Strasbourg, 11 August 2009                                                                            CDLR(2009)26

Item 4 of the agenda

EUROPEAN COMMITTEE ON LOCAL AND REGIONAL DEMOCRACY

(CDLR)

DECISIONS OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

CONCERNING THE CDLR

Secretariat Memorandum

prepared by the

Directorate General of Democracy and Political Affairs

Directorate of Democratic Institutions

This document is public. It will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy.

Ce document est public. Il ne sera pas distribué en réunion. Prière de vous munir de cet exemplaire.

Introduction

The following table sets out the decisions concerning the CDLR taken by the Committee of Ministers since the last CDLR meeting of 22 – 24 April 2009. Only the decisions and texts in respect of which the CDLR is required to produce an output are appended to this document. All documents referred to may also be found on the Committee of Ministers web site.

APPENDIX I

Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe

16^th SESSION
Strasbourg, 3-5 March 2009

Public water and sewer services for sustainable development

Recommendation 259 (2009)[1]

1. Water is a finite, vulnerable resource which is vital to life, and guaranteeing the availability of sufficient quantities of good quality water is a major challenge for the future of human societies and the sustainable development of the planet.

2. The current threats to water resources are growing constantly.  They stem mainly from human activities, in particular urban growth and landscape development, increasing population levels and living standards and recurrent pollution.

3. The complexity and gravity of the questions relating to water and sewer services make them a challenge which needs to be tackled urgently.  While the international community has recognised this complexity, and the particular urgency of the issue in certain regions of the world, its attention is mainly focused on drinking water supplies.  However, water is used for various purposes: food, energy, ecology, agriculture and industry, so the effectiveness of its use and management will depend to a large extent on actions and policies in those other sectors.

4. A new and consistent approach is needed today to cope with the demand for water at local and regional levels and the requirements of the various sectors. These challenges must have top priority and demand a strong commitment by the international community, each tier of government and each individual.

5. In particular, it is necessary to improve water governance and modify behaviour.  Efforts to conserve water and reduce demand and leakage losses are not only relevant in regions with water shortages.  Determined public action in this area is a vital investment for the future.

6. The Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe calls for a genuine culture of responsibility or a new water culture in which local and regional authorities’ role in water and sewer management is reasserted.  This role was recognised for the first time at the 4th World Water Forum in Mexico City in March 2006; the Congress hopes that it will be confirmed at the 5th World Water Forum in Istanbul in March 2009.

7. The Congress also points out that water is by its very nature a public good; it is neither a commodity nor an unlimited resource.  The example that Europe offers the world today is out of step with the major debates about the status of water and shows that involving responsible local and regional authorities in the provision of services is a vital benefit to their sustainability and to striking a balance between the interests of business, society and the authorities.

8. Fair, effective and sustainable management of water resources demands an integrated approach, co-ordinated action and the sharing of responsibilities by the various tiers of governance.  It also requires increased know-how, the exchange of information, in particular within river basins, and the identification of suitable and cost-effective solutions so as to make the management of water and sewer services more sustainable.

9. In addition, the challenges of climate change also have repercussions on water services and related costs.  This new situation calls for multi-partner management and a strengthened role for states as regulators, in particular with regard to fairness and sustainability in water distribution.

10. The implementation of the ‘3 E’ of sustainability -environmental, economic and ethical- as guiding principles of a response to the challenges could be useful.  Governments could also learn from the best practices in the various European countries which have adopted different methods of managing water services.

11. In this respect, the need for greater transparency and benchmarking call for the institutionalisation of consumer participation in monitoring the delivery of public water and sewer services.

12. The Congress believes that there is no one-size-fits-all solution and that the most promising comparison is not between private and public management, but between the measures taken by the two systems to minimise undesirable side effects.  The involvement of public authorities and civil society needs to be reinforced because of the long-term management issues regarding water and sewer services which are now mature and often require a new relationship to resource management.

13. Modernisation of management methods should focus more on the correct level of governance and the desired integration and distribution of tasks between the national tier and regional and local managers.  At regional level, the development of water-supply policy and alignment with water-resources policy could be very promising.  Implementation and feedback could be determined at local level, taking account of local circumstances and interests.  Alignment between the two levels is crucial, however.

14. In the light of the above, the Congress recommends that the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe:

a. ask the European Conference of Ministers responsible for Regional/Spatial Planning (CEMAT) to incorporate these recommendations on public water and sewer services in its future recommendations on essential services;

b. ask the European Committee on Local and Regional Democracy (CDLR), and its Committee of Experts on Finance and Public to take account in their work of the challenges relating to the renovation of water and sewer services and of the need to improve water governance;

c. ask the Council of Europe Development Bank to support projects fostering public water and sewer services through its lending and financing policy.

15. The Congress calls on the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to ask member states:

a.  to recognise the vital role of local and regional public bodies in managing water and sewer services and not to confine the debate on water to the public/private issue;

b. to develop tools for comparing the performance of the services and their price so as to ensure objective debate and encourage adequate action;

c. to co-ordinate more closely water, energy, food and environment policies;

d. to take particular care to align the coordination of public water services and resource management policies;

e. to develop research so as to identify better economic, technical and management solutions;

f. to better inform the population of what is at stake concerning water issues to reinforce the public’s commitment to these complex questions;

g. to recognise the legitimacy of local and regional authorities as the appropriate tier of responsibility and co-operation and to encourage the non governmental organisations working to decentralise and improve services in less advanced countries to do so in partnership with local and regional authorities so as to boost their capacity for action;

16. The Congress recommends that the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe ask the European Commission:

a. to not include water services as services of general economic interest, given the health issues of water services and the fact that water resources constitute a common heritage;

b. to conduct comparative analyses of the various methods for organising and managing water and sewer services in several European countries, having regard to historic national factors and taking particular acount of the impact of climate change on water management and spatial water requirements;

c. to identify best practices in funding water services and the various experiences concerning the full cost price of water services so as to achieve a pricing system which takes account of all components of the price.  Consideration should be given to compensatory mechanisms to prevent exclusion.

17. The Congress calls on the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to continue co-operating with the Congress on water issues and foster exchange of experiences on the implementation of public water and sewer services and particularly on the legal and legislative implications in the various countries in Europe.

*    *   *

16^th SESSION
Strasbourg, 3-5 March 2009

Intercultural Cities

Recommendation 261 (2009)[2]

1. Intercultural cities are a necessary counterweight to worldwide movements towards economic and cultural integration, commonly known as globalisation. European cities have a fundamental interest in promoting cultural exchanges, multi-cultural identities, since these components form the bedrock of Europe's cultural diversity.

2. National governments and regional authorities have an interest to make cities fit for cultural diversity, by helping them to provide for the necessary space and instruments, to form and to promote intercultural exchanges and intercultural dialogue within the cities. At the same time political decision makers should make sure that identities can express themselves freely and fully develop at the local level, this should be the object of continual evaluation by the cities themselves.

3. Strong cultural identities need not detract from the strength of a national identity. On the contrary, the national identity has to be sufficiently open and flexible to incorporate and accommodate the specific characteristics of different cultural origins and backgrounds of their citizens that make up a pluralistic State.

4. In promoting cultural diversity, inclusion needs to be the priority in order to balance today's exclusion.  The cities themselves bear the main responsibility for preserving a sufficient degree of openness. They need to recognise the presence of difference cultural groups on their territory and the contribution that these groups make to the social coherence of the city, including those who are perceived as recent arrivals and temporary residents. Governments should help cities to face the challenge of developing inclusive identities. A sense of place is a vital element in identity formation.

