REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the activities of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in 2009 - Main contents

|

/* COM/2010/0464 final */ REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the activities of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in 2009

EN

Brussels, 9.9.2010

COM(2010) 464 final

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

on the activities of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in 2009

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

on the activities of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in 2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS

• 1. 

  Introduction (...)4

• 2. 

  Overview of the activities of the EGF in 2009 (...)4

• 3. 

  Follow-up of the 2008 Annual Report on the activities of the EGF (...)5

Regulation (EC) No 546/2009 to amend Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 establishing the EGF (...)5

• 4. 

  Analysis of the Activities of the EGF in 2009 (...)5

4.1. Applications received (...)5

Table 1 — Applications received in 2009 (...)6

4.1.1. Applications received by Member State and sector (...)7

4.1.2. Applications received by amount requested (...)7

4.1.3. Applications received by number of workers targeted for assistance (...)7

4.1.4. Applications received by amount requested per worker (...)7

4.1.5. Applications received by intervention criterion (...)8

4.2. Facilitating decision-making on EGF applications: new procedure for submitting proposals to the Council and the European Parliament (...)8

4.3. Contributions granted (...)8

Table 2 — Details of contributions granted in 2009 (...)9

4.3.1. Profile of workers benefiting from EGF assistance (...)9

Table 3 — EGF contributions granted in 2009: Profile of workers (...)9

4.3.2. Actions funded with EGF assistance (...)10

Table 4 — Actions funded in 2009 broken down by EUROSTAT classification (...)10

4.3.3. Complementarity with actions funded by the Structural Funds, notably the ESF (...)11

4.4 Results achieved by the EGF: final reports received in 2009 on the execution of the financial contributions (...)12

4.4.1. Final reports received from Member States (...)12

4.4.2. Summary of the results reported (...)12

4.4.3. Good practices and lessons presented in the final reports (...)12

Table 5 — Results reported in the final reports received in 2009 (...)15

4.5. Financial report (...)16

4.5.1. Funds contributed by the EGF (...)16

4.5.2. Technical assistance expenditure (...)17

Table 6 — Technical assistance expenditure 2009 (...)17

4.5.3. Irregularities reported or closed (...)17

4.5.4. Winding up of financial contributions from the EGF (...)18

Table 7 — Cases wound up in 2009 (...)18

4.5.5. Other reimbursements (...)18

4.6. Technical Assistance activities undertaken by the Commission (...)19

4.6.1. Information and publicity (...)19

4.6.2. Meetings with the National Authorities and social partners (...)20

• 5. 

  Trends (...)21

• 1. 

  Introduction

The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (‘EGF’) was set up by Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 [1] to show solidarity with, and provide support to, workers made redundant as a consequence of major structural changes in world trade patterns. It was designed as a means of reconciling the overall long-term benefits of open trade in terms of growth and employment with the short-term adverse effects which globalisation may have, particularly on the employment of the most vulnerable and lowest skilled workers.

The rules were amended by Regulation (EC) No 546/2009 of 18 June 2009 to respond more effectively to the global financial and economic crisis (see section 3).

Article 16 of the Regulation requires the Commission to send to the European Parliament and to the Council, before 1 July of each year, a quantitative and qualitative report on the activities of the EGF in the previous year. The report should focus mainly on the results achieved by the EGF and should, in particular, contain information relating to applications submitted, decisions adopted and actions funded, including their complementarity with actions funded by the Structural Funds, in particular the European Social Fund (ESF), and the winding-up of financial contributions made. It should also document those requests that have been refused owing to a lack of sufficient appropriations or to non-eligibility.

• 2. 

  Overview of the activities of the EGF in 2009

In 2009, the Commission received 30 applications for contributions from the EGF, which was six times as many as in 2008. Details of the applications are given in section 4 and in table 1.

The Budgetary Authority took 10 decisions to mobilise the EGF in 2009. Eight of those concerned 2009 applications and two concerned applications received at the end of 2008. Details of the contributions granted are set out in section 4 and in tables 2, 3 and 4.

The Commission received nine final reports on the implementation of EGF contributions in 2009. Details of the results achieved are given in section 4 and in table 5.

Furthermore, four EGF contributions granted in previous years were wound up. Technical assistance at the initiative of the Commission (Article 8(1) of the EGF Regulation) was deployed. The details are given in sections 4.5. and 4.6 and in tables 6 and 7.

• 3. 

