employment rate are mostlyaccompanied by high unemployment and indicate a situation where even the better-offregions cannot absorb the total national labour supply.

*UDSK����(PSOR\PHQW�UDWHV�LQ�1876���UHJLRQV�LQ�����

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

% '. ' *5 ( ) ,5/ , / 1/ $ 3 ),1 6 8. (8��

+LJKHV $Y /RZHV

%RUGHU

9ODDPV�%UDEDQW

+DLQDXW

2EHUED\HUQ

+DOOH

.ULWL

9RUHLR�$LJDLR

%DOHDUHV

&HXWD�\0HOLOOD

$OVDFH

&RUVH

9DOOH�'$RVWD

&DODEULD

)OHYRODQG

*URQLQJHQ

6DO]EXUJ

.lUQWHQ

&HQWUR

$oRUHV

bODQG

,Wl�6XRPL

6WRFNKROP

gYUH�1RUUODQG

%HUNVKLUH��%XFNVDQG�2[IRUGVKLUH

1RUWKHUQ,UHODQG

)UHGHULNVERUJ

/X[

)\Q

'XEOLQ

�1876��IRU�'.�DQG�,5/�

Source: Calculations on the basis of Eurostat Labour Force Survey.

7 The Coefficient of Variation is obtained by dividing the Standard Deviation by the average-weighted mean value (weighted

average of the employment/unemployment rate in a country).8 Refers to territorial units in European statistics, the nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics.

28

*UDSK����8QHPSOR\PHQW�UDWHV�LQ�1876���UHJLRQV�LQ�����

��

��

���

���

���

���

���

% '. ' *5 ( ) ,5/ , / 1/ $ 3 ),1 6 8. (8��

+LJKHVW $Y /RZHVW

'XEOLQ9ODDPV%UDEDQW

5pJ��%UX[HOOHV�&DS��%UXVVHOV�+IGVW��*HZHVW

2EHUED\HUQ

+DOOH

,RQLD�1LVLD

'\WLNL�0DNHGRQLD

1DYDUUD

&HXWD�\�0HOLOOD

$OVDFH

&RUVH

7UHQWLQR�$OWR�$GLJH

&DODEULD

1RRUG�%UDEDQW

)ULHVODQG

9RUDUOEHUJ

:LHQ

&HQWUR

$OHQWHMR

3RKMRLV�6XRPL

bODQG 6WRFNKROP

gYUH1RUUODQG

%HUNVKLUH��%XFNVDQG�2[IRUGVKLUH

,QQHU/RQGRQ

5LEH

/X[

6¡QGHUM\OODQG

%RUGHU

�1876��IRU�'.�DQG�,5/�

Source: Calculations on the basis of Eurostat Labour Force Survey.

Member States take increasing account of the regional dimension of their employmentpolicies. Whereas this concerned traditionally the involvement of regional authorities in theimplementation only of programmes decided - and also mainly financed - at national level, itcan now be seen that the regional level is also becoming involved in the development ofemployment or even broader development strategies. This situation in turn leads to a new anddeeper awareness concerning regional needs. This does not mean that nation-wideprogrammes are replaced by regional ones or by a set of programmes tailor-made for regions.Rather, national programmes tend to be designed in a more flexible way, allowing forimplementation adapted to different circumstances. In parallel, regions are begining to launchtheir own programmes which quite often complement (in terms of contents or in terms offinancial contributions) parts of national programmes. The European Structural Funds,sometimes used at both levels, play an important role in this development; the objectives setin the programmes are to some extent also representing targets, which are rarely usedotherwise. Member States’ preferred way of targeting regional needs more directly is givingthe regions the possibility of developing their own policies or at least of using national

9 Refers to territorial units in European statistics, the nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics.

29

policies more flexibly. In some cases this has led to the emergence of RAPs (Regional ActionPlans for Employment) in between the NAPs at national level and the desired LAPs at locallevel (see section 3.3.).

����� 'HYHORSPHQW�RI�FRPPRQ�LQGLFDWRUV��+RUL]RQWDO�2EMHFWLYH�(�

Member States and the Commission should strengthen the development of common indicatorsin order to evaluate adequately progress under all four Pillars and to underpin the setting ofbenchmarks and the identification of good practice. The social partners are invited to developappropriate indicators, benchmarks and supporting statistical databases to measure progress inthe actions for which they are responsible.

2YHUYLHZ

Progress has been achieved with regard to the development of common European indicators.