5. In the light of the above, the Congress,

a. convinced of the necessity to further promote the Congress Recommendation 115 (2002) on the participation of foreign residents in local public life;

b. convinced that foreign residents who are lastingly and legally settled on the territory of a state should be granted rights, including political rights, in return for their acceptance of duties towards the host community;

c. observing that many towns across Europe have already taken initiatives at their own level to remedy this democratic deficit, especially by setting up consultative councils for foreigners;

d. bearing in mind the Council of Europe's White paper on Intercultural Dialogue (adopted at the May 2008 session of the Committee of Ministers);

e. convinced of the necessity to further foster community perception of diversity as a resource, rather than as a threat;

f. convinced of the need to encourage local authorities to facilitate cultural mixing and interaction;

g. convinced of the need to develop multicultural identities which are inclusive of all social, ethnic and cultural groups;

h. believing that one of the key assets of Intercultural cities are the diversity and cultural heritage of their populations;

6. Recommends that the Committee of Ministers:

a. encourage member States to recognise the contributions made by non nationals to the political stability and prosperity of cities, to the creativity, vitality and well-being of their citizens and their successful integration and to support the work that is done in the cities;

b. encourage member States to allow foreign residents to vote in local elections and to consider ratifying the Convention on the Participation of Foreigners in Public Life at Local Level;

c. recognise that strong inclusive intercultural cities, which have succeeded in encouraging citizens of diverse origins to identify with their city, demonstrate a capacity for innovation and are able to use the resources, skills and creativity of their populations to raise the attractiveness and bring new investments and job opportunities;

d. ensure that cities have sufficient means at their disposal for forging inclusive identities, which are at the same time sensitive to all the groups on their territories, and pay proper attention to the principles of intercultural and inter-religious dialogue, the protection of minorities and respect for their cultural rights, remaining aware of the dangers of ethnocentrism;

e. ensure that country-wide programmes for civil servants and employees in social services are put in place to train those who are in charge of migrants and people with migrant backgrounds, to avoid the pitfalls and dangers of exclusion and alienation;

f. ensure that civil servants in charge of intercultural conflict management and cultural mediators receive special training before taking up their duties  to get in-depth knowledge of the variety and complexity of the specific cultural identities that are present in the city in which they are working;

g. encourage public media to contribute to the development of multicultural identities by setting up national wide media partnerships and programmes for balanced diversity reporting;

h. recognise the importance of language for cultural identity and cultural diversity and urge those member States which have not done so to ratify the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages and to promote the use of regional languages by administrations at regional and local level;

i. recognise the importance of migrant associations, socio-economic  organisations, NGOs and other consultative bodies;

j. support the planning and implementation of neighbourhood rehabilitation projects and programmes offering access to housing facilities, community centres and other public spaces which encourage and enable  cultural mixing and interaction;

k. provide support for national, regional and local associations and bodies to set up programmes and campaigns to combat racism, discrimination and xenophobia;

l. encourage the introduction of intercultural curricula in schools for civic partnerships for citizenship and human rights education at all levels, national, regional and local;

m. support the setting up of local consultative bodies on integration issues, actively involving migrant representatives as well as intercultural and interfaith councils, in order to closely associate them in the decision-making process.

*  *  *

16^th SESSION
Strasbourg, 3-5 March 2009

Equality and diversity in local authority employment and service provision

Recommendation 262 (2009)[3]

1. Migratory flows have the potential to foster the diversity and vitality of Europe’s cities as the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities noted in its Resolution 181 (2004) on a pact for the integration and participation of people of immigrant origin in Europe’s towns, cities and regions: in order to use this diversity as a resource and to promote integration the resolution called for the opening up of public services in an intercultural manner.

2. It is widely acknowledged that the promotion of non-discrimination and of equal opportunities in jobs and services, and the management of diversity can play a crucial role for migrants in the integration process.

3. Since integration primarily takes place at the local level, local authorities are therefore key actors in this process, all the more so as they are often one of the largest employers in their region and are also major service providers.

4. The CLIP (Cities for Local Integration Policy) Network, of which the Congress is a co-founder, therefore decided to turn its attention to the identification of successful approaches to the employment of migrants and provision of services to them by local authorities.

5. Evidence from case studies undertaken within the framework of CLIP strongly suggests that, in order for local authorities to carry out their equality and diversity objectives effectively and thoroughly, an enabling national legislative and policy framework is required.

6. By fostering the integration of migrants within municipal employment and ensuring their access to services, the Congress believes that member states can make a significant contribution to the integration process and therefore asks the Committee of Ministers:

i.          to ask the governments and regional authorities of the member states to urge the European Commission to consider reviewing the rationale, necessity and impact of legal restrictions in member states on access of non European Economic Area nationals to municipal jobs with a view to increasing their eligibility and therefore employment options;

ii.       to ask the member states of the Council of Europe to:

-           take steps to implement ECRI’s 2002 General Policy Recommendation No. 7 on national legislation to combat racism and racial discrimination by ensuring that public authorities are placed under a legal requirement to promote equality and to prevent discrimination in carrying out their functions;

-           recognise the importance of municipal employment and services for migrants in their national integration plans, encourage local authorities to become role models for a proactive and comprehensive equality policy for migrant workers within their own administration, and consider providing funding for an exchange of experience between their local authorities on these issues;

-           review their current arrangements for recognition of qualifications to ensure that these do not present an unnecessary obstacle to the full integration of migrants within the labour market and within municipal employment in particular;

-           ensure that migrants have access to information, in different pertinent languages, about their employment rights, job opportunities within local public administration and the services provided by local authorities to which they are entitled as well as more general information on local cultural practices and rules;

7. The Congress recommends that both the Council of Europe and the European Commission:

a. ensure access for local authorities to authoritative guidance on concepts, terminology, legal obligations and good practice in the fields of equality and diversity management;

b. review the need for national legislative remedies to address religious discrimination of which there is currently less awareness than with regard to racial discrimination.

*   *   *

16^th SESSION
Strasbourg, 3-5 March 2009

The digital divide and e-inclusion in the regions

Recommendation 263 (2009)[4]

1. The information and communication technologies (ICTs) can be factors for economic, social and human development; they can also help to make public authorities and the services they provide more open, transparent and efficient.

2. If they are to have a positive impact, ICTs must be available to each and every citizen and their development must not be left entirely in the hands of the private sector, as this would entail a risk of certain socially interesting but unprofitable sectors being neglected.

3. Today, despite the efforts and initiatives of, among others, the European Commission and certain states, the rapid growth of ICTs is gradually increasing the socio-economic inequality between citizens and between countries and creating a “digital divide”, or e-exclusion, which is set to worsen unless co-ordinated action is taken.

4. There are also regional disparities within countries in terms of urban or rural communities – 52% of urban Europeans were regular internet users in 2006 as compared with 30% of rural Europeans. In Europe’s rural regions, nearly 3 people out of every 10 do not have access to a high-speed connection.

5. Considering the importance of internet access in job-seeking and the impact it can have on business location, fair internet access should be a priority in public policy and a right, in the same way as connection to the water and electricity networks and access to the road network.

6. However, access alone does not mean use: efforts targeted at awareness-raising and continuing education can lead to a significant reduction in disparities.

7. The Congress is convinced that the public authorities have a major responsibility for creating conditions allowing the information society to develop along the lines of e-inclusion of citizens, while contributing to balanced regional development allowing Europe’s most disadvantaged regions to enjoy a fuller social, cultural and economic life.

8. The public authorities have in particular a key role to play in regulation. The market alone cannot be allowed to dictate who will be entitled to broadband, who will be entitled or not to internet access or to determine the acceptable degree of e-accessibility of websites. Rather than being simply promoters of infrastructure projects, local and regional authorities have a role to play as planners, suppliers and decision-makers serving the general interest.

9. In the light of the foregoing, the Congress asks the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to call on the relevant structure that will carry on the work of the Ad Hoc Committee on E-Democracy (CAHDE) to include the issue of the digital divide in its discussions.

10. The Congress recommends that the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe call on member states to:

a. frame coherent and effective e-inclusion policies and legislation at national and European level, tying in with existing or yet to be established Digital Local/Regional Agendas;

b. ensure a balanced deployment of telecommunications infrastructure – ie the “right speed” for everyone – while seeing to it, in particular by means of regulations, that market forces are counterbalanced by the public interest;

c. ensure the provision of affordable or free public internet access by maintaining free public access points in the countries that have them or, in the case of countries lacking this type of arrangement or the resources to implement such a policy, relying on agreements with private operators;

d. envisage targeted tax measures, in partnership with business, with the aim of helping low-income households to acquire computer equipment by making part of the cost deductible from taxable income;

e. standardise digital training provision in Europe in order to facilitate the upgrading of posts and redeployment, so as to ensure that this training provision evolves, like the ICTs themselves, and is qualification-oriented, and, for this purpose, propose guidelines and recognition at European level of training given at public internet access points;

f. provide good on-line public services in order to develop high-quality use that can contribute to stronger social inclusion:

i.          by enhancing the quality of services in terms of accessibility, user-friendliness and affordability in line with the recommendations of the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C);

ii.         by strengthening the legal framework in order to encourage the development and promotion of accessibility standards, in line with the European Union’s Riga Declaration, under which all websites are to be brought into line with common standards and web accessibility practices by 2010;

iii.         by making digital accessibility an eligibility criterion for replying to public invitations to tender concerning the development of digital services or software;

iv.        by harmonising national accessibility guidelines in order to clarify the notion of accessibility, which is still not well understood, make it easier to train those involved and make it possible to take account of accessibility rules in web page design tools;

g. help non-users and those deprived of access to overcome any psychological barriers by targeting specifically non-internet-users and circulating information via the media most likely to reach the target groups (housewives, job-seekers, older people, immigrants etc);

h. facilitate the provision of IT equipment and content to schools through the development of access points to the Internet and the creation of digital working environments to make them the ideal places for reducing the social and digital divide and transmitting knowledge beyond the school (knowledge shared with parents, for example);

i. show digital solidarity with the developing countries by setting up cooperation projects (learning, development of local content, provision of equipment for schools, etc);

j. encourage the development of the new generation of platforms and services often described as Web 2.0 for its economical prospects (business start-ups) and for its potential role in reducing the digital divide, since the new forms of use and self-produced digital content of Web 2.0, which are not available on the “traditional” media (photo sharing etc) mean a greater incentive to use Internet.