  Follow-up of the 2008 Annual Report on the activities of the EGF

Regulation (EC) No 546/2009 to amend Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 establishing the EGF [2]

In its European Economic Recovery Plan, published on 26 November 2008 [3], the Commission stated that it would revise the rules of the EGF so that the European Union could help workers affected by the global financial and economic crisis and address their long-term job prospects. Three weeks later, following an analysis of the expectations and needs of the main EGF stakeholders (representatives of the Member States and social partner organisations at national and European levels), it adopted a proposal to amend the EGF Regulation [4], which contained the following major provisions:

• · 

  a reduction of the application threshold from 1 000 redundant workers to 500;

• · 

  an extension of the implementation period from 12 to 24 months;

• · 

  an increase in the co-financing rate from 50 to 75 % [5];

• · 

  a temporary derogation to allow workers made redundant as a result of the crisis to be eligible for assistance, provided the applications based upon that criterion were presented before the end of 2010(...)5.

Based on the Commission’s proposal, the amended EGF Regulation (EC) No 546/2009 was adopted on 18 June 2009.

• 4. 

  Analysis of the Activities of the EGF in 2009

4.1. Applications received

The 30 applications received by the Commission in 2009 (see table 1) represent a big increase in comparison to the two previous years, with 28 applications received in only eight months (from May until December 2009, i.e. from the modification of the EGF Regulation to the end of the year), compared with 14 received in 24 months in 2007 and 2008 [6].

The applications were submitted by 13 Member States, covered 29 021 redundant workers and requested a total of EUR 166 581 220 from the EGF. The 28 applications submitted from May 2009 were covered by the new rules (i.e. 65 % funding rate, 24-month term, etc.).

No application was refused in 2009. One application was withdrawn and is thus not included in the statistics.

Table 1 — Applications received in 2009

(...PICT...)

4.1.1. Applications received by Member State and sector

The 30 applications received were submitted by 13 Member States and related to 17 sectors [7]:

Austria (one application; automotive), Belgium (two applications; textiles), Bulgaria (one application; basic metals), Denmark (two applications; mechanical/electronic), France (one application; automotive), Germany (two applications; mobile phones, automotive), Ireland (three applications; computers, crystal glass, aircraft maintenance), Italy (one application; domestic appliances), Lithuania (four applications; domestic appliances, furniture, construction, wearing apparel), Netherlands (eight applications; construction, printing industry, publishing), Portugal (two applications; textiles, electronic equipment), Spain (two applications; ceramics, carpentry and joinery), Sweden (one application; automotive).

4.1.2. Applications received by amount requested

The Member State applying for EGF support must design a coordinated package of measures that best fits the targeted workers’ profile, and decide the amount of assistance to request. The EGF Regulation does not recommend or limit the total amount requested, but the Commission’s assessment of an application may raise issues which cause the Member State to revise the proposed package of personalised services, thereby affecting the amount requested.

The EGF contributions requested in 2009 ranged from EUR 258 164 to EUR 56 385 144 (average EUR 5 552 707).

4.1.3. Applications received by number of workers targeted for assistance

The number of workers targeted by the measures proposed for co-financing by the EGF was 29 021 (30 applications), ranging from 111 to 3 582 workers (average 967 workers). Three applications targeted more than 2 000 workers, seven targeted between 1 000 and 2 000, and 20 targeted fewer than 1 000 workers.

The number of workers affected by the redundancies and the number targeted for EGF support may differ if the applicant Member State has decided to focus its assistance, for example, on those facing exceptional difficulty staying in the labour market and/or those most in need of assistance.

4.1.4. Applications received by amount requested per worker

The amounts proposed per worker in 2009 varied from slightly above EUR 500 to over EUR 15 700 (on average EUR 5 740 per worker).

The package of individualised services that the applicant Member States may propose for the redundant workers concerned is at their discretion, within the terms of the Regulation. The amount requested per worker affected can therefore vary according to the severity of the redundancy event, the situation of the labour market affected, the individual circumstances of the workers targeted, the measures already provided by the Member State, and the cost of providing the services in the Member State or region concerned.

4.1.5. Applications received by intervention criterion

24 of the applications submitted (80 %) were to support workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis (Article 1a of the amended Regulation) while the remaining six applications (20 %) were proposed on the basis of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation.

11 applications were based on Article 2(a) of the EGF Regulation and 13 were based on Article 2(b). Of the six applications which referred to Article 2(c) (all of which cited ‘exceptional circumstances’), half stated that the conditions in Article 2(a) were not fully met, whereas the other half stated that the conditions in Article 2(b) were not fully met.

4.2. Facilitating decision-making on EGF applications: new procedure for submitting proposals to the Council and the European Parliament

Towards the end of 2009, the EGF decision-making process was streamlined: the Commission eliminated one of the steps required by merging two procedures into one, for which the Commissioners for Employment and the Budget share responsibility. As a result, the proposals to the Budgetary Authority contain the Commission’s assessment of the application in the form of an explanatory memorandum. This should save 22 days on average, and it is hoped that the discussions in the European Parliament and the Council will be smoother and more transparent.