While Member States provide statistical information and monitoring indicators, there aregreat differences regarding the coverage of the different Guidelines or policy areas and therespective use of commonly agreed indicators and of national specific indicators10.

1HZ�FRPPRQ�LQGLFDWRUV

Notable progress has been achieved as regards the development of common Europeanindicators. Through close co-operation between the Commission and the Indicators Group ofthe Employment Committee, around 20 new indicators have been identified as relevant for themonitoring of Guidelines in relation to lifelong learning, adaptability and work organisation,taxation and tax/benefits systems, regional disparities, exclusion and discrimination.

In order to ensure the consistency of approach, close co-operation has been establishedbetween the different actors concerned, notably Eurostat, the Social Protection Committee’sIndicators Group, and the Indicators Group of the Economic Policy Committee.

In line with the conclusions of the Stockholm European Council, priority areas for the furtherdevelopment of indicators are the field of equal opportunities - especially the gender pay gapand care services for children and other dependants - as well as quality of work.

10 The notion of common indicators is used here in reference to their definition; their calculation is generally derived from national

data.

30

7RZDUGV�D�VWUHDPOLQHG�DSSURDFK

At its informal meeting on 30 May 2001, the Employment Committee supported theCommission proposal to streamline the approach taken in terms of indicators in the context ofthe Employment Strategy. Accordingly, a distinction will be made in future between keyindicators, which provide a basis for assessing progress towards common objectives, andindicators which support such an analysis without necessarily signalling a positive or negativetrend.

6RFLDO�SDUWQHUV

Initiatives for the development of indicators and benchmarks at national level, including thosefrom the social partners, have only been tackled in Belgium, France, Ireland and theNetherlands and partly in the United Kingdom. Some attempts are made to develop adatabase, e.g. in Luxembourg where all agreements concluded since early 1999 will beanalysed. The decision of the Irish Government and the national social partners to set up abenchmarking body and to set specific targets for matters such as education, internetconnection and adult literacy can be taken as an example of a promising practice.

8VH�RI�LQGLFDWRUV�LQ�WKH�1$3V�����

Most Member States present both commonly agreed indicators and national indicators. Thelatter either complement the existing common indicators (sometimes, by providing a moredetailed monitoring of specific programmes or measures) or relate to Guidelines for which nosuitable common indicator has been developed yet (child care provision, bottlenecks, forexample).

There is a clear concentration of monitoring indicators on Pillar 1 and Pillar 4 in contrast toPillars 2 and 3. However, despite the late adoption of common indicators on adaptability, fourMember States provide some data or provide national indicators sometimes closely related tothe common indicators.

Issues related to taxation and to tax-benefit systems are the least developed in terms ofmonitoring indicators. Regarding taxation, more than half of the Member States do notprovide any indicators at all and those which do (Belgium, Denmark, France, the Netherlands,Finland and Sweden) only present specific national indicators. Concerning tax-benefitsystems, the development of common indicators is even less advanced and none of theMember States provide any data at all.

31

As mentioned in other sections of the report, the situation greatly improved regarding theprovision of common indicators related to prevention and activation.

As far as lifelong learning is concerned, although the majority of Member States provideindicators, the situation is disappointing: some Member States do not present any data at all(Spain, Luxembourg, the United Kingdom) and only a few (Austria, Belgium, Portugal,Sweden) provide one or two of the common indicators that had to be derived from nationaldata (student access to computers and school internet coverage). The same holds trueconcerning gender gaps for which five Member States do not present any data.

Minimum requirements had been agreed for the provision of basic indicators based onnational data related to Guideline 7 (social inclusion and anti-discrimination). However, sixMember States do not provide any such data while several of those which do neglect topresent the whole range of information expected.

Positive developments to underline concern the presentation of indicators on some issues notyet covered by any suitable common indicator, namely, bottlenecks and child care provision.Several Member States (France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal andSweden) provide national indicators directly related to childcare provision and some(Belgium, the Netherlands, Finland, Sweden) present national measurements related to thebottleneck issue. It is also interesting to note that in a very few cases (Spain, the Netherlands)Member States provide statistical data related to the collective agreements in the variousfields covered by Pillar 3 while Denmark is the only Member State to provide data from thesocial partners.