*  *   *

16^th SESSION
Strasbourg, 3-5 March 2009

Good governance: a key factor for the sustainable economic development of regions

Recommendation 265 (2009)[5]

1. Globalisation, world-wide economic transformations and the complexity of their effects felt locally have led to a growing interdependence between States and regions and a more flexible organisation of traditional political boundaries.

2. In parallel, the impacts of economic growth on the planet’s resources and on the ecosystem in general are major challenges which can be taken up by regions to ensure the necessary balance between economic, social, cultural and ecological spheres.

3. These are accompanied by a decline in trust as citizens lose faith in political institutions and in their elected representatives’ capacity to guarantee economic, social and environmental stability. Public authorities need to renew their governance practices in order to renew and strengthen citizens’ confidence.

4. The Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe believes that regions have a duty to anticipate and accompany the economic transformations through good regional governance. Transparency of decision-making, efficient management, citizens’ empowerment and the rule of law are indispensable in order to reinforce citizens’ links with their locality and support innovation and sustainable economic development.

5. Within this context, regions need to elaborate a common strategy which guarantees competitivity and social growth within a willingness to develop strong partnerships. It is through the involvement of public players and civil society that a shared regional vision can emerge. It is also by involving citizens in long-term policy-making that a climate of confidence can be created and decision-making processes improved.

6. Sound governance practices and a spirit of cooperation should thus enable each region to best build on its assets and find its own unique solutions in order to strengthen its attractiveness. The quality of infrastructures and human resources are key factors in a region’s economic success and dynamism.

7. Good regional governance also means having a vision which goes beyond administrative and geographic boundaries. Regional authorities should show real leadership, facilitate the creation of clusters, sector-based groupings, and favour synergies and trans-frontier cooperation. These forms of cooperation are not only important drivers of innovation and entrepreneurship but they can also contribute to finding a response to cultural and economic tensions between regions.

8. Subsidiarity involves assessing the right level for policy implementation and ensuring that this is accompanied by a real transfer of powers to the most appropriate level. Today, many policies which are determined at national level affect regional development. However, they are often elaborated without giving regions sufficient autonomy to respond locally to the global stakes.

9. Similarly, regional authorities must have adequate financial and fiscal competences to implement their responsibilities, either through direct taxation or through a constitutional guarantee of income in conformity with the European Charter of Local Self-Government.

10. With this in mind, the Congress applauds the adoption of the European Charter of Regional Democracy by the Congress in May 2008. This instrument offers Europe’s regions, for the first time, a common reference framework and a set of guidelines to accompany States through regional evolution in Europe.  

11. It welcomes the Parliamentary Assembly support for the European Charter of Regional Democracy and in particular Recommendation 1811 (2007) on Regionalisation in Europe which emphasises the importance of regional self-government as an effective unifying means for greater political stability.

12. In the same context, the Congress supports the Helsinki Declaration on Regional Self-Government and the Strategy on Innovation and Good Governance at Local Level adopted by the European Ministers responsible for local and regional government, which offer tools to reinforce participatory democracy at local level.

13. In the light of the above, the Congress recommends that the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe:

a. adopt the European Charter of Regional Democracy prepared by the Congress;

b. take into account the Congress recommendations on good regional governance in the preparatory work and the elaboration of recommendations for the next Session of the Council of Europe Conference of Ministers responsible for Spatial/Regional Planning (CEMAT) in 2010;

c. invite the Stakeholders' Platform on the Strategy for Innovation and Good Governance at Local Level of the Council of Europe to apply this Strategy to the regional level.

14. The Congress invites the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to ask member States to:

a. adopt national legislation to facilitate regionalisation and the implementation of the principle of subsidiarity which:

i.              provide regional authorities with the necessary administrative and regulatory competences to fully implement regional development strategies and the creation of appropriate infrastructures;

ii.             guarantee regions’ fiscal and budgetary competences as well as their capacity to allocate them;

b. cooperate with all levels of governance to promote sustainable economic development and therefore:

i.              assess the right level for economic policy implementation and avoid disjointed decision-making processes and the overlapping of administrative bodies;

ii.             promote harmonisation of economic information and services provided by European, national and regional public authorities and avoid the multiplication or even the fragmentation of economic service provision.

15. The Congress also recommends the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe and the European Union use the Memorandum of Understanding between those two bodies to examine ways to:

a. support good governance practices at regional level for better territorial cohesion;

b. make better use of territorial diversity to promote a sustainable economic development of regions which builds on regional cultural identities as recommended in the Territorial Agenda of the European Union.

APPENDIX II

Ministers' Deputies / Working Parties

GT-REF.INST
Working Party on Institutional Reforms

GT-REF.INST(2009)1 final  9 April 2009

————————————————

Survey of Steering and Ad hoc Committees
Overview of the survey of six steering and ad hoc committees
whose terms of reference expire in 2009

Document prepared by the Directorate of Strategic Planning

————————————————

Introduction

1.       In the context of the work on the rationalisation of intergovernmental committees
(GT-REF.INST(2008)CB6), the Deputies decided at their 1041st meeting, on 19 November 2008, to launch a pilot survey of intergovernmental steering and ad hoc committees (CM/Del/Dec(2008)1041/1.9).  A questionnaire was prepared by GT-REF.INST and approved by the Deputies.

2.       The Chair of the Committee of Ministers sent a letter to members of the steering and ad hoc committees, along with a questionnaire (CM(2008)174).  For the pilot phase of the survey, six committees whose terms of reference expire in 2009 were chosen: the CCJE, CDLR, CAHPAH, CDBI, CDCULT and CDED.

3.       This document presents the key results, conclusions and recommendations of the survey.  The appendices contain: a thematic summary, question by question (Appendix 1); a summary of the replies broken down by committee appears (Appendix 2); an overview of replies in table format (Appendix 3); and, in order to take advantage of the lessons learned from the pilot exercise for the purposes of a further survey of committees, some suggestions for improvements to the questionnaire (Appendix 4).

4.       Those responding to the survey (on average 40%) expressed a high degree of satisfaction with the committees’ work and achievements. A large majority of correspondents consider that the committees' work is useful when it comes to drafting national legislation and triggering public debate.  The survey confirms that the Council of Europe provides added value on account of its human rights perspective, its broad geographical coverage, which includes non-EU states, its multi-stakeholder approach, the binding nature of its legal instruments and the fact that it disseminates good practice.

5.       The survey also provides some material for further discussion by the committees themselves and by the Committee of Ministers.  The ideas and recommendations presented in this document could be examined from three angles:

a)    a specifically committee-related perspective, with a view to further improvements in each committee’s working methods,

b)    a (cross-cutting) question-related angle, to obtain a better understanding of general issues concerning all the committees, and

c)    with regard to relevance and added value in enabling the Council of Europe to take its rightful place among other international organisations.

Key results

6.       There is general satisfaction with the committees’ work and results, which are considered useful for the purposes of drafting national legislation or triggering public debate.  The explicit expertise of the committees in providing the member states with knowledge and spreading good practice in their specific fields of activity is emphasised.

7.       The survey confirms the added value provided by the Council of Europe on account of its human rights perspective, its broad geographical coverage including non-EU states, the binding nature of its legal instruments and it is multi-stakeholder approach.  The committees' work is described as less bureaucratic than the work done by similar bodies in other international organisations. When overlapping of one committee's work with the work carried out by other international organisations is mentioned, the respondents see it positively, in terms of synergy, shared interest and complementarity in respect of key issues - co-operation with these organisations being essential.

8.       About 75% of respondents confirm their satisfaction with the system of plenary meetings/ working groups.  Some of participating experts consider that a reform of the working methods would be welcome.  A large number of members who replied suggest specific improvements to the working methods of their committee, some of which have however already been incorporated into the practical work of the committee.

9.       Some committees (representing only a minority) indicate that they would specifically benefit from closer relations with the Committee of Ministers, and notably from improved information flow.

Conclusions

10.     The choice of six committees - CCJE, CDLR, CAHPAH, CDBI, CDCULT, CDED - representing intergovernmental work in areas covered by five Rapporteur Groups - provides a broad thematic spectrum for a review of Council of Europe committee work.

11.     This exercise complements previous research into committees’ work, in particular the PARTICIP study[6].  The current survey clearly confirms a number of general concerns and proposals previously identified and throws up some specific comments and suggestions:

-       For a committee to be effective, a minimum of one meeting a year is necessary, while politically sensitive subjects may require two meetings[7] a year to allow appropriate consultation with the capitals.