4.3. Contributions granted

In 2009, the Budgetary Authority took 10 decisions to draw on the EGF to co-finance active labour market policy measures (see tables 2, 3 and 4). Eight concerned applications made in 2009 and two concerned applications received at the end of December 2008.

The contributions granted related to 10 938 redundancies in eight Member States with a total of EUR 52 349 047 paid from the EGF (10.5 % of the annual maximum amount available to the EGF). The average amount per worker was EUR 4 786. Six out of the 10 approved applications were submitted on or after 1 May 2009, i.e. under the new rules.

The Budgetary Authority did not reject any proposal put to it by the Commission for funding from the EGF.

Table 2 — Details of contributions granted in 2009

(...PICT...)

4.3.1. Profile of workers benefiting from EGF assistance

The profile of the workers targeted (gender, EU/non-EU citizenship, age group, health/ability status) is given in table 3:

Table 3 — EGF contributions granted in 2009: Profile of workers

(...PICT...)

4.3.2. Actions funded with EGF assistance

Article 3 of Regulation 1927/2006 provides that the EGF can co-finance only active labour market measures aiming to help redundant workers back into employment. In addition, it states that the EGF may finance the Member State’s preparatory, management, information, publicity and control activities for the use of the funding (Technical Assistance).

The measures approved in the 10 EGF contributions granted in 2009 aiming at reintegrating 10 938 redundant workers into the labour market consisted mainly of training and re-training, subsistence allowances while in training or in other active labour market measures, training allowances and job search assistance and case management.

The breakdown of the estimated costs of the proposed actions, along with Technical Assistance, is given in table 4.

Table 4 — Actions funded in 2009 broken down by EUROSTAT classification [8]

Labour Market Policy (LMP) Interventions broken down by EUROSTAT classification | Estimated cost EGF + MS (EUR) | % of total |

LMP services | 12 954 880 | |

1 | Individual job search assistance & case management and general information services (career guidance, skills certification, personalised action plans etc; open information services for jobseekers) | 9 406 680 | 10.91 % |

| Job-search allowances | 174 600 | 0.20 % |

| Mobility allowances | 2 528 400 | 2.93 % |

| Other allowances (e.g. apprenticeship schemes) | 845 200 | 0.98 % |

LMP measures | 69 664 315 | |

2 | Training and re-training | 35 806 540 | 41.51 % |

| Training allowances | 12 579 650 | 14.58 % |

| Subsistence allowances while in training or in other active labour market measures | 13 077 200 | 15.16 % |

3 | Job rotation and job sharing | N/A | N/A |

4 | Employment and recruitment incentives | 2 577 500 | 2.99 % |

5 | Supported employment and rehabilitation | 281 600 | 0.33 % |

6 | Direct job creation | 594 000 | 0.69 % |

7 | Start-up incentives to promote entrepreneurship | 4 747 825 | 5.50 % |

Technical Assistance (Article 3 of R. 1927/2006) | 3 635 200 | 4.21 % |

Total | 86 254 395 | 100 % |

4.3.3. Complementarity with actions funded by the Structural Funds, notably the ESF

The EGF is designed to increase employability and ensure rapid re-integration into the labour market through active labour market measures, thus complementing the ESF, which is the major EU instrument in this field. Their complementarity lies in their ability to address those issues in two different time perspectives: while the EGF provides tailor-made assistance to redundant workers in response to a specific, European-scale mass redundancy event, the ESF supports strategic, long-term goals (e.g. increasing human capital, managing change) through multi-annual programmes. In the light of the social impact of the current financial and economic crisis, the functioning of both Funds was amended in 2009 following a proposal by the Commission, so as to enable them to react more flexibly to the impact of the crisis.

The decisive criterion is the potential of the available instruments and measures to effectively help workers. The content of the ‘coordinated package of personalised services’ to be co-funded by the EGF should be balanced with other actions and complement them. This means the EGF actions need to go well beyond standard courses which would in any case be available to workers. On the other hand, there is no obligation on Member States to invent completely new actions, and the services proposed for EGF co-funding may already exist. The EGF’s practice is to propose a mix of services which includes actions which are entirely new, are new to the workers concerned or are proposed to them in new combinations, and actions to which they would not normally have access (e.g. 2nd or 3rd level training).

A good example of successful complementarity between the ESF and the EGF is the Nokia case (EGF/2009/002) submitted by Germany. The application distinguished between the EGF package and an initial package of active labour market measures which was financed by the ESF and by national public and private co-funding. The initial package co-financed by the ESF included the creation of a transfer company (Transfergesellschaft) and measures for profiling, vocational guidance, individual counselling, placement coaching and short-term qualifications in compliance with the guidelines of the ESF Federal Employment Office. The EGF package of active labour market measures was designed as a complement to the ESF package described above, thereby ensuring complementarity with the other measures at national, regional and local levels.