����� .QRZOHGJH�VRFLHW\

Following the Lisbon European Council, the term ’knowledge society’ makes its firstappearance in the Objectives and Guidelines. Member States and all relevant actors have aresponsibility to ensure that the opportunities of the knowledge based society are seized andcontribute fully to economic growth and employment in Europe. A particular effort needs tobe made to ensure that people, especially workers (including women and those whose skillsneed updating) have the skills to flourish in this challenging environment. The transversalsignificance of this theme is recognised by its appearance in both the horizontal introductionand in the first three Pillars. Furthermore, due to mainstreaming of equal opportunities, genderconsiderations should be present in all those Guidelines which link to the knowledge society.

Member States have proposed a variety of approaches across the different Pillars. Qualityvaries markedly from one Member State to another with, in general, the strongest coverage ofknowledge society issues in the Employability Pillar, followed by the Entrepreneurship Pillar.

32

Both the Adaptability and Equal Opportunities Pillars tend to give much slighter coverage. Nosingle NAP achieves a convincing synthesis of knowledge society elements across all fourPillars.

This year, some Member States have shown a serious commitment to lifelong learningapproaches which include components related to the knowledge based society. There is aspecial emphasis on developing ‘e-skills’ and e-learning. This builds on an increasingawareness in Member States of the need to equip citizens systematically with the skills tooperate in an ever changing technological environment. However, although there is areasonably broad spectrum of activities and initiatives present in submissions by MemberStates, the strategic rationale for the activities identified is not often made clear, nor howexactly national information society strategies contribute to the Luxembourg process and theactivities identified in relation to e-skills and e-learning.

Upgrading the ICT skills of teachers and trainers is a strong theme, as are internet access andcomputer equipment for educational establishments. Most Member States have also madecommitments to developing on-line learning through content development. Some have goneso far as to establish ‘virtual’ or on-line educational establishments (Finland, France and theNetherlands). There is a notable emphasis on the recognition of already acquired computerskills. In many cases this takes the form of European Computer Driving Licence (ECDL) typeformulas for different groups such as teachers, pupils or workers (Finland, France, Austriaand Luxembourg). It is worth underlining that the systematic and widespread operational useof information and communication technologies (ICTs) in Public Employment Services atvarious levels is present in almost all Member States (Italy makes a clear link with the use ofEuropean Social Fund resources). Establishment of linkages to the EURES system are alsomentioned. Concerning the theme of the ‘digital divide’, there are some examples of actionfor groups at risk of being excluded from the labour market (Belgium, Austria and theNetherlands), but in the case of disabled people only two NAPs make a clear link (Austria andFrance).

As last year, there are some Member States that have made substantial efforts to ensure thatenterprises (and small firms especially) integrate ICTs into their everyday operations and toencourage the broader fabric of the economy to adapt to the demands of the knowledgesociety. However, even though the promotion of knowledge based activities in the economy istouched on by most NAPs (Austria, Germany, Spain, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, Sweden,Finland and the United Kingdom), the quality of treatment of this theme is very variable withsome Member States presenting only very basic proposals and limited indicators.

Ireland mentions the ,76� ���� programme which aims to strengthen indigenous high techcompanies mainly in the ICT sector. The United Kingdom mentions the :KLWH� 3DSHU� RQ

33

(QWHUSULVH��6NLOOV�DQG�,QQRYDWLRQ�which includes sections on the take-up of new technologiesand e-business. There is some use of promotional schemes and awareness-raising campaignsfor small and medium sized firms. Electronic ‘one stop shops’ and portals have beenestablished in order to help companies interact with public administrations. E-commerce ande-business support services have been established to help firms develop their activities. Insome cases, ICT depreciation rules have been reviewed to encourage updating of equipment(Greece). Sweden reports an initiative concerning IT skill levels in firms not already usingICTs with similar actions from the United Kingdom and Ireland. Two Member States, Austriaand Germany, make a linkage between ICTs and innovation systems: initiatives in this areashould make a contribution to enhancing the employment creating potential of the servicessector.

The knowledge society is identified as a structural concern for all actors involved in theimplementation of measures for the adaptation of work organisation and lifelong learningstrategies in enterprises. Apart from the possibility of creating agreements in domains relatingto technological change, the Guidelines make a new reference to providing opportunities to allworkers to achieve digital literacy by 2003. The degree of progress since last year is unclearas, with a few exceptions, most submissions do not provide details in this area.

Teleworking agreements are mentioned by several Member States: in Austria for theinformation technology sector, in Denmark, the commerce and services sector. In Ireland acode of practice on telework has been issued by the Government. Ireland mentions both an e-work business awareness campaign and a review of anomalies in the taxation system whichmight affect telework.