-       The number of topics on the agenda should be reduced to allow enough time for proper consideration.  Debates should be more focused and less time devoted to information items during plenary meetings. Experts should be given sufficient notice of planned meeting dates (which could result in shorter meetings).

-       Small group arrangements and specialised/ad hoc meetings could be used to make progress with particular topics, with the agreement of the committee.

-       Documents should be more focused, concise and available in both official languages in good time, to improve communication and allow for timely consultations at national level.

-       Increased use should be made of new information technology for various forms of communication and of exchange by e-mail; documents should be made available on (restricted) websites, which should be regularly updated.

-       Communication between the Bureau and the committee should be improved to bridge long periods between plenary sessions.

-       Ongoing evaluation of committees should be introduced.

-       Member states should improve the language skills of national experts to allow them to take part fully the work, and ensure that relevant documents are translated into national languages.  More attention should be paid to the transfer of the results of intergovernmental work to the local level.

-       Heightened contacts between Permanent Representatives and committee members is considered important.

Recommendations

12.     While the proposals made in the replies to the current survey are more related to the committees’ working methods, there are some suggestions that could serve as additional input for the preparation of new terms of reference.  The sending of the (improved) questionnaire to steering and ad hoc committees one year before the end of their terms of reference could be an appropriate occasion for doing this, as the answering exercise affords members the opportunity to evaluate the committee’s working methods and achievements and propose further improvements if the terms of reference are renewed.  For the purposes of questionnaire follow-up, a procedure involving an annual survey of steering and ad hoc committees whose the terms of reference expire could be recommended.

***

Appendix 1

Assessment by question

Question 1: Has the committee's work been useful in view of the elaboration of the national legislation (laws, regulations, and directives) and/or public debate?

13.     A large majority of respondents consider the committees' work useful when it comes to elaborating national legislation and/or triggering public debate (93% positive replies to Q1).  It has been taken into account when devising national legislation, strategies and specific action plans on particular issues. Numerous concrete examples are given in the replies.  The committees’ texts/opinions are referred to by the media and are directly used in public debate.  The committees are seen as fora for sharing information, experience and knowledge.

Negative replies to this question were given by respondents from countries where national legislation in the relevant field was already well established or where such legislation was not an issue.  Nonetheless, the value of the committees’ work for the purposes of public debate is highlighted by these respondents.

Question 2: Was the committee’s work useful in your country for professionals dealing with questions falling within the committee's competence?

14.     The committees’ work is considered useful for professionals dealing with questions falling within the committees’ sphere of competence by a large majority of respondents (94 % positive replies to Q2).  It helps to raise awareness amongst professionals and keeps them informed about topics of interest to them.  The committees' work is used in training programmes for professionals in the various fields concerned. Moreover, it influences the content of codes of ethics in a number of countries.

Language may be a barrier as not all professionals can easily use documents in English or French. In addition, although the committees’ work is helpful for professionals at national level, some difficulties have been met to transfer Council of Europe work from central government in capital cities to the regions and municipalities. More attention should be paid to the transfer of the results of intergovernmental work to the local level.

Question 3: Do you think there was an overlapping of the work of the Council of Europe in the field of your committee, with the work carried out by other international organisations?

15.     According to the majority of respondents (58%), there is no overlap between the work of the Council of Europe and that of other international organisations. Some respondents consider that there is beneficial overlap in terms of synergy, shared interest and co-operation on key issues.  Strong complementarity, rather than overlap, is also emphasised.  Good co-operation and co-ordination between the Council of Europe and other organisations is assured by the participation of the latter in the committees’ plenary meetings.  While it is inevitable that some topics dealt with by the Council of Europe are discussed in other international organisations, the uniqueness of the Council of Europe's work is highlighted and its real added value is stressed by a very large majority of respondents.  The working methods of committees that involve decision-makers, experts and practitioners seem particularly effective.

16.     The answers to this question show that each committee has its own views on the subject.

CCJE: There is virtually no overlap between the work of the Council of Europe in the field covered by the CCJE and the work carried out by other international organisations, largely because of the uniqueness of the CCJE, which is exclusively composed of independent judges entrusted with drafting opinions for the Committee of Ministers. Any overlap between the CCJE and other committees (CEPEJ, CCPE or ENCJ) is avoided through the attendance of all these committees at CCJE meetings.

CDLR: No reply mentions any serious institutional overlap with the work of other organisations. The replies deploring a perceived overlap refer to the work being done on the third protocol to the Madrid Outline Convention, which covers the same ground as EU Regulation No.1082/2006, but highlight the role of the Council of Europe as the only international body that has explicit expertise in the field of local and regional democracy and one that provides the member states with information and disseminates good practice.

CAHPAH: About half of the experts replying consider that there is no overlap between the disability-related activities of the Council of Europe and those of other international organisations. Any overlap is mainly identified as the existence of an area in which there is shared interest or complementarity. Mention is made of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, although its different legal nature and geographical scope are stressed. Representatives of EU member states also refer to the European Commission’s Disability Action Plan and the European Commission High Level Group on Disability. Yet the replies focus on the added value of the Council of Europe’s work in respect of such key aspects as its broad geographical coverage, encompassing non-EU states, its multi-stakeholder approach, the fact that it provides a tool for implementing the above-mentioned UN Convention and serves as a pan-European forum for mainstreaming disability issues in all policy areas, for co-operation and networking and for supervision by member states, and its human rights perspective and expertise in diversity, equality and social cohesion issues.

CDBI: A few members consider that some topics dealt with by CDBI are also discussed in other organisations such as UNESCO, the WHO and to some extent the EU. However, attention is drawn to the uniqueness of the Council of Europe's work, insofar as it is based on a human rights approach, and to the fact that the CDBI is the only international body preparing binding legal instruments in this field. One answer states that the Council of Europe could play a special role when it comes to co-operation between international organisations in the field of bioethics.

CDCULT: Half of the respondents see no overlap with the work of other international organisations, whilst the others mention beneficial overlap with UNESCO or the EU in terms of synergy, shared interest, complementarity and co-operation on key issues.  Two of them refer to overlap with UNESCO/ the EU on heritage issues, film and audiovisual policy and ICD (intercultural dialogue).  Co-ordination with these organisations is highlighted as being significant both at national level and in the Council of Europe Secretariat, and examples of successful co-operation are quoted.  The replies confirm, however, that the Council of Europe is the only European organisation with full competence and a comprehensive mandate in the cultural field.

CDED: There is a consensus to the effect that there is no overlap, but rather complementarity, between the CDED activities and those of other international organisations.  Co-operation with the EU, the OCDE and UNESCO should be enhanced.  Some answers stress that the Council of Europe's work is more “product-oriented”, and therefore better suited to passing on values, which are of direct help to governments, decision-makers, experts and teachers in their own work.  All the respondents acknowledge the added value of the work of the Council of Europe, and attention is drawn to its pan - European dimension - the fact that it includes non-EU member states.

Question 4: Does the system of plenary meetings and working groups function in an efficient way?

17.     The majority of members who replied (83%) consider that the system of plenary meetings and working groups functions efficiently. Nevertheless, the running of meetings could be further improved (e.g. the number of items on the agenda could be reduced, timetabling could be improved and discussions could take place in greater depth). 

Question 5: To what extent would it be possible to obtain similar results by having less plenary and more working group meetings or the use of other means of communication?

18.     The majority of respondents are of the opinion that it is impossible to obtain similar results with fewer plenary and more working group meetings or by using other means of communication. Members of the committees that have two plenary meetings a year feel that there is a proper balance between plenary meetings and working party meetings.  On the other hand, members of the committees that have one plenary meeting a year unanimously agree that a further reduction in the number of meetings would be liable to cause members' interest in the committee’s work to dwindle further.

Plenary meetings are considered as providing a comprehensive overview of the activities. They enable every member state to get involved on an equal basis, and provide the opportunity for networking involving member states and all other stakeholders.  The subordinate bodies have the advantage of being more efficient in drafting texts of a technical nature but their membership is limited.  Some replies suggest holding more specialised/ad hoc meetings with a reduced number of participants.  Lastly, it is also suggested that the duration of plenary meetings be extended to allow the organisation of the work on particular topics in smaller groups.

The use of other means of communication (in particular electronic ones) is welcomed and encouraged. It is, however, pointed out that these are already widely used.

 

Question 6: With the same budget, what improvements do you suggest to raise the efficiency and relevance of the committee’s work (for example with regard to topics addressed, length of agendas, documents, working methods …)?