Another type of successful complementarity is illustrated in the Volvo case (EGF/2009/007) submitted by Sweden: workers who, instead of being laid off, were re-trained for new tasks within the company received support co-funded by the ESF, while those who were laid off received assistance through the EGF coordinated package of personalised services.

Member States have taken care to avoid double funding from Community financial instruments, as required in Article 6(5) of the EGF Regulation.

4.4 Results achieved by the EGF: final reports received in 2009 on the execution of the financial contributions

The main sources of information on the results achieved by the EGF are the final reports presented by the Member States under Article 15 of the Regulation.

4.4.1. Final reports received from Member States

In 2009 the Commission received nine final reports, six on applications submitted in 2007 and three on applications submitted in 2008 (see table 5).

4.4.2. Summary of the results reported

The nine final reports showed that, at the end of the implementation period, 3 717 workers (40.1 %) had found new jobs. The others were either unemployed (2 219 people/24 %) or inactive (893 people/9.6 %), or their employment status was not reported by the Member States (2 439 people/26.3 %).

4.4.3. Good practices and lessons presented in the final reports

Apart from the success rate in terms of re-integration into employment, the Member States reported that the EGF contributions had allowed the Member States to intensify their assistance for the workers made redundant and to extend the duration of support beyond what would have been available without the EGF contribution. Several Member States (Finland, Malta, Portugal) felt that the implementation period, 12 months in all these cases, was not long enough, in particular for the measures to promote entrepreneurship and business start-ups.

At this stage, the detailed results cannot be broken down by gender, age group, educational level, nationality, etc. This will be done case by case in the future and will also feature in the mid-term evaluation of the EGF.

EGF/2007/004 Perlos/Finland

Of the 921 workers who benefited from the measures co-funded by the EGF, 56.9 % were in work again at the end of the implementation period. Training for new jobs with a future was a significant benefit not only for the workers but for the region as a whole, which is remote and threatened with depopulation. The development and maintenance of a broad network of stakeholders supported the redundant workers and put them back into work more quickly. Early collaboration with the Commission allowed a more ambitious package of measures to be designed for the workers than would otherwise have been possible. The final report contained a SWOT analysis (strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and threats) of the case which may be helpful in planning future cases. The measures co-funded by the EGF enabled the North Karelia authorities to draw up contingency plans for future large-scale redundancies.

EGF/2007/006 Piemonte/Italy

Of the 1 298 workers who benefited from the measures co-funded by the EGF, 48.9 % were in work again at the end of the implementation period (including 5 who created their own businesses). The employment status of the other 51.1 % was not reported. The intervention paid special attention to incentives to women and workers older than 55 to participate and not leave the labour market. A high percentage of workers over 40 were able to find new employment, and the rate of re-employment of older workers achieved by these measures was especially high for the area. Thanks to re-training, workers were moved from the textile sector to other, more competitive, sectors of production.

EGF/2007/005 Sardegna/Italy

Of the 1 044 workers who benefited from the measures co-funded by the EGF, 6.2 % were reported by the Italian authorities to be in work again after the implementation period (including 1 who started a business). The employment status of the other 93.8 % was not reported.

EGF/2007/007 Lombardia/Italy

Of the 1 215 workers who benefited from the measures co-funded by the EGF, 45.8 % were in work again at the end of the implementation period. The employment status of the other 54.2 % was not reported.

EGF/2008/001 Toscana/Italy

Of the 1 352 workers who benefited from the measures co-funded by the EGF, 65.6 % were in work again at the end of the implementation period (including 2 who started their own businesses), and 26 % were unemployed or inactive. The employment status of the other 8 % was not reported.

For the above three cases, the Italian authorities will submit more information to enable the Commission to draw conclusions on the success of the EGF interventions.

EGF/2007/008 Textiles/Malta

Of the 672 workers who benefited from the measures co-funded by the EGF, 65.5 % were in work again at the end of the implementation period (including 24 who started their own businesses). The intervention meant that the workers affected received more personalised assistance to re-enter the labour market. Consequently, it also helped them to face fewer social and economic difficulties. Malta found occupational guidance very useful, as it enabled many workers who were unaware of job opportunities in other sectors to consider employment outside the textiles sector. Most of the workers had limited transferable skills, so the wage subsidy encouraged employers to give them job opportunities. The use of the start-up grant scheme was also considered an achievement.

EGF/2007/010 Lisboa-Alentejo/Portugal

Of the 558 workers who benefited from the measures co-funded by the EGF, 19.5 % were in work again at the end of the implementation period (including 11 who started their own businesses). This fairly low percentage should be seen in the light of the structural problems of the automotive sector, which pre-dated the global financial and economic crisis and were exacerbated by it. In the last quarter of 2008, when the measures ended, new car registrations in Europe fell by an average of 20 % [9]. Despite this unfavourable situation, individual skills recognition and validation programmes for those workers with the lowest educational qualifications gave them a better start in finding a new job. The EGF measures were usefully complemented by other measures, including some co-funded by the European Social Fund.