Given that the information provided in many NAPs on initial and continuous training isalready limited, the commitment of the social partners to the theme of digital literacy forworkers appears to be especially weak. The lack of material here raises real concerns aboutthe possibility of ‘establishing the conditions for giving every worker the opportunity toachieve information society literacy by 2003’. Ensuring that workers have the capacity to useICTs effectively is a key aspect of the Lisbon commitments, and the social partners have afundamental role to play to facilitate adaptability and innovation in this regard. Somesubmissions from social partners refer to the Lisbon summit and a few initiatives are in theprocess of being established (Austria, Ireland and Finland). Ireland's NAP mentions an AdultLiteracy Programme agreed between the Irish Trade Union Congress and the F6� WUDLQLQJbody linking literacy and ICT training. The Spanish NAP mentions 168 collective agreementscovering 630,000 workers which contain clauses on new technologies and there is alsomention of a programme established with the support of sectoral employers to train ICTspecialists. There are also national initiatives in domains such as agreements on continuoustraining and ICT awareness raising for union representatives (Belgium).

34

Material which links knowledge society and gender issues varies significantly from oneMember State to another. As last year, a variety of individual actions can be found in someMember State submissions, but in general they are weak on this point.

Belgium has established a horizontal ministerial task force specifically to address the linkagebetween ICTs and gender: this shows a serious commitment to the transversal nature of bothknowledge society and gender concerns. Despite the commitment to mainstreaming equalopportunities, visible commitments linking equal opportunities and ICTs with other issues arelimited. The Austrian NAP shows many individual examples of how a gender dimension canbe integrated into labour market actions. Germany shows considerable interest in establishingtargets for female participation rates in ICT professions in order to counteract traditional maledomination. Although in practice the various actions and initiatives taken by Member Stateswill have had an impact on issues such as female participation rates, entrepreneurship bywomen, training provision for women, the linkages are rarely explained. The link betweengender and the commitments of relevant actors to ensuring digital literacy opportunities forworkers is especially weak. Other initiatives which can be mentioned concern the setting ofrecruitment targets (Sweden and the United Kingdom) and the training of women inentrepreneurship (Austria, France, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain, Sweden andthe United Kingdom) although clear linkages to the knowledge society are lacking. SeveralMember States mention the preparation of studies and reports.

35

��� 3,//$5����(03/2

36

implementing comprehensive reforms. Firm conclusions on benefit reforms are difficult todraw since implementation of comprehensive reform strategies takes time.

All Member States addressed the various strands of the OLIHORQJ� OHDUQLQJ Guidelines andalmost half can be considered to have comprehensive and coherent strategies in this area.Several Member States have undertaken crosscutting reviews of their education and trainingsystems the impact of which will only be felt in the medium term. There are very diverseapproaches on basic skills, ranging from pre-school to adult learning, reflecting the diversityof difficulties encountered by Member States. The role of social partners in adult education,particularly in enterprises, is strengthened in most Member States (for more details see Pillar3). Most Member States can be expected to meet the schools internet coverage and teachertraining in ICTs targets and many have launched initiatives promoting ICT literacy for all.

In addressing the skill ERWWOHQHFNV, all Member States have developed policy responses,though only a few present a comprehensive approach in which measures for a direct micro-level intervention in allocation processes are combined with more general public policies thatseek to make wage formation, employment contracts and internal human resourcemanagement of enterprises and business sectors more flexible in responding to the supply anddemand conditions in the labour market. Besides the general measures taken to reduceunemployment, increase labour force participation and raise employability and skills, specificinitiatives include: monitoring, occupational mobility, matching people and jobs, geographicmobility and partnerships.

A FRPSUHKHQVLYH�DSSURDFK�WR�DFWLYH�DJHLQJ�SROLFLHV is essential for meeting the objectivesand achieving the employment rate target of 50% for 55-64 year olds in the Union by 2010, asset by the Stockholm European Council. Such an approach is absent in the majority of NAPs.Most Member States tend to see the ageing challenge primarily as a problem of another"weak" group in the labour market.

The present macro-economic conditions seem favourable for implementing policiesconcerning DQWL�GLVFULPLQDWLRQ�DQG� LQFOXVLRQ. However, some Member States fail entirelyto present their social exclusion policy in the employment NAP or explicitly refer to theseparate NAP on social exclusion.

37

����� 7DFNOLQJ�\RXWK�DQG�ORQJ�WHUP�XQHPSOR\PHQW��*XLGHOLQH���

In order to influence the trend in youth and long-term unemployment, Guideline 1 invitesMember States, by 2002, to take action on three fronts:

– the prevention of long-term unemployment, by offering a new start to young people and toadults before they reach, respectively, six and twelve months of unemployment

– the reinsertion into the labour market of the long-term unemployed

– the modernisation of the Public Employment Services.