19.     A number of suggestions are made for improving the efficiency and relevance of the committees’ work. With regard to document management, it is proposed that more concise documents be provided, in both official languages (English and French) at the same time and well in advance of the meetings. They should be available on the password-restricted websites.  It is stressed that good communication and interaction between the Bureau and the committees’ members, especially during the long periods between sessions, should be ensured. Some proposals are made concerning the preparation and running of meetings. Agendas should be shorter and organised according to political priorities in order to focus discussions on core concerns.  Time for general discussion should be limited to allow more time for sharing best practice.  Technical issues should be debated by the subordinate bodies. Particular topics could be discussed in smaller groups during committee meetings. Finally, financial participation by member states in order to ensure a second plenary meeting is proposed.

Question 7: Do you see the need to reinforce the interaction between the Committee of Ministers
and your committee?

20.     Four of the six committees express general satisfaction with the existing exchange of information with the Committee of Ministers and see no need to reinforce interaction. Some suggestions are nevertheless made in this connection: presence during the meetings of Ambassadors of states concerned by specific topics on the agenda, presence of the Chair of the relevant Rapporteur Group, presence of a Committee of Ministers delegate, etc.  On the other hand, two committees express the need to reinforce their interaction with the Committee of Ministers and highlight the importance of regular information flow in both directions.

Question 8: Do you wish to make any further comments regarding the work of your committee (for example regarding work programme, documentation, ministerial conferences, …):

21.     In their comments regarding the work of the committees, the members replying reiterate suggestions made in reply to question 6.  One committee makes proposals concerning ministerial conferences, suggesting that ministerial conferences make institutional arrangements to ensure the necessary links between sessions.  In addition, oversight of the action undertaken during the period between ministerial conferences and stock-taking of achievements should be envisaged.

Question 9: What is your global assessment on the usefulness of the work carried out by your
Steering Committee?  

22.     The work of the committees is considered as useful by a large majority of respondents (85%).

Question 10: Does your country participate regularly in the work of this Committee?

23.     In general (98%), respondents state that they regularly participate in the work of the committee.

***

Appendix 2

Results by committee

24.     Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) / DGHL

Number of replies to the questionnaire: 20 out of 47 members (43%).

25.     The large majority of replies confirm that CCJE opinions have been useful for the purposes of drafting national regulations and legislation. They are often used as tools for the functioning and/or administration of justice and for the organisation of the work of the legal professions. Numerous concrete examples are given in the replies. It is also stressed that the presentation at national level of CCJE opinions, which are frequently mentioned by the media, provides an opportunity for organising public debates on the themes in question.

26.     The work of the CCJE is considered useful for national professionals and in particular for judges and judicial service commissions, in view of the fact that CCJE opinions contain concrete specifications concerning the implementation of general standards (independence of judges, training of judges, ethics, quality of decisions, etc.).

27.     There is virtually no overlap between the work of the Council of Europe in the field covered by the CCJE and the work carried out by other international organisations, largely because of the uniqueness of the CCJE, which is exclusively composed of independent judges entrusted with drafting opinions for the Committee of Ministers. Any overlap between CCJE and other committees (CEPEJ, CCPE or ENCJ) is avoided through the participation of all these committees in CCJE meetings.

28.     Suggestions: Some suggestions are made for improving the efficiency and relevance of the CCJE’s work, most of them very concrete: holding specialised/ad hoc meetings with a reduced number of participants, continuing and stepping up the organisation of international conferences on themes of interest to the CCJE, increasing the use of new technology for the various forms of communication, ensuring that the content of opinions is more concrete, improving co-operation with national judicial bodies and mutual sharing of national experience.  Attention is drawn to the problem of language, with reference to the accuracy of translations but also as an obstacle for judges who cannot read French or English documents easily. With regard to the CCJE's working methods, the majority of answers underline their efficiency and emphasise that one annual plenary meeting is a minimum.

29.     According to the majority (70%), there is no need to reinforce interaction with the Committee of Ministers, while others consider that more interaction could lead to better dissemination of the CCJE's work in member states and extension of its activities.

30.     European Committee on Local and Regional Democracy (CDLR) / DGDPA

Number of replies to the questionnaire: 20 out of 49[8] members (41%)

31.     A large (90%) majority of the members replying testify that the committee’s work has been taken into account when drafting national legislation in the field of local and regional democracy, notably as regards local self-government and local and regional authorities, cross-border co-operation, public ethics, staff statutes, citizen participation at local level, local elections, local finance and implementation of the principles of the Strategy for Innovation and Good Governance.  It facilitates implementation at national level of the European Charter of Local Self-Government, for the purposes of which it provides assistance, and is useful for professionals.

32.     No reply mentions any serious institutional overlap with the work of other organisations.  The replies deploring a perceived overlap refer to the work being done on the third protocol to the Madrid Outline Convention, which covers the same ground as EU Regulation No.1082/2006, but highlight the role of the Council of Europe as the only international body that has explicit expertise in the field of local and regional democracy and one that provide the member states with information and disseminates good practice.

 

33.     Suggestions: The members of the committee wish to keep the current working methods, which offer a right balance between plenary and sub-committee meetings.  Specific suggestions include reducing the number of items on the agenda, appointing rapporteurs for certain specific themes, making the documents produced shorter, improving the website by making all documents available and regularly updating them. It is also proposed that more be done to prepare the ministerial conference in QuickTime and that consideration be given to reporting on achievements and action undertaken between ministerial conferences.

34.     Although general satisfaction with the existing exchange of information between the CDLR and the Committee of Ministers has been expressed, it is occasionally suggested that regular, direct contacts between CDLR members and their countries’ Permanent Representations / Ambassadors should become more widespread.  It is also proposed that Committee of Ministers decisions and documents relating to the CDLR be sent immediately to members.

35.     European Co-ordination Forum for the Council of Europe Disability Action Plan 2006-2015 (CAHPAH) / DGIII

Number of replies to the questionnaire: 23 out of 47 members (49%)

36.     The replies from this committee represent, ex-aequo with those from CDBI, the highest feedback rate of all the committees concerned.  The replies are very positive and give various concrete examples of how the committee’s work has been useful.  It is stressed that work on the Council of Europe Disability Action Plan 2006-2015 has served (or will serve) to devise national disability strategies or action plans and programmes and for amendments to national laws or the adoption of new ones based on useful input provided by the CAHPAH.  The committee provided a framework for the sharing of information and good practice.  Some respondents appreciate the CAHPAH’s pioneering role in instigating political reflection on legislative or policy issues and helping to trigger debate at national level.

37.     The work carried out by the Council of Europe and the CAHPAH helped to raise awareness amongst professionals: several texts and activities are listed as having proven highly relevant and useful to them. It is suggested that more be done to pass on the results of the work from the intergovernmental level to local authorities.

38.     About half of the experts replying consider that there is no overlap between the disability-related activities of the Council of Europe and those of other international organisations.  Any overlap is mainly identified as the existence of an area in which there is shared interest or complementarity.  Mention is made of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, although its different legal nature and geographical scope are stressed. Representatives of EU member states also refer to the European Commission’s Disability Action Plan and the European Commission High Level Group on Disability. Yet the replies focus on the added value of the Council of Europe’s work in respect such key aspects as its broad geographical coverage, encompassing non-EU states, its multi-stakeholder approach, the fact that it provides a tool for implementing the above-mentioned UN Convention and serves as a pan-European forum for mainstreaming disability issues in all policy areas, for co-operation and networking and for supervision by member states, and its human rights perspective and expertise in diversity, equality and social cohesion issues.

39.     Suggestions: There are proposals to extend the duration of the plenary meeting and shorten and concentrate the agenda. Attention is drawn to the need to have both English and French documents available in time, including on the restricted website.  The conferences are appreciated as being professionally-managed.  The view is taken that the committee should have at least one high-level ministerial meeting a year.  However, not all events need to be held at ministerial level: local authorities, professionals, private enterprises, the media and other parties concerned should be targeted.  The CAHPAH has only one plenary meeting a year, and the majority of respondents stress that the number of such meetings could not be reduced as they add breadth and enhance the scope of the work and give it a higher political profile.

40.     While the majority (78%) do not see any need to reinforce interaction with the Committee of Ministers, there are some proposals to strengthen it by, for instance, sending regular reports from the member states to the Committee of Ministers on the implementation of the committee’s terms of reference, followed by a review by the Committee of Ministers, the Permanent Representation and the CAHPAH country representative.

41.     Steering Committee on Bioethics (CDBI) / DG3

Number of replies to the questionnaire: 23 out of 47 members (49%)[9]

42.     The replies from this committee represent, ex-aequo with those from CAHPAH, the highest feedback rate of all committees concerned.  All the members who replied, including those from member states which have not signed or ratified the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, acknowledge that the work of CDBI has a significant and often decisive impact on national legislation.  Many list a number of specific domestic laws on various topics, such as patients’ rights, human organ and tissue donation and transplantation, mental health, biomedical research and bio banks, and several underline the value of CDBI’s achievements when it comes to standard-setting.