EGF/2008/002 Delphi/Spain

Of the 1 589 workers who benefited from the measures co-funded by the EGF, 10.7 % were in work again at the end of the implementation period (including 8 who started their own businesses). According to the final report, this low percentage should be seen against the rapid deterioration of the labour market in Andalusia at that time. In February 2009, when the implementation period ended, employment was 6.6 % lower than in February 2008. The Spanish authorities continued to provide training measures for specific target groups, using their own means, until 31 July 2009. Despite the unfavourable economic background, by the end of July 2009 there were thus good prospects of re-entering the labour market for about 600 of the dismissed Delphi workers.

EGF/2008/003 Alytaus Tekstile/Lithuania

Of the 619 workers who benefited from the measures co-funded by the EGF, 53.3 % were in work again after the implementation period (including 11 who started their own businesses).

Table 5 — Results reported in the final reports received in 2009

(...PICT...)

4.5. Financial report

4.5.1. Funds contributed by the EGF

During 2009 the Budgetary Authority granted 10 contributions for EGF support, for a total of EUR 52 349 047, representing 10.5 % of the annual maximum amount available (table 2). All 10 payments came from the 2009 budget, although six of them were paid out at the beginning of 2010.

Under Article 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 [10], which lays down the budgetary framework of the EGF, the EGF may not exceed an annual maximum amount of EUR 500 million, which can be drawn from any margin existing under the global expenditure ceiling of the previous year, and/or from cancelled commitment appropriations from the previous two years, excluding those related to heading 1B of the financial framework. In addition, Article 12 of the EGF Regulation states that at least 25 % of the annual maximum amount must remain available on 1 September of each year in order to cover needs arising until the end of the year.

The commitment appropriations for the funds granted in 2009 were transferred from the reserve to the EGF budget line. The practice followed in 2009 for payment appropriations has been to source them from the ESF budget because of the ‘policy proximity’, given that the annual requirement for the EGF so far has been only around 1 % of the ESF payment endowment. In order to avoid confusion over the use of budgetary resources under the various instruments, the Commission started in 2009 to look into finding alternative sourcing of payment appropriations where this is possible and reasonable and where there is no risk of delay in processing the request for transfer.

There are various explanations why only 10.5 % of the annual maximum amount available was used in 2009: only 13 Member States applied for EGF support, and the process, from putting together an application, through processing it and to obtaining the final decision by the Budgetary Authority, can be long and complex. Reasons for not applying for EGF support include: Member States preferring to use the ESF, particularly in cases where the ESF intervention rate is higher than the EGF rate; difficulties in finding national matched funding in the middle of a fiscal year; lack of staff at central level and lack of experience of EGF procedures; long periods of financial uncertainty while awaiting the decision from the Budgetary Authority; and a political decision not to use the EGF. There is also evidence that some Member States waited for the amended EGF Regulation to take effect before submitting their applications.

With increasing experience, Member States will be able to draft and submit EGF applications more smoothly in the future. It is also hoped that the simplified assessment and decision making processes introduced towards the end of 2009 (see section 4.2) will help make the EGF more efficient.

4.5.2. Technical assistance expenditure

Under Article 8(1) of the EGF Regulation, up to 0.35 % of the financial resources available for the year (maximum EUR 1.75 million) can be made available in the form of technical assistance (at the initiative of the Commission) for activities such as information, administrative and technical support, monitoring, audit, control and evaluation activities necessary to implement the EGF Regulation. In 2009, an amount of EUR 690 000 was made available for technical assistance [11] with the activities listed in Table 6. A budget line for EGF Technical Assistance (04.010414) was used.

The remaining EUR 1 060 000 potentially available for technical assistance during the year was not called upon.

Table 6 — Technical assistance expenditure 2009

Technical assistance 2009 Description and amounts proposed by the Commission | Funds spent |

| EUR | EUR |

Information (e.g. website, publications and audio-visual activities) | 160 000 | 67 069.39 |

Administrative and technical support - Meetings of the Contact Persons of the EGF - Exchange of best practices among the Member States (networking activities) | 70 000 160 000 | 40 200.00 99 539.48 |

Evaluation (preparatory activities for the mid-term evaluation of the EGF, as laid down in Article 17 paragraph 1(a) of the EGF Regulation) | 300 000 | EUR 0 (these activities will be carried out in 2010) |

Monitoring, audit & control: No contribution was used for these categories (the audits carried out in 2009 were financed by other European Commission sources) |

Total | 690 000 | 206 808.87 |

4.5.3. Irregularities reported or closed

There were no irregularities reported to the Commission under the EGF Regulation in 2009. There were no irregularities closed in 2009 under the EGF Regulation.