2YHUYLHZ

Action for the implementation of prevention measures concentrate either on the extension ofthe preventive approaches to wider groups or on improvements to their quality andeffectiveness. Member States continue to improve their monitoring systems and the provisionof commonly agreed indicators. Nevertheless, the interpretation of the indicators remainsdifficult as they do not always refer to the latest stage of implementation and the provision ofgender breakdowns is not yet systematic. The scope of implementation and compliance withthe EU targets remains variable. Although progress can be noted in most Member States,Portugal is the only one which can be considered as joining the group of five Member Statesconsidered last year as complying with the Guidelines on prevention.

Efforts towards the (re)integration of the long-term unemployed are often linked to the widerobjectives of promoting social inclusion or of tackling labour shortages and skills bottlenecks.Individualised intervention characterising the preventive approach tends to be extended to thecurative approach.

Member States have responded to the new emphasis on the role of the Public EmploymentServices (PES) in the Guidelines 2001 although details regarding targets and monitoring oftheir projects are lacking in most cases. The modernisation of Employment Services is underprogress in all Member States and confirms the crucial role of these services in the effectivedelivery of employability policies, in particular of preventive and active policies, while alsoreflecting the changing situation in the labour market. In response to the overall objective ofmaking job search more efficient and of making the PES key players in local and regionallabour markets, modernisation projects cover a wide range of action including organisationalreform, implementation of new service models and working methods, extended use of ICTfacilities and of co-operation with other actors, in particular, private actors.

38

������� 3UHYHQWLQJ�ORQJ�WHUP�XQHPSOR\PHQW

7KH�IDFWV�RQ�ORQJ�WHUP�XQHPSOR\PHQW��VKDUHV��UDWHV�DQG�LQIORZV11�

• In 2000, long-term unemployment decreased both for young people and adults. However,1.7 million young people, representing 51.6% of the unemployed aged 15-24, wereunemployed for 6 months or more. Around 5 million adults, representing 50% of the adultunemployed, were unemployed for 12 months or longer.

• In most Member States, the youth long-term unemployment rate was well below theEuropean Union average (8%). The situation remains serious in Italy and Greece wheremore than 20% of the young labour force has been unemployed for 6 months or more. Thestrongest decreases were observed in Belgium (where the youth long-term unemploymentrate went down to the European Union average) and in Spain (but at 13.7%, the youthlong-term unemployment rate it is still well above the European Union average).

• In 2000 the European Union average adult long-term unemployment rate was 3.5%, havingdecreased or stabilised in all Member States but one. Ireland and Spain continued to showthe strongest decreases, although in the latter case the adult long-term unemployment rateremained at 5% or more. Belgium managed to bring it down to the European Unionaverage.

• The rate of inflow into long-term unemployment is not fully comparable between MemberStates12 but continues to feature an extremely wide variation. It varies between 1.3%(Sweden) and 44.9% (Belgium) for the young unemployed and between 0.9% (Austria)and 33.9% (Belgium) in the case of unemployed adults.

• The lowest rates of inflows of unemployed adults into long-term unemployment are inAustria, Denmark and Sweden (respectively 0.9%, 5% and 6.7%).

• The lowest rates of inflows of the young unemployed into long-term unemployment are inSweden and Austria (1.3% and 2.8%) followed by Finland (9.1%).

11 Total unemployment rate = total of unemployed individuals (ILO definition) as a share of total active population (%). Youth

unemployment ratio = unemployed young people (15-24 years) as a share of total population in the same age (%). Long-termunemployment rate = long-term unemployed population (> 12 months, ILO definition) as proportion of total active population(%). Youth long-term unemployment rate: long-term unemployed young people (15-24 years, > 12 months unemployed) aspropotion of total active population.

12 Due to differences in the way participation into the employability measures offered as a new start interrupts (or otherwise) theperiod of unemployment.

39

• The greatest progress in reducing inflows into long-term unemployment was made byPortugal, the Netherlands and France13 which all substantially improved their scores forboth the young and adult unemployed, and by Sweden for adult inflows into long-termunemployment (the latter also performing extremely well regarding the youngunemployed).

• Spain has made no progress, while in Germany and Luxembourg the rate of inflowsincreased for both groups and in particular for the young unemployed.