43.     Many answers (96%) state that the CDBI’s work is useful for professionals.  The instruments and texts elaborated by the CDBI are used in public debate and constitute a reference for ethics bodies.  The CDBI’s work is also referred to as influencing the content of codes of ethics in a number of countries.

44.     A few members state that some topics dealt with by CDBI are also discussed in other organisations such as UNESCO, the WHO and to some extent the EU.  However, attention is drawn to the uniqueness of the Council of Europe's work, insofar as it is based on a human rights approach and to the fact that the CDBI is the only international body preparing binding legal instruments in this field.  One answer states that the Council of Europe could play a special role when it comes to co-operation between international organisations in the field of bioethics.

45.     Suggestions: A few suggestions are made, in particular that more time be allowed for consultation over documents at national level before plenary meetings, that discussion at plenary meetings be shortened, and that greater use been made of e-mail. It is unanimously agreed that it would not be possible to obtain similar results with fewer than two plenary meetings per year.  The current working methods are efficient according to 96% of the respondents, and attention is a drawn to the excellent work of the Secretariat.

46.     The large majority consider the current interaction between the Committee of Ministers and the CDBI to be satisfactory.

47.     Steering Committee for Culture (CDCULT) / DG4

Number of replies to the questionnaire: 12 out of 49[10] members (24%)

48.     The response rate of this committee is the lowest of all the committees consulted.  Nevertheless, thanks to the quality of the replies, there are some interesting ideas for further improvements.  It is generally agreed that the committee's work is useful for the purposes of fostering public debate, establishing cultural guidelines and drafting national legislation, many examples being listed in the answers.  Council of Europe legal documents contributed to legal reforms in countries seeking EU membership.  The Compendium information system is described as “the most important cultural policy information system in Europe” and the CDCULT's great capacity for bilateral and international networking is highlighted.

49.     Policy-makers, professionals, researchers and artists are broadly inspired by the CDCULT's guidelines and priorities, definitions, concepts and good practices (e.g. Intercultural Dialogue/ White Paper/ Intercultural Cities, integration policies, cultural routes, cultural exchanges, creative industries, heritage, cinema, including Eurimages, equality issues) and use them in their work.

50.     Half of the respondents see no overlap with the work of other international organisations, whilst the others mention beneficial overlap with UNESCO or the EU in terms of synergy, shared interest, complementarity and co-operation on key issues.  Two of them refer to overlap with UNESCO/ the EU on heritage issues, film and audiovisual policy and ICD.  Co-ordination with these organisations is highlighted as being significant both at national level and in the Council of Europe Secretariat, and examples of successful co-operation are quoted.  The replies confirm, however, that the Council of Europe is the only European organisation with full competence and a comprehensive mandate in the cultural field.

51.     Obviously, the number of the plenary meetings cannot be reduced, given that the time allotted has already been substantially reduced (by 30% in 2008).

52.     Suggestions: As far as improvements to the plenary meetings are concerned, proposals include shorter agendas, more in-depth debates and more clearly focused documents.  Key legal documents should be translated into national languages (this being the responsibility of CDCULT members).  Communication between the Bureau and the committee should be enhanced to bridge long periods between sessions.  The usefulness of a second committee meeting a year is stressed, and it is proposed that member states help to finance a second meeting.  The organisation of expert conferences is also suggested.

53.     CDCULT members consider that more Committee of Ministers support for culture might be generated by enhanced interaction between the CDCULT and the Committee of Ministers.  The importance of regular information flow in both directions and the role of Permanent Representations are stressed.

54.     Steering Committee for Education (CDED) / DGIV

Number of replies to the questionnaire: 17 out of 49[11] members (35%)

55.     The majority (88%) of answers are positive when it comes to the application of the committee’s work at national level.  Some CDED activities and documents had a direct impact on national legislation and the strategies devised, amongst them language education policy, history and remembrance teaching, Education for Democratic Citizenship/Human Rights, education for Roma children and intercultural education.  The importance of the CDED’s work in fostering public debate is also highlighted.

56.     Members particularly appreciated the opportunity for national experts to work in working groups for many years in the context of CDED projects.  The usefulness of the practical training tools, along with policy recommendations, in that it allows teachers to refresh and improve their teaching methods, is emphasised.

57.     There is a consensus to the effect that there is no overlap, but rather complementarity, between the CDED activities and those of other international organisations.  Co-operation with the EU, the OCDE and UNESCO should be enhanced.  Some answers stress that the Council of Europe's work is more “product-oriented”, and therefore better suited to passing on values, which are of direct help to governments, decision-makers, experts and teachers in their own work.  All the respondents acknowledge the added value of the work of the Council of Europe, and attention is drawn to its pan-European dimension - the fact that includes non-EU member states.

58.     Suggestions: There are proposals to the effect that communication between the Bureau and the committee should be enhanced, documentation improved and ongoing evaluation introduced.  It is also suggested that meetings on particular thematic or regional topics be held on the occasion of the plenary meeting.  The prevailing view (82%) is that it is not possible to reduce the number of plenary meetings as the agenda has become too long since the CDED’s second plenary meeting was abolished.

59.     A large majority (88%) of  the members who replied are in favour of strengthening interaction between the CDED and the Committee of Ministers, and consider that this would be helpful all round, in that it would make for better mutual understanding of the constraints affecting the Programme of Activities and the constraints and results of the CDED’s work.

***

Appendix 3

Table summarising the replies

Steering or ad hoc committee	CCJE	CDLR	CAHPAH	CDBI	CDCULT	CDED
Directorate General	DGHL	DGDPA	DGIII	DGIII	DGIV	DGIV
CM Rapporteur Group	GR-H	GR-DEM	GR-SOC	GR-J	GR-C	GR-C
Members’ participation in the survey	43%	41%	49%	49%	24%	35%
1. Has the committee’s work been useful in view of the elaboration of the national legislation (laws, regulations, and directives) and/or public debate? (% of YES answers)	90%	90%	96%	96%	100%	88%
2. Was the committee’s work useful in your country for professionals dealing with questions falling within the committee’s competence? (% of YES answers)	90%	95%	91%	96%	100%	94%
3. Do you think there was an overlapping of the work of the Council of Europe in the field of your committee, with the work carried out by other international organisations? (% of NO answers)	85%	45%	48%	70%	50%	53%

4. Does the system of plenary meetings and working groups function in an efficient way? (% of answers 4+5)	80%	75%	78%	96%	92%	76%
5. To what extent would it be possible to obtain similar results by having less plenary and more working group meetings or the use of other means of communication? (% of YES answers)	20%	40%	39%	0%	33%	19%
6. With the same budget, what improvements do you suggest to raise the efficiency and relevance of the committee’s work (for example with regard to topics addressed, length of agendas, documents, working methods)? ? (% of answers putting forward suggestions)	70%	85%	83%	65%	92%	88%
7. Do you see the need to reinforce the interaction between the Committee of Ministers and your committee? (% of YES answers)	30%	30%	22%	17%	58%	88%
8. Do you wish to make any further comments regarding the work of your committee (for example regarding work programme, documentation, ministerial conferences, …) (% of answers making comments)	35%	40%	65%	48%	75%	76%
9. What is your global assessment on the usefulness of the work carried out by your Steering Committee? (% of answers 4+5)	85%	75%	82%	100%	83%	82%
10. Does your country participate regularly in the work of this Committee? (% of YES answers)	100%	95%	91%	100%	100%	100%

Appendix 4

Lessons learned: suggestions for improving the questionnaire

60.     The purpose of this appendix is to use the lessons learned from the pilot phase of the survey to suggest improvements to the questionnaire in the light of:

• the analysis of the replies,
• the committee secretariats' feedback, and
• the informal consultations that took place between the GT-REF.INST and the committee Chairs, following the survey.

61.     Questions 1, 2 and 9 deal with the usefulness of the committees’ work in general. While Q1 and Q2 allow comments to be made on the usefulness of the committees’ work and results for the purposes of drafting national legislation and/or triggering public debate and in the work of professionals, Q9 provides little statistical evidence and the replies overlap with the YES/NO replies to Q1 and Q2.  It would be worth envisaging keeping the free text box for explanations but replacing the YES/NO choice in Q1 and Q2 with a scale (High 5 to Low 1) so as to make each question more useful.  In that case, Q9 could be left out.  In this context, question 10 adds little: it simply ascertains the members’ interest in the committees' work, which is borne out by their attendance at meetings and their actual participation in the survey: 98% of the members who replied to the survey regularly take part in the work of the committees.

62.     The questions best able to pinpoint problems or improve the efficiency of committees are questions 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8.  However, the answers to questions 6 and 8 are almost identical (with the exception of the reference to conferences in the case of Q8): the respondents list their proposals for improvements in their replies to both questions.  If the questionnaire were to be used again, these two questions should either be reworded to distinguish more clearly between the scope of each or merged into a single question.