4.5.4. Winding up of financial contributions from the EGF

Article 15(2) of the EGF Regulation stipulates the procedures for winding up EGF financial contributions. The first four EGF contributions were wound up in 2009:

Table 7 — Cases wound up in 2009

(all amounts in EUR) | EGF/2007/001 Peugeot / France | EGF/2007/003 BenQ / Germany | EGF/2007/004 Perlos / Finland | EGF/2007/008 Malta textiles / Malta |

Date of application | 9/03/2007 | 27/06/2007 | 18/07/2007 | 12/09/2007 |

Year of approval by the Budgetary Authority | 2007 | 2007 | 2007 | 2008 |

Final Report due date | 8/09/2008 | 26/12/2008 | 17/01/2009 | 11/03/2009 |

Date of winding up letter | 18/11/2009 | 01/09/2009 | 01/09/2009 | 25/06/2009 |

EGF contribution granted (50 %) | 2 558 250 | 12 766 150 | 2 028 538 | 681 207 |

Certified EGF share of actual expenditure (50 %) as stated in the Final Reports | 2 353 583 | 10 273 723 | 1 321 253 | 318 920 |

Unspent funds reimbursed to the Commission in 2009 | 204 667 | 2 492 427 | 707 285 | 362 287 |

The total amount of unspent funds reimbursed to the Commission on the 2009 budget for these four cases is EUR 3 766 666.

There are various reasons why Member States did not use all of the EGF contributions granted. While Member States are encouraged to make realistic budget estimates for the proposed coordinated package of personalised services, not all requested resources may be needed during the implementation of the measures. In some cases the number of workers needing assistance may have been overestimated (i.e. the number of workers able to find new jobs without EGF support can be greater than initially thought), some workers may prefer lower-cost measures over higher-cost measures, or some may participate in a measure for a shorter period than anticipated because they have found new jobs. Delays in starting up the measures may be another reason for lower spending. The budgeting of the measures and forecasting of worker participation by Member States are expected to improve with experience.

4.5.5. Other reimbursements

In addition to the reimbursed amounts shown in table 7, one EGF contribution granted in 2007 was reimbursed to the Commission in full: EUR 1 258 030 for application EGF/2007/002 (Renault) which was withdrawn by the French authorities in 2009. The German authorities in addition recovered EUR 1 588.55 in interest, which they repaid to the Commission.

4.6. Technical Assistance activities undertaken by the Commission

4.6.1. Information and publicity

Internet site

Article 9 of the EGF Regulation places a responsibility on the Commission to ‘set up an internet site, available in all Community languages, to provide information on the EGF, guidance on the submission of applications, as well as updated information on accepted and refused applications, highlighting the role of the budgetary authority.’

In line with the requirements of Article 9, the EGF internet site (http://ec.europa.eu/egf) set up by the Commission has been made available in 22 Community languages (all except Irish). In 2009 the site was revamped to improve its user-friendliness.

As a direct result of these improvements in 2009, the number of visitors and pages visited increased by 120 % and 138 % respectively. The EGF website recorded 195 768 pages consulted by 83 719 visitors.

Video News Release (VNR)

A video news release (VNR) was made available to the audiovisual media in all 27 Member States. It generated 28 original broadcasts (on 19 TV stations, 8 radio stations, 1 online newspaper) in 9 Member States (BE, DE, ES, FR, IE, IT, MT, RO and SI) and 3 non-EU countries (Montenegro, Russia and Congo). The broadcasts had a minimum audience of 7 164 750 [12] persons.

EuroBarometer

The special edition of the EuroBarometer on ‘European employment and social policy’ (June 2009) included a question on the EGF which had already been asked in EuroBarometer 70 (October 2008) to monitor awareness of the Fund.

The choice of answers to the question ‘Have you ever heard or read about the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund that is a fund to help victims of globalisation?’ was as follows:

‘Yes, and I am very familiar with it’, or

‘Yes, but I am not very familiar with it’, or

‘No, I have never heard or read about it’.

The 2009 results show a slight improvement in the awareness level of the Fund as compared to the previous year: across the EU, 26 % of respondents had heard of the EGF, and 4 % of those stated that they were ‘very familiar’ with it. 71 % of those questioned replied that they had never heard of the EGF — this share remains high and has not improved in comparison with the previous year.

Other promotional actions undertaken in 2009

A series of EGF posters in various formats and all EU languages, plus Chinese, Turkish, Arabic and Urdu, were published in 2009. 57 000 copies were distributed among the public labour offices across the EU and the public.

The March 2009 edition of ‘Social Agenda’, the Commission’s magazine on employment and social affairs, covered both the EGF and the European Social Fund, as instruments which can help cushion the impact of the financial and economic crisis on the labour market.