.H\�GHYHORSPHQWV�LQ�WKH�SUHYHQWLYH�VWUDWHJ\

In those Member States which have already implemented preventive policies, the approachgenerally combines different types of support offered to the unemployed at different points intime. These include individual interviews (which can be repeated in time) to make a diagnosisof the unemployed individual’s problems and needs, job-search assistance (includingcounselling and guidance), placement in a job (subsidised or not) and referral to training. Thissuccession of actions, the length of which is correlated with the degree of difficulties faced bythe individual in getting back into employment, is in many cases formalised as an individualaction plan. Differences exist, however, in the way this general pattern has been concretelyimplemented and are reflected in what is measured by the common indicators.

No major changes have been made to the overall design of the preventive approach. Apartfrom its further extension in several Member States, efforts in 2000 generally focused onimproving the quality and the effectiveness of prevention. Main lines of action in that respectconsisted in:

• %ULQJLQJ� IRUZDUG� WKH� SRLQW� RI� LQWHUYHQWLRQ. In Ireland, the preventive approach foradults has been brought forward to 9 months’ unemployment. In the United Kingdom, inresponse to the Council’s recommendation, the beginning of the New Deal for Adults hasbeen brought forward from 24 months to 18 months’ unemployment with even earlierintervention a possibility for some groups.

• Strengthening the LQGLYLGXDOLVDWLRQ�RI�VHUYLFHV under the preventive approach. Germany,Spain and Belgium, who only recently designed their individualised approaches, startedintroducing them in a systematic way in 2000 - though implementation is still far fromcovering all the unemployed to be targeted by preventive policies.

13 Based on recalculation of output indicator by DG EMPL.

40

• Improving and LQWHQVLI\LQJ� LQWHUYHQWLRQ� GXULQJ� WKH� ILUVW� VWDJHV of the preventiveapproach, in particular through support to job-search. This was an overall priority inFinland while in the United Kingdom, as indicated above, arrangements have been made tointensify activation during the initial stage of the New Deal for Young People�

• Although very little is said in the NAPs in this respect, many Member States are resortingto or exploring different approaches as to the use of HDUO\�LGHQWLILFDWLRQ techniques.

• Ensuring a better link between the employability measures offered to the unemployed andODERXU�PDUNHW� QHHGV, in particular by tailoring training measures (Finland, the UnitedKingdom), or more generally by improving support to the anticipation of skills needs andmapping of skills (Portugal).

)XUWKHU�LPSURYHPHQWV to the approach or to the employability measures offered under thepreventive approach are planned for 2001. In several Member States (Luxembourg, Denmark,Finland), emphasis is put on strengthening and improving the support for job-search. Theextension of individual support to all unemployed young people is envisaged in Luxembourgwhile in France, following the new agreement on the unemployment benefit regime,individualised early intervention is to be the core of the new system for implementation frommid-2001 and will address all unemployed people. Following the evaluation of the twopreventive schemes, improvements will be made to better address older unemployed people inPortugal.

,QGLFDWRUV

Improvements are also apparent regarding PRQLWRULQJ�V\VWHPV and in particular the provisionof commonly agreed indicators (see Annex at the end of Part I). All Member States provideall or most of the indicators except Italy and Ireland. However, the period of time covered bythe indicators do not always correspond to the most recent period of implementation, and inthe case of Greece, only monthly data are provided hence some difficulties for the assessment.Insufficiencies remain regarding the provision of gender breakdowns and in particular ofindicators of effective integration after the preventive approach.

Caution continues to be needed regarding the interpretation and comparability of indicators asthe way they are calculated, on the basis of national administrative data, reflects the diverseways in which the preventive approach has been designed and implemented within thecommon framework of the Guideline. Further limits exist as to the comparability of indicatorsin a single Member State over time due to changes of calculation.

41

3URJUHVV�WRZDUGV�WKH�(8�WDUJHWV

Last year the JER highlighted notable differences between Member States regarding theconformity of their preventive policies with the common orientations emphasisingindividualised and early intervention, the stage of implementation of the preventive approach(based on the offer of a new start to every unemployed person before 6/12 months’unemployment) and the achievement of common targets as measured by the agreed policyinput indicators. Based on these three criteria, three groups were identified:

• Member States which had implemented a system ensuring provision of individual offers inaccordance with the Guidelines and were close to compliance with the common EU targets(Austria, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Luxembourg and Finland);

• Member States which were in the process of implementing the preventive approach inconformity with the Guidelines and where trends justified an expectation