63.     The answers to question 3 sometimes conflict with the points made further on. Indeed, some members first mention overlap with topics dealt with by other organisations, then go on to highlight the uniqueness of the Council of Europe work.

64.     The way the question 5 is worded - “To what extent…?” - makes it difficult to reply in YES/NO terms and led to misunderstanding and confusion in the replies.  The question should be reworded to allow only free text replies, without a YES/NO choice.

65.     With regard to the questionnaire terminology, the expression “working groups” in questions 4 and 5 is not the most appropriate one, as this kind of group is not provided for in the typology of subordinate bodies set out in Resolution Res(2005)47.  A more fitting term would be “groups of specialists”.

66.     With regard to informal consultations, the Chairs provided very positive feedback on reactions to the exercise and the questionnaire and its usefulness.  They stressed the fact that a questionnaire should not be too long, and that this was indeed the case for the pilot survey. One of them thought it would have been worth including a question on the need to set up the committee and the purpose of doing so (e.g. “Why was this committee set up?”) in the questionnaire, and proposed that the wording of question 5 be improved.

67.     At the GT-REF.INST meeting of 26 March 2009, some suggestions were made with a view to improving the questionnaire: to ask how many sub-committees, for which the steering committee is responsible, have been established and why; to ask which priority topics should be examined.

APPENDIX III

Final declaration
of the Ministers responsible for Social Cohesion of Council in Europe member States
(Moscow, 26 and 27 February 2009)

We, the Ministers responsible for Social Cohesion of Council in Europe member States, meeting in Moscow, on 26 and 27 February 2009,

Emphasising that social cohesion, the capacity of a society to ensure the welfare of all its members by minimising disparities and avoiding polarisation, is more relevant than ever and requires a renewed political commitment;

Convinced that a rights-based approach to social cohesion calls for social and economic policy measures that provide effective access to their rights for everyone, especially for anyone who lives in, or is at risk of, poverty and social exclusion;

Recognising that, while building and maintaining social cohesion is first and foremost the duty of individual member States, mutual co-operation - particularly through the exchange of knowledge and experience and through dialogue on issues that transcend national borders - greatly assists progress towards social cohesion;

Building on the valuable contribution of the Council of Europe in this field, particularly through the transformation of the social cohesion concept into a series of policy goals and actions; 

Expressing our support for Council of Europe legal instruments for social rights, in particular the European Social Charter and revised European Social Charter, the European Code of Social Security and its Protocol, the European Convention on Social Security as well as for the Disability Action Plan;

Aware of the fact that responsibility for social cohesion is shared by all and requires active and integrated policies involving different levels of government, the private sector and civil society in a transversal approach;

Suggesting that governments should react to current challenges and opportunities - particularly globalisation, the democratic functioning of institutions, political, socioeconomic, demographic and health-related changes, migration and cultural diversity - and strengthen citizens’ confidence in the future by taking relevant measures, particularly developing new approaches taking into account the Revised Social Cohesion Strategy and the High-Level Task Force report;

Underlining the important role of the European Committee for Social Cohesion (CDCS), particularly in its steering, coordinating and evaluating functions and its role of facilitating co-operation among member States.

WELCOME the report of the High-Level Task Force, particularly the four priorities that it suggests, and on this basis

REQUEST the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe:

·         to recognise that social cohesion supports the core objectives of the Council of Europe on human rights, democracy and the rule of law;

·         to review the Revised Social Cohesion Strategy in the light of the High-Level Task Force report, taking into account the challenges resulting from the global economic crisis;

·         on the basis of this review, to draw up a Council of Europe Action Plan in the field of social cohesion, building on existing activities and taking financial resources into account;

·         to entrust this work to the European Committee of Social Cohesion, in co-operation with other relevant Council of Europe bodies, and with a view to reporting to the Committee of Ministers regularly;

·         to intensify cooperation with the European Union, relevant United Nations bodies and other international institutions working in this field, in order to optimise efforts and create synergies;

 

COMMIT OURSELVES

Taking into account the transversal approach to social cohesion which is advocated in the High- Level Task Force report, to develop an integrated social cohesion policy in conformity with our national conditions;

With particular regard to the discussions held during the Conference:

- Promoting social rights: to acknowledge that social security and social protection are pillars of social cohesion;  to promote the ratification of relevant Council of Europe instruments, including the European Social Charter and Revised European Social Charter, as well as the European Code of Social Security and its Protocol and the European Convention on Social Security;

- Sharing responsibilities and strengthening mechanisms of representation and social and civic dialogue: to encourage public authorities at  all levels (central, regional and local government) to develop co-operation with civil society and, through constructive dialogue, to promote shared responsibility for social cohesion and effective cooperation in working towards achieving it;

- Building confidence in a secure future for all: to provide good governance and develop innovative policies which encourage individuals to trust democratic institutions; to alleviate the consequences of the current economic crisis by providing adequate social protection in conformity with both Council of Europe standards and active labour market policies; to facilitate social mobility, providing opportunity for all, and to encourage individuals, families and local stakeholders to develop their own life projects, with a specific focus on work as the best route out of poverty and on the reconciliation of private and working life;

SUGGEST that the next session of the Conference of Ministers take place in 2012;

Welcome the offer from Turkey to host the next Council of Europe Conference of Ministers responsible for Social Cohesion in 2012;

INVITE the Secretary General to forward the declaration adopted by the Conference to the relevant bodies of the Council of Europe and other international institutions.

APPENDIX IV

Terms of reference of the Committee of Experts on participation of people
with disabilities in political and public life (CAHPAH-PPL)

-	the Code of Good Practice in Referendums, adopted by the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) at its 70th plenary session (CDL-AD(2007)008);
-	Recommendation 1592 (2003) of the Parliamentary Assembly “Towards full social inclusion of people with disabilities”;
-	Resolution 1459 (2005) and Recommendation 1714 (2005) of the Parliamentary Assembly on “Abolition of restrictions on the right to vote”;
-	Resolution 1642 (2009) and Recommendation 1854 (2009) of the Parliamentary Assembly on “Access to rights for people with disabilities and their full and active participation in society”;
-	the Revised European Charter on the Participation of Young People in Local and Regional Life (adopted by the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe on 21 May 2003);
-	the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and in particular, its Article 29 on participation in political and public life;
	Under the authority of the European Co-ordination Forum for the Council of Europe Disability Action Plan 2006-2015 (CAHPAH) and in relation to the implementation of the Programme IV.1.3 “Promoting Social Cohesion in Europe” – Project 2007/DG3/1218 “Improving the quality of life of people with disabilities in Europe” and its possible follow-up or successor project of the Programme of Activities, the Committee is instructed to:
i.	draw up, disseminate and analyse a questionnaire on the participation of people with disabilities in political and public life;
ii.	draw up a report on the basis of the replies to this questionnaire, taking stock of consultative and participatory mechanisms aimed at enhancing their participation, with examples of good practice and innovative experiences in member states;
iii.	based on the findings of the stocktaking report drafted under item ii., to elaborate recommendations for member states enabling them to reach the objectives set out in the Council of Europe Disability Action Plan 2006-2015, as follows: “1. to actively promote an environment where people with disabilities can participate on an equal footing in political parties and civil society; 2. to increase the participation of people with disabilities in political and public life at all levels, local, regional, national and international, in order to fully represent the diverse nature of society; 3. to work to encourage the participation of women and young people with disabilities, as well as those in need of a high level of support, in the political arena at all levels; 4. to ensure that people with disabilities and their representative organisations are consulted and have a role to play in determining policies for people with disabilities.”

5.	Composition of the Committee:
5.A	Members
	Governments of member states are entitled to appoint representatives of the relevant bodies responsible for policies with regard to people with disabilities, and with the following qualifications: experts in the field of disability policy and legislation, or in issues relating to governance, elections, and participation of people with disabilities in political and public life.
	The Council of Europe budget will bear the travel and subsistence expenses for 12 experts from member states, which will be determined by CAHPAH.