The Commission reflected on additional dissemination channels to post EGF information, e.g. the ‘Social Europe’ section of Facebook.

4.6.2. Meetings with the National Authorities and social partners

The fourth meeting of the ‘Expert group on Contact Persons of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund’, made up of representatives of the Member States, was held on 9 July 2009 in Brussels.

On 11 December 2009 an EGF Networking Seminar on the implementation of the EGF in the Member States was held in Malta to discuss implementation and to highlight both good practices and remaining issues and problems. The event proved extremely useful.

• 5. 

  Trends

With an increasing number of EGF cases, more data are available to identify trends in the applications and to gain an overview of the direction of the Fund’s actions. At present, the Commission uses data for 2007, 2008, 2009 and part of 2010, and some examples can already be given based on this material. The data contained in the three graphs displayed below relate to 57 applications received up to 30/04/2010.

Graph 1: Number of targeted workers per Member State

(...PICT...)

Italy tops the list of Member States with a total of 8 300 workers targeted for assistance, while the Czech Republic and Bulgaria have each targeted about 650 workers.

Graph 2: Number of targeted workers per sector

(...PICT...)

The sectors concerned are first and foremost the automotive sector, with more than 12 000 workers targeted, followed by textiles, with more than 11 000 workers [13].

Graph 3: Average amounts of EGF support per sector

(...PICT...)

Graph 3 illustrates the average EGF support per worker in the various sectors. Workers in the ‘Aircraft maintenance’ and in the ‘basic metals’ sectors received the highest average amounts of EGF support (approximately EUR 10 000 per worker), followed by the automotive sector (almost EUR 8 000 per worker) and the mechanical/electronic sector (more than EUR 7 000 per worker). The sectors of ‘wearing apparel’, ‘construction’, ‘furniture’ and ‘retail trade’ have the lowest average amounts (around EUR 1 000 per worker).

Interested readers will find more results and trends in ‘Statistical portrait of the EGF 2007-2010’, to be made available on request through the EGF website (http//ec.europa.eu/egf) from summer 2010.

Annex 1

Automotive (NACE: Manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers, Ref. No 29) |

No | MS | Case |

EGF/2007/001 | FR | Peugeot |

EGF/2007/010 | PT | Lisboa-Alentejo |

EGF/2008/002 | ES | DELPHI |

EGF/2008/004 | ES | Castilla Leon |

EGF/2009/007 | SE | Volvo |

EGF/2009/009 | AT | Steiermark |

EGF/2009/013 | DE | Karmann |

EGF/2009/019 | FR | Renault |

EGF/2010/002 | ES | Cataluña |

EGF/2010/004 | PL | Wielkopolskie |

Textiles (NACE: Manufacture of textiles, Ref. No 13) |

No | MS | Case |

EGF/2007/005 | IT | Sardegna |

EGF/2007/006 | IT | Piemonte |

EGF/2007/007 | IT | Lombardia |

EGF/2008/001 | IT | Toscana |

EGF/2008/003 | LT | Alytaus tekstilė |

EGF/2008/005 | ES | Catalonia |

EGF/2009/001 | PT | North/Centre |

EGF/2009/004 | BE | Oost-West Vlaanderen |

EGF/2009/005 | BE | Limburg |

EGF/2010/009 | ES | Valencia |

Mobile phones (NACE: Manufacture of computer, electronic and optical products, Ref. No 26) |

No | MS | Case |

EGF/2007/003 | DE | BenQ |

EGF/2007/004 | FI | Perlos |

EGF/2009/002 | DE | Nokia |

Wearing apparel (NACE: Manufacture of wearing apparel, Ref. No 14) |

No | MS | Case |

EGF/2007/008 | MT | Textiles |

EGF/2009/018 | LT | Wearing apparel |

EGF/2010/003 | ES | Galicia |

EGF/2010/014 | SI | Mura |

Domestic appliances (NACE: Manufacture of electrical equipment, Ref. No 27) |

No | MS | Case |

EGF/2009/006 | IT | Gruppo Merloni |

EGF/2009/010 | LT | AB Snaige |

Mechanical/electronic (NACE: Manufacture of machinery and equipment, Ref. No 28) |

No | MS | Case |

EGF/2009/015 | DK | Danfoss Group |

EGF/2009/031 | DK | Linak |

EGF/2010/001 | DK | Nordjylland |

EGF/2010/006 | PL | H.Cegielski-Poznań |

EGF/2010/013 | PL | Podkarpackie |

Printing industry (NACE: Printing and reproduction of recorded media, Ref. No 18) |

No | MS | Case |

EGF/2009/026 | NL | Noord Holland and Utrecht |

EGF/2009/027 | NL | Noord Brabant and Zuid Holland |

EGF/2009/028 | NL | Limburg |

EGF/2009/029 | NL | Gelderland and Overijssel |

EGF/2009/030 | NL | Drenthe |

Computers (NACE: Manufacture of computer, electronic and optical products, Ref. No 26) |

No | MS | Case |

EGF/2009/008 | IE | Dell |

Electronic equipment (NACE: Manufacture of computer, electronic and optical products, Ref. No 26) |

No | MS | Case |

EGF/2009/023 | PT | Qimonda |

EGF/2010/008 | AT | AT&S |

EGF/2010/011 | NL | NXP Semiconductors |

Ceramics (NACE: Manufacture of other non-metallic mineral products, Ref. No 23) |

No | MS | Case |

EGF/2009/014 | ES | Valencia |

Construction (NACE: Construction of buildings, Ref. No 41) |

No | MS | Case |

EGF/2009/011 | NL | Heijmans |

EGF/2009/017 | LT | Construction |

Basic metals (NACE: Manufacture of basic metals, Ref. No 24) |

No | MS | Case |

EGF/2009/022 | BG | Kremitkovtsi AD |

EGF/2010/007 | AT | Steiermark-Niederoesterreich |

Aircraft maintenance (NACE: Repair and installation of machinery and equipment, Ref. No 33) |

No | MS | Case |

EGF/2009/021 | IE | SR Technics |

Publishing (NACE: Publishing activities, Ref. No 58) |

No | MS | Case |

EGF/2009/024 | NL | Noord Holland and Zuid Holland |

EGF/2009/025 | NL | Noord Brabant |

Furniture (NACE: Manufacture of furniture, Ref. No 31) |

No | MS | Case |

EGF/2009/016 | LT | Furniture |

Retail trade (NACE: Retail trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcycles, Ref. No 47) |

No | MS | Case |

EGF/2010/010 | CZ | Unilever |

Wholesale trade (NACE: Wholesale trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcycles, Ref. No 46) |

No | MS | Case |

EGF/2010/012 | NL | Noord Holland ICT |

Crystal glass (NACE: Manufacture of other non-metallic mineral products, Ref. No 23) |

No | MS | Case |

EGF/2009/012 | IE | Waterford Crystal |

Carpentry and joinery (NACE: Manufacture of wood and product of wood and cork, except furniture, Ref. No 16) |

No | MS | Case |

EGF/2009/020 | ES | Castilla La Mancha |

Stone/Marble (NACE: Manufacture of other non-metallic mineral products, Ref. No 23) |

No | MS | Case |

EGF/2010/005 | ES | Valencia |

[1] Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of 20 December 2006 on establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p.1, as corrected by OJ L 48, 22.02.2008, p. 82, for all languages and OJ L 202, 31.7.2008, p.74, for the English language only.

[2] Regulation (EC) No 546/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 on establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, OJ L 167, 29.06.2009.

[3] Communication from the Commission to the European Council on A European Economic Recovery Plan, COM(2008) 800 final of 26.11.2008.

[4] Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 on establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, COM(2008) 867 of 16.12.2008.

[5] The amending Regulation as adopted by the European Parliament and the Council in 2009 (OJ L167, 29.06.2009) provides for a temporary increase in the co-financing rate from 50 to 65 % (not 75 % as proposed) until the end of the ‘crisis’ derogation, set for 31 December 2011.

[6] Nine applications in 2007 and five in 2008 (one withdrawn application which was later re-submitted is only counted once: EGF/2008/002 Delphi/ES).

[7] Printing industry (5), Automotive (4), Textiles (3), Construction (2), Domestic appliances (2), Mechanical/electronic (2), Publishing (2), Mobile phones (1), Computers (1), Crystal glass (1), Ceramics (1), Furniture (1), Carpentry and joinery (1), Basic metals (1), Electronic equipment (1), Wearing apparel (1), Aircraft maintenance (1).

[8] This table was compiled by the Commission on the basis of measures proposed by the Member States and approved by the Budgetary Authority. It does not fully correspond to the Eurostat methodology described in Labour market policy database — Methodology — Revision of June 2006 because some of the measures co-financed (job-search allowances, training allowances, subsistence allowances while in training or in other active labour market measures, mobility allowances) do not fit any of Eurostat’s categories. The category of the Eurostat classification marked N/A in this table was not proposed by the Member States in the 10 EGF interventions approved in 2009.

[9] Communication from the Commission Responding to the crisis in the European automotive industry, COM(2009) 104.

[10] OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.

[11] OJ L 132, 29.5.2009, p. 10.

[12] This result does not take into account the downloads from the EC Audiovisual Service, website or satellite TV broadcasts or re-broadcasts.

[13] For a more detailed breakdown, see Annex 1.

--------------------------------------------------

This page is also available in a full version containing de juridische context.