5.B	Participants
i.	The following committees may each send representatives to meetings of the Committee, without the right to vote and at the charge of the corresponding Council of Europe sub-heads: - European Committee for Social Cohesion (CDCS); - Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH); - Steering Committee for Equality between Women and Men (CDEG); - European Steering Committee for Youth (CDEJ); - European Committee on Local and Regional Democracy (CDLR); - Steering Committee on the Media and New Communication Services (CDMC); - European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission). The Committee may invite representatives of other committees and bodies of the Council of Europe to specific meetings depending on the agenda of the respective meeting, without the right to vote and at the charge of the corresponding heads of the Council of Europe budget.
ii.	The Parliamentary Assembly may send representatives to meetings of the Committee, without the right to vote and at the charge of its administrative budget.
iii.	The Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe may send representatives to meetings of the Committee, without the right to vote and at the charge of its administrative budget.
iv.	The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights may send representatives to meetings of the Committee, without the right to vote and at the charge of its administrative budget.
v.	The Conference of INGOs of the Council of Europe may send representatives to meetings of the Committee, without the right to vote and at the charge of the sending body.
5.C	Other participants
i.	The European Commission and the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) may send representatives to the meetings of the Committee, without the right to vote or defrayal of expenses.
ii.	States with observer status with the Council of Europe (Canada, Holy See, Japan, Mexico, United States of America) may send representatives to the meetings of the Committee, without the right to vote or defrayal of expenses.

iii.	The following intergovernmental organisations may send representatives to meetings of the Committee, without the right to vote or defrayal of expenses: - Nordic Co-operation on Disability (NSH) under the Nordic Council of Ministers; - Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UN/OHCHR); - Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)/Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR).
5.D	Observers
	The following non-governmental organisations may send a representative to meetings of the Committee, without the right to vote or defrayal of expenses: - European Blind Union (EBU); - European Disability Forum (EDF); - European Union of the Deaf (EUD); - International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES); - Inclusion Europe.

6.	Working methods and structures:
	With a view to reaching its objectives and within the limits of its budgetary appropriations, the Committee may arrange consultations, if necessary, by means of hearings or by any other means. In carrying out its terms of reference, the Committee must ensure that people with disabilities or their representatives or other stakeholders are appropriately involved in the work, e.g. through written consultation procedures or by attending hearings. The Committee may appoint rapporteurs from within its midst. Where necessary, in order to expedite the progress of its work, the Committee may entrust a limited number of its members with a specific task.
7.	Duration:
	The terms of reference will expire on 31 December 2011.

APPENDIX V

Ministers’ Deputies

CM Documents

CM(2009)68 final  6 May 2009

————————————————

119th Session of the Committee of Ministers

(Madrid, 12 May 2009)

Declaration: Making gender equality a reality

————————————————

The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe

Recalling that the core objective of the Council of Europe is preserving and promoting human rights and their full enjoyment, democracy and the rule of law and that all its activities must contribute to this fundamental objective;

Recalling that gender equality is an integral part of human rights and a fundamental criterion of democracy;

Recalling that gender equality means an equal visibility, empowerment, responsibility and participation of both women and men in all spheres of public and private life. Gender equality is the opposite of gender inequality, not of gender difference;

Recalling that policies should be gender sensitive and that they should take into account the social reality to which they apply, mainly that society is composed of women and men who may have differing needs;

Recognising that the legal status of women has improved over time, but that 20 years after its Declaration on equality of women and men, bridging the gap between gender equality in fact and in law is still a challenge for its member states;

Recognising that the past decades were often marked by neglect of a gender perspective in legislation and policy with gender equality being a partially or totally isolated issue, with few links with other policies and fields although it is both a goal in itself and a cross-cutting issue which should be at the core of practical decision-making;

Recognising the importance of including men in achieving gender equality;

Regretting the under-representation of women in political and public life and the continued gender based discrimination against women in all sectors of society and at all stages of their lives;

Condemning the persistent gender pay gap, obstacles met by women to entry and advancement in the labour market, degrading labour conditions and exploitation, overburdening with unpaid work in the private and social spheres, further exacerbated by economic deprivation and violence, and the more frequent and deeper effects of poverty on women;

Condemning the fact that many women are exposed to violations of their human rights, are victims of physical, psychological, sexual violence, stalking and trafficking for various purposes, including sexual exploitation, and of practices which qualify as torture or inhuman or degrading treatment (inter alia violence, rape, traditional practices harmful to women, genital and sexual mutilation);

Emphasising that a genuine democracy must fully use the competences, the skills and the creativity of both women and men to build a society with a better quality of life for all and respectful of the values on which the Council of Europe is founded; 

Urge member states to commit themselves fully to bridging the gap between equality in fact and in law and to act to:

I.             Eliminate the structural causes of power imbalances between women and men, including in political, public and economic decision-making process at all levels;

II.           Ensure economic independence and empowerment of women by guaranteeing that equality is respected in the labour market and economic life. This will be possible by eliminating discrimination generally, and in particular that emanating from gender stereotypes, and by guaranteeing an equal pay for equal work or work of equal value;

III.         Address the need to eliminate established stereotypes by investing further in gender mainstreaming in education and research including gender focused research to ensure that both women and men achieve their full economic and social potential;

IV.          Eradicate violations of the dignity and human rights of women through increased and effective action to prevent and combat gender-based violence against women, provide the necessary assistance and support for all victims and prosecute the perpetrators;

V.           Integrate a gender equality perspective in governance by ensuring openness, transparency, participation of all relevant stakeholders as well as real accountability in the process of achieving full gender equality;

And to this end:

1.       Take the following steps which are of major importance for abolishing obstacles to the achievement of gender equality in fact:

·                     identify the structural causes of inequalities which affect women, including women affected by multiple forms of discrimination and take the necessary social and economic measures for their eradication;

·                     eliminate gender stereotypes, responsible for the under utilisation of human resources and which are an obstacle to self-realisation of women and men; take any special measures to address and overcome stereotypes in education and encourage the professionals and actors in the media and communication sector to convey a non stereotyped image of women and men respectful of human rights, including gender equality;

·                     create the conditions for a secure life in the private and public spheres by preventing and combating all forms of violence against women;

·                     raise awareness among women and men of the need to eradicate violence which is a threat to peace, security, human rights and democracy in line with the provisions of UN Security Council Resolutions 1325 (2000) and 1820 (2008);

·                     take the necessary measures to guarantee an equal sharing of responsibilities between women and men and create conditions favourable to the reconciliation of private and family life with professional life through a fair and balanced distribution of resources taking into account the different situations in women’s and men’s lives;

·                     encourage men to participate actively in the discussions and activities aimed at achieving gender equality in all spheres of life;

2.       To accelerate the achievement of these aims, guarantee a visible political commitment by setting up the necessary legislative and policy framework and implement parallel strategies and innovative and effective tools so that gender equality is recognised as a challenge by the whole of society in all its sectors and place it at the heart of the different decision-making and policy-setting processes:

·                     Adhere to international standards by ratifying all the relevant international legal instruments and by implementing and monitoring them fully at national level, in particular those contained in the relevant conventions of the Council of Europe, as well as in its recommendations;

·                     Adopt, implement and evaluate gender equality policies by:

-               adopting strategies, plans and programmes at different levels in all policy areas;

-               acknowledging and addressing the obstacles that persist to the achievement of        gender equality;

-               establishing target groups, time frames and benchmarks for its effective implementation and using clear indicators to evaluate results and progress achieved;

-               creating or reinforcing monitoring mechanisms;

-               regularly reporting to parliament on progress and results accomplished;

·                     Adopt and implement specific policies and action plans at different levels and ensure their adequate financing; enable positive action or special measures to be adopted in order to achieve balanced participation, including representation, of women and men in decision-making in all sectors of society, in particular in the labour market and in economic life as well as in political and public decision-making;

·                     Adopt and implement effectively specific policies and plans of action to prevent and combat gender-based violence against women, protect victims and prosecute perpetrators;

·                     Ensure visible political commitment to the strategy of gender mainstreaming, including where necessary by adopting legislation or other instruments to this effect and appropriate structures to co-ordinate it;

·                     Use gender mainstreaming effectively:

-               by adopting and using tools such as gender analysis, sex disaggregated data, gender impact assessment;

-               by developing skills of all relevant actors to put gender mainstreaming into practice and

-               by creating indicators aimed at evaluating its impact on the promotion of gender equality;

·                     Explore the use of gender mainstreaming through gender budgeting to guarantee a fair distribution of resources between women and men;

·                     Reinforce national mechanisms for gender equality at the highest political level, guarantee their effective functioning by giving them clear mandates, well defined functions and responsibilities and by providing them the necessary human and financial resources to enable them to fully implement their mandates;

·                     Support all actions which denounce discrimination against women and combat inequalities between women and men, including by ensuring the existence of specialised institutional mechanisms entrusted with the task of addressing complaints from individuals and groups on alleged violations of gender equality provisions;

·                     Develop and support research on gender issues, including policy-related analytical studies on women’s and men’s situations and on their participation at all levels and spheres; provide evidence-based analysis to governments and other political decision-makers to assess the situation of women and men, to monitor and evaluate progress and to continue to integrate a gender perspective in all policies;

3.       Renew their commitment to achieve equality in fact and in law between women and men as an integral part of human rights and a fundamental criterion of democracy in conformity with the values defended by the Council of Europe and to provide the Council of Europe the necessary human and financial resources;

4.       Invite the Secretary General of the Council of Europe to monitor and evaluate progress every three years in the implementation of gender equality policy in the Council of Europe member